Comment

Copyright battle behind surprise win for iPod Apple vs Beatles Apple in High Court

by Guy J Kewney | posted on 08 May 2006

The company set up by the Beatles to sell their records has won two lawsuits against Apple Computer; so it was quite a surprise to find that the Judge, today, gave the third round to Steve Jobs, not Sir Paul McCartney.

According to Reuters, the judgement was that Jobs isn't infringing on a deal which he struck with the Beatles back in 1991 - when he agreed not to compete with them by selling music.

On the face of it, selling an iPod which has virtually no useful function except playing iTunes; and selling iTunes which can't be played on anything except an iPod, is selling music. Not at all, said the Judge: Apple Computer had argued that iTunes was "primarily a data transmission service, permitted by the agreement," and not selling music at all.

Technicalities like this are the delight of legal arguments. Fans of "small print" interpretations of laws will remember that in the days of Purchase Tax in the UK, the tax was not liable on spare parts. Small independent companies took advantage of this to sell all the "spare parts" needed to build a brand new car. With it, they sold a book of detailed instructions on how to take the car apart. Read from the last page backwards, this was a "how to build it" manual but legally, it didn't breach the letter of the law.

The real surprise, was that Jobs defended the action. Insiders expected him to do a deal with the Beatles, setting up a joint music venture - he named his company as an act of homage to the Beatles.

One interpretation of this would be that actually, the legal action isn't really about whether the companies are competing for music sales, but about who controls copyright and digital rights management.

Over the next few weeks, now that the lawsuit is out of the way, some observers expect the two companies to get together and do a deal. One thing that is missing, conspicuously from the iTunes music catalogue is any of the Beatles canon.

Perhaps that can now be changed.

Tags: Apple v Apple