indeed that was also my understanding and seems to have been the nature
of their argument.. however the Judge seems to have ruled on the basis
of there being a distinction between ITMS and music delivery /
production .. i think it is a very grey area in terms on the breach of
the original agreemen
Marc Sherman Wrote:
> Michaelwagner wrote:
> > Sadly, it seems the probative issue, is a digital stream of data
> music,
> > was not really answered in this law suit.
> >
> > The main argument seems to have been that "even a moron in a hurry"
> > could tell the logos apart.
>
> I find that quit
Marc Sherman Wrote:
> I find that quite surprising -- I didn't think this was a TM case at all
> any more, but rather a breach of contract case, where Apple Corps was
> accusing Apple Computer of breaching the agreement they came to at the
> settlement of the last round of TM disputes.
Me too. Ma
Michaelwagner Wrote:
> The main argument seems to have been that "even a moron in a hurry"
> could tell the logos apart.
Apple Computer clearly knows how to characterise its clientele.
Only a moron in a hurry would shop at ITMS.
--
cliveb
---
Michaelwagner wrote:
> Sadly, it seems the probative issue, is a digital stream of data music,
> was not really answered in this law suit.
>
> The main argument seems to have been that "even a moron in a hurry"
> could tell the logos apart.
I find that quite surprising -- I didn't think this was
kdf Wrote:
> Apple and Apple are both wrong. They should not feed lawyers. It is
> an overpopulated species already, and this just makes them even more
> prone to encroaching on human populations.
> -k
As far as I can tell, Apple Music/Apple Records/AppleCorps does not
actually sell music.
Sadly, it seems the probative issue, is a digital stream of data music,
was not really answered in this law suit.
The main argument seems to have been that "even a moron in a hurry"
could tell the logos apart.
--
Michaelwagner
---
for those interested in the result of the case see this link
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2171128,00.html
--
rick's cafe
WHEN MUSIC HIT YOU YOU FEEL NO PAIN!!!
rick's cafe's Profile: http://forums.slimd
On 3/28/06, funkstar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do believe that Apple Computer have, in the past, sold "physical
> media delivering pre-recorded content.". I could be wrong, but didn't
> the special edition black and red U2 iPod come with their new album
> pre-loaded onto it? I'm pretty sure an
That URL got folded somehow ... should be
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2468/apple-v-apple.htm
And in this article, one line stood out for me:
http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-822.html#lnk5
It might seem odd for two companies to have the same name, but in legal
ter
Interesting Forbes article. Seems the lawsuit started 2 1/2 years ago.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/12/cx_ah_0912aapl.html
>From that article:
> in 1981 the two companies signed a secret pact giving Apple Computer the
> right to use the Apple name for computer products, but reserved for
> Apple
"Michaelwagner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Apple's point (the British Apple) is that once Steve's Apple starts
> distributing music, it's too similar in brand to the British Apple that
> distributes music.
>
> It's at the retail end that brand distinction is
very well said kdf :)
I do believe that Apple Computer have, in the past, sold "physical
media delivering pre-recorded content.". I could be wrong, but didn't
the special edition black and red U2 iPod come with their new album
pre-loaded onto it? I'm pretty sure an iPod constitutes "physical
medi
Apple and Apple are both wrong. They should not feed lawyers. It is
an overpopulated species already, and this just makes them even more
prone to encroaching on human populations.
-k
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lis
The article posted mis-quoted what Apple Computer is actually
arguing. This is from an article in Tidbits:
"One of the interesting developments of Apple Corps' current lawsuit
is that previously undisclosed details of the companies' 1991
settlement have become public. In 1991, Apple Corps a
funkstar Wrote:
> The question is not if you can confuse the two companies but whether
> Apple computers have broken the previous agreement.
True. And a good point. With that said, it is at heart an agreement
that came out of a brandname dispute, and brand name disputes are
generally about whethe
The heart of the problem is that Apple Records never liked Apple
Computers being called Apple at all. They eventually agreed to live
together as long as Apple Computers never ventured into music, which
they now have.
I'm sure there will be a lot of legalese describing what Apple
Computers can and
the quote is
> a vow that theyd never be involved in distributing music.
not that they wouldn't hire and record musicians under contract.
Apple's point (the British Apple) is that once Steve's Apple starts
distributing music, it's too similar in brand to the British Apple that
distributes music
Apple Computers has a service called iTunes Music Store that sells files
it creates from artists that produce original music. Apples Records
sells original music by artists it has under contract. If Apple
Computers got into the business of actually creating music then I could
see why there might b
Once look at www.apple.com/itunes/ and it is pretty clear to me who is
in the wrong.
apple site Wrote:
> iTunes 6
> The best digital jukebox and #1 music download store
so thats a *music* download store, not a data download store :)
--
funkstar
---
LOL!
> And Apple argues it’s only swapping data online – not actual
> music, so it hasn’t violated the old deal.
Yeah, that argument works well with the RIAA in P2P lawsuits, I'll bet.
;-)
"But Your Honour, I wasn't downloading music, I was downloading data.
It just happens to create music whe
21 matches
Mail list logo
