Slashdot Mirror
Apple vs Apple -- Judgment Day
DaphneDiane writes "According to the Times Online Apple Computer successfully defended themselves vs the suit brought by Apple Corps." If you are looking for background on the case we had talked about it earlier. I'm just relieved that the battle of two bazillion dollar companies turned out well. Phew. And, of course, Apple Corp has filed an appeal already.
There's no way Apple computers would sue. After all - they're never lawyer trigger happy.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
guess it is true an apple a day keeps the riaa away
I hate to see The Beatles lose, but let's face facts: If you could possibly confuse the two, you're likely too dumb to appreciate The Beatles' music and too stupid to figure out how to turn on a computer.
Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
Long Live the Apple
I'd have to say - why bother. If I'm not mistaken the audience that would download it has P2P'ed them to death, and it'd be too little too late.
Unless they remaster everything - which they're proportedly doing - but the restirctions they're trying to lay down make the recent "big 4" vs iTunes look like a cakewalk.
If you hate the laws, spend your lives trying to get them changed. Do not hate the companies that use the laws in their favor [emph mine]
You note that companies have 'almost unlimited funds' - they use these funds to:
1) Change the law to suit themselves.
2) Discredit / ridicule those who spend their lives trying to get laws changed.
3) Bury in legalities / court fees those who oppose them.
How can we not hate the companies that do this?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
off limits trademark, they should have instead used a made-up word (something like Exxon?) that doesn't mean anything in any popular language but sounds cool, and not a word in the dictionary/history or common place item.
This is a travesty - not for the gain or loss of two billionaire corporations, but for the simple concept of fair play that has been ignored. It's true that now nobody would confuse the two corporations, but the simple fact that Apple Computer exists is because Apple Corps agreed to let them continue using a name which could (at the time) have been confused, on the condition that Apple Computer not get into the music business. The distinction today is that Apple (computer) has greatly outstripped Apple (corps) is brand recognition. Heck, you may as well take Apple Corps trademark entirely, as the common person would likely mistake Apple (Corps) for the wildly popular international trademark Apple (computer).
My question would be - can Apple Corps start their internet Download Music Store and not get sued by Apple Computer? Is there a potential for mistakes in Apple iDMS and Apple iTMS?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
They were thinking of settling out of court, and it was going quite well for Apple Corp until, in the middle of negotiation, they broke down.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
>If I want to slap another stick of RAM into my machine, I should be able to without being a licensed Apple technician. You can, dude. Always could. Never seen a Mac I couldn't upgrade. Why do you spread this falshood?
You're kidding me right?
... because otherwise no-one would remember they exist. There's still a market for Beatles songs, but who cares what the record label is?
I guess if Apple Computers wins (win?) nothing much happens, but what if Apple Corps wins (if that is still a possibility)? What are the implications?
Anyone care to give a brief answer to that, or point me to the info? I guess it's been explained before, but I'm not sure where to look.
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
... their remaining differences, so I can finally download some Beatles tunes from the iTMS.
You sure are a windbag, aren't you?
I'm neither a business expert nor a historian, but I have never understood how Apple Corps had any possibility of winning a trademark infringement case against Apple Computer... whether in the same business or not.
Look at these two examples:
Budweiser (Budvar, Czech Republic) and Budweiser (Anheuser Busch, USA). Same name, same business. And I have seen both products sold in the same location before (I prefer the Czech version myself).
ABC (Australian Broadcasting Company) and ABC (American Broadcasting Company). ABC... ABC. Same business.
And these are just off the top of my head. Certainly there are others.
I don't get where the Beatles were going with their action. Clearly Apple Computer was not going to be made to stop using their own logo and name. Nor were they going to be made to stop selling music via iTunes. What gives?
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Time passes and things change, today one apple is rotten and one is fresh and shiny. Alas I am joking..for things haven't changed, sure a subjective opinion has been given today, but man is still selfish and so groups of men (in companies) pursue wealth...you could say it was a nice try..cause of course this was all about money rather than the false indignation of rights being abused..but does all this really matter? dust to dust and all that.
Huh? Apple computers for years have taken the standard memory modules that a PC takes. It's trivial to upgrade the memory on a Mac and has been for years. As for closed, Apple's entire base operating system (Darwin) is released complete with source code under the BSD license.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Just another reason we need the irony mark.
Imagine for a moment if Apple Computer had obeyed copyright and trademark laws to a “t” in this case. What products we never have seen the light of day? When you ponder this for a moment, it becomes clear how out-of-hand this nonsense is.
Join Tor today!
If I want to slap another stick of RAM into my machine, I should be able to without being a licensed Apple technician
;)
There is only one mac being sold right now that does not have user-installable memory, and that's the mac mini. It's very arguable that a novice should not try to open a mini. All other macintosh computers have user-installable memory. (three, out of production, are also in this group - upper slot in iMac G4, lower slot in PowerBook G3, and both slots in iMac G3 tray-loader)
Maybe if you were an Apple tech you'd know that any clown can install memory.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
This could very well be a mistake on my part in that I have never seen or heard of anyone able to do that.
On top of that, I thought that their machines had a temperature sensor that would trigger it to internally mark itself as VOIDED if the case was open and the temperature in the room wasn't low enough. There is a sticker on them anyways that says the warranty is voided if it is removed (although my Dell has the same thing).
I guess I never see third party chips, chipsets or the like for Macs so I figured Apple frowned on it or didn't support it.
