Slashdot Mirror

And how come a building surveyor = magistrate? Sounds bizarre...

That's the way the british magistrates work - they're all volunteers rather than paid employees. It's all explained here.

One of my old bosses is a local magistrate, which is why I know

Actually it is not clear if Apple Computer has breached the settlement.

From the Judgement of Feb 2004:

""The parties acknowledge that certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use. In such case, even though Apple Corps shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii), Apple Computer shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods or services within subsection 1.2 (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music)." [Apple vs Apple]

Notice that it says physical media. Apple has never released a CD of music. Therefore they aren't in breach of the settlement. By your own logic then, your argument does not matter because there is no question that Apple Computer didn't beach the settlement. QED.

>That was the contract.

Really? Show me the terms.

As far as I know, the contract is still secret. But the bits I've seen are a little more complex:

http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j246 8/apple-v-apple.htm

"The parties acknowledge that certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use. In such case, even though Apple Corps shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii), Apple Computer shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods or services within subsection 1.2 (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music)."

Since we don't see the rest of the contract, it could well be more clear than this that Apple Computer has violated the contract. But the above certainly look as though a reasonable person would conclude that the iTMS does not violate the contract.

(Link found at http://www.appleturns.com/)

http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j246 8/apple-v-apple.htm

I haven't had time to look at it in detail, but it doesn't look like a completely clear-cut case to me.

>> Of course, the actual agreement (as is pretty normal with these cases) is non-public, but before we all second-guess Jobs, McCartney and everyone else, reading the agreement(s) would really help.

Some of the terms of that agreement are mentioned in the current suit:

http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j246 8/apple-v-apple.htm

You have no idea how right (well, wrong, but factually correct) that idea is.

Read the actual text of the UK decision PS2 modchips.

Sony wanted the judge to rule that flashing the infringing material on the screen is the same as storing infringing material in RAM, which is the same as storing it in ROM, which is the same as illegally copying the game. They said that just showing the game on the screen is the same as illegally copying a game.

Things might not have gone that far if the modchip in question didn't copy the game to RAM in order to play foreign/homebrew/cracked games. The copying to RAM is what the judge ruled was infringing Sony's copyright. Sony thinks that showing it on the screen was enough to be called an illegal copy. The judge seemed happy that he didn't have to rule on that.

Look at the decision. What do we have?

Paragraphs 15 & 17: Loading of the code into RAM is an infringing copying. "Thus RAM containing a copy of Sony's copyright work is a reproduction in material form".

Paragraph 18: "reproduction of the unlicensed or parallel-imported copy of the game, or the copyright artistic works within it, onto the screen of the television to which the PS2 console is connected also creates an infringing copy".

Paragraph 30: "One of the advantages of CDs and DVDs is that they are robust and cannot be wiped clean. There is no necessity [...] to make back ups.".
and "Since there is no necessity to make a back up, there is no justification for having one. Playing such a disc is unauthorised and the resultant creation of transitory copies of the program (or other data) in RAM is unauthorised."

I believe the ruling can be found here

I'm not sure that the judge was restricting it to simply commercial purposes as Sony raised the following issue that the judge seemed to accept.

This is in section 35 of the judgement that can be found on the Court Service site

Sony also raises a claim under s. 296ZA. This provides a cause of action against the users of anti-copy-protection devices. It provides, insofar as material;

(1) This section applies where -
(a) effective technological measures have been applied to a copyright work other than a computer program; and
(b) a person (B) does anything which circumvents those measures knowing, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he is pursuing that objective.

To the extent that Mr Ball has himself installed Messiah2 chips and used the console so modified, there appears to be no defence to this claim.

Normal disclaimer IANAL

In the UK....

You don't need an army of lawyers, since this is on a per purchase base the total value (especially with most software) that would be lost due to a violation of the agreement is less than £5000. Last time I checked, £5000 is the upper limit for the small claims courts, which would cost you a meagre £250 (last time I checked)+ your time to bring a case against that vendor. Now the vendor automatically has to pay someone to go there, there is a very real possibility that they will lose, plus you can add to the judgement your costs assocaited with bringing the lawsuit.

And the final, best part, is that IF that lawsuit is deemed to have any merit, even if you lose, then the party you are sueing cannot ask for the legal costs.

Of couse IANAL, but the details are available online:

www.courtservice.gov.uk

Our Technology and Construction Court was founded in 1890 to try cases with a heavyweight technical dimension; they cover any case that has any kind of tech angle from big civil engineering to pcbs (and I've handled cases from both ends of the spectrum there). What follows is a practitioner's view.

The judges are drawn from the bar who practice in that field of law. They're people who understand the industries they have before them as a result of working as part of the legal support of those industries for twenty or more years before elevation to the bench.

That's the theory: the practice is less than a hundred per cent as in anything with people involved. I could, but won't, name a couple of T&C judges who are blithering old idiots.

That said, I can name still others who are sharp, incisive and know their stuff very well and who aren't afraid to inform themselves on the way things work (I know at least on judge at T&C in London who knows how HTML works, principally because I explained it to him).

The software copyright and confidentiality angle is dealt with by the Chancery Division of the High Court, whose judges have a solid grounding in these sorts of issues through hearing cases and, increasingly, through having been practitioners.

Choice of forum is left to the litigants, by and large: if it's more hardware or software engineering, go to T&C. If it's copyrights, designs and patents, go to Chancery. Sometimes it's a judgment call between the two, but I think the essence of it is that either way you get a professional judge rather than <flame> an elected buffoon with the professional standards of a chartered accountant.</flame>

In the UK, delivering a newspaper which you knew to contain defamatory remarks would indeed be illegal. Yes, our libel laws really do allow the libelled party to go after the distributors, if the distributors know that they are distributing libellous material.

See http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/godfrey2 .htm for more details.

IANAL, but I can at least read the facts of the case; I would urge other posters to do likewise.

I addressed the question about nuisance complaints in another posting. We had a similar fuss in this country about obscenity on Usenet a year or two back; it's long since been something of a non-question, thanks to the efforts of the IWF. All we need now is a similar structure for dealing with claims of libel (and if done right it will benefit both ISPs and victims of libel).

Have a look at http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/godfrey2 .htm. In particular see paragraphs 19 and 20.

If you're interested you can read the judgements of the Godfrey v Demon Internet case. The first is dull enough. The second just backs up the initial judgment. Sadly it seems that the courts over here (and the ignorant EU parliament) seem dead set on making ISPs responsible for everything that they don't understand. At least it's not as bad as in Australia.