More Details and Analysis of Apple v. Apple
lothar97 writes "MacNewsWorld is reporting details about the Apple (Beatles) v. Apple (Computer) case. It's most interesting concerning the confidential settlements the two parties have previously signed: 'one of those passages in the court document strongly implies that Apple Corps agreed to allow Apple (Computer) to pursue digital music initiatives, but not package, sell or distribute any physical music materials such as CDs.' This might be a cause of 'move on, nothing to see here,' and Apple Computer might be able to settle on the cheap. Trademark infringement might be minimal, and both sides would want to keep this from going much further."
the physical differential aspect of the agreement had been suggested before. And last I checked, all iTunes is doing is sending me code. Nothing to hold here, so nothing to see here.
Um... the ones suing in this case are British, and doing everything thy can to keep the case in British courts.
So much for tradition.
20 minutes into the future
Are we suggesting electrons and photons are not physical entities?
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Damn dog...
I'm sure that this possibility has been raised ad infinitum on other stories, but I raise it again:
1. How much is the Apple Corps worth? Is it publicly-traded?
2. How much does Apple Computer have on hand that they could use in a corporate acquisition?
If I were in Steve's turtleneck, I would be looking into the possibility of buying out the Apple Corps entirely. If Apple really wanted to change the way things worked in the music industry, what better way than by having their own record label?
Gah
McIntosh is the apple, named after the Canadian farmer from the 1700s
Macintosh is a raincoat, in England
Macintosh is the computer, play on the apple theme and because it is synonymous with flexible
-- i am jack's amusing sig file
This story seems to have a pro Apple Computer spin. Better break out the reality distortion field detectors.