Apple won out against the RIAA, Apple won out against France, and now Apple won out against the Beatles' old label. Despite it, every investor knows the truth: Apple is dying. Watch their stock price for a decline this afternoon in light of this terrible, tragic, positive news.
Yes, this is sarcasm. Except for the stock decline thing.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
-K
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
The judge appears to have made a narrow decision, possibly because he felt that Apple Corps was using the suit as a whip to extract some money. At least the lawyers made some money.
On top of that, I thought that their machines had a temperature sensor that would trigger it to internally mark itself as VOIDED if the case was open and the temperature in the room wasn't low enough.
That's a joke, right? I mean, nobody honestly believes that, right? Right?
http://www.applecorps.com/ And http://ww.apple.com/
...Anyway Apple Computers is not selling music like a record company would... think of them as a record store with no control over the content being sold other than refusing to sell it.
Is there any possibility of confusing these 2 sites?
Things would be different if they where signing artists and producing content to be sold in competition (as if there where such a thing in an entertainment industry) with Apple Corp.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Just another reason we need the irony mark.
;) [/sarcasm]
Yeah, right*.
steampunk web design
That said, in this case, I'm not sure Apple Corps did anything immoral. Most people have concentrated on the fact Apple Corps isn't a big computer company, as if the situation was that Apple Computers was suing Apple Corps and not vice-versa. Apple Corps clearly thought there Apple Computer's decision to enter the music selling market may cause brand confusion given they're a company called Apple who're involved in selling music (albeit at a higher level.) Whether the decision was right or wrong, I believe Apple Corps had legitimate reasons to be concerned, and they had every right to bring the courts into it.
The sole argument against Apple Corps, so far as I can see, which wasn't raised by the defense, is that they're not really expanding in any serious way. They've limited themselves to periodic re-releases of a handful of back-numbers. As such, their "market" mostly knows who they are, being a small number of retail executives, and the handful who doesn't can be easily availed of their misapprehension with a one line disclaimer at the end of their letters. If Apple Corps was a little more active, signing on new talent, then I think there'd be a greater risk of confusion.
Trademark law is a legitimate buffer against confusion and fraud. So I'm not going to hate either Apple Corps or the government over this. But if it wasn't, and Apple Corps was just trying to extract money from Apple Computer and we lived in a perfect world where similarly named entities operating in similar markets never cause confusion, I would consider Apple Corps just at much at fault as the government who let them sue. Just as I dislike patent trolls, overly proprietary software makers, and telemarketers.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Apple records is a dying company with one 30 year old product. They just wanted an extra source of free revenue to keep their CEO's pockets full.
Apple is a label as much as Amazon is a publisher.
Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
This could very well be a mistake on my part in that I have never seen or heard of anyone able to do that.
Probably. Most all Macs take standard PC memory. Since almost the beginning. Even the first PowerMacs used a slight variation of normal SIMMs. Many brands of PC memory worked in them. Add to that how easy the cases on Macs open up, I get the feeling you've probably just never seen and played with a Mac up close.
On top of that, I thought that their machines had a temperature sensor that would trigger it to internally mark itself as VOIDED if the case was open and the temperature in the room wasn't low enough.
Yeah, not sure where you got that from. They have no special hardware in them like that at all. And, I can't remember ever seeing a Mac with a sticker on it to keep you from opening the case. I've opened up pretty much every PowerMac ever made, was an Apple certified tech at a store for a few years. They really have no clue if you open the case and put in your own ram, harddrive, PCI/video card, NIC, modem, etc. All of these devices can be bought 3rd party, and there is no rule that I've ever heard about installing these voiding warranty. We sold 3rd party hardware all the time, and told them how to install it if they asked.
I read you so called "joke" several times. I have some advice. In the future, if you plan to make a joke, try to make it funny. Or at least try to make sense. No, what you did was say something stupid and then try to make it seem like a joke.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4983796.s tm
You are either lying, repeating a lie that was told to you, or the people at the Apple store were having fun with you. In any case nothing about what you wrote is true.
They flat refused to sell him a new drive without him bringing the machine in so they could install it saying that in order for his warranty to remain valid they had to send the failed drive back to Apple for testing. He asked what would happen if he bought a 3rd party drive and replaced it himself and was told that his warranty would be voided and he could be subject to up to $20,000 in fines for violating his "customer agreement".
If this story is true, then that reseller was blatantly lying, and needs to be bitchslapped for consumer fraud. This is not the way Apple works things.
Now, about sending the dead drive back, yes, they do have to send defective parts back *if they replace them under warranty*. However, if he just bought one straight out, even a 3rd party one (yes a standard PC version of a CD/DVD drive will work!), they can just sell it to him, at a slightly higher cost (as they don't get a discount by sending the broken one back). And, there is no such thing as a fine for adding your own hardware, or voiding a warranty. That's such bullshit. The problem is, they don't make much money on hardware sales. They make their money on labor. So they end up fucking Apple customers, and dragging Apple's name through the mud to make a profit.
Personally, I'd tell your friend to report that store to whatever consumer protection agency handles your state. They probably didn't break any laws, but lying to consumers about made-up fines and their rights is not acceptable.
;-)
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
I'd never try to replace the DVD-ROM drive in my tiBook, but the installation of new RAM couldn't possibly be easier. You just pop off the keyboard (no tools required) and insert the RAM into the easily accessible slot.
How the trollish post above that made this statement is moderated "Insightful" instead of "Troll" is beyond me, and I look forward