Rotten Apple Corps

So way back in the day, the Beatles started a music company with the name Apple Corps. They had a hissy fit in the 80s when Steve Jobs et al started Apple Computer, thinking people would confuse the two, because vinyl LPs and giant desktop computers look so much alike, are marketed the same way, do the same thing, and are sold side by side. Whatever. So early Apple Computer made a deal and gave a some money to Apple Corps saying fine, we won't make music. (Dudes, we're making computers over here Cali. We're not making records in London.)

But now Apple Corps-- the remaining Beatles or their heirs themselves who are behind this refusing comment on this-- is continuing its expensive lawsuit and claiming ridiculous amounts of money in damages for violating the "don't make music" agreement because Apple uses it's name in the iTunes Music Store.

An updated article about all this can be found in the (London) Times Online here.

How the hell has this managed to get so far?

My questions are these:

1. It's obvious that iTunes is making other people's music available, not acting as its own label-- regardless of iTunes exclusives. What's their damage?

2. Who the F is going to ever or has ever confused Apple Computer-- known the world over-- with an old record company? Does anyone really think that the old Beatles are behind iTunes? Is Apple Computer having a confusing or negative impact on Apple Corps' line of business by sharing the name of an everyday object and being in tangentially related fields? (Apple Corps has gone so far as to register the applecorps.com domain, but they don't even have a website—just a page holder.)

3. How have the Beatles/heirs gotten away with appearing to be petulant little greedy snots without comment or media ridicule? Is this a British-pride thing? Am I unable to defend this because I never bought into the idea that the Beatles were/are gods?

4. And I understand this is in a U.K. court, but isn't this like the attention-grabbing and uber-arrogant nonsense attempted by Spike Lee when the Spike television network launched? The judge ruled that (a) Spike Lee is not only not nearly as famous as he thinks he is (b) "spike" is a common word both as noun and verb and (c) get over yourself-- no one is going to think that a Spike Network "The Network for Men" is all about or by you.

5. Before the lawsuit brouhaha, had anyone outside the record industry really heard of Apple Corps? Are any of these people likely to be confused by an Apple Computer logo on iTunes? How could this possibly impact Apple Corps' business?

This is asinine, destructive, and if not petulant, it's just greedy.

I fear it won't happen, but I do dream that in frivolous cases like this, the judge would just say, "Get over yourself. Sit down. And shut up."

The Beatles and their widows can go back to rolling around in all their other money. Apple Corps can go on to make music. And sell it online if they want to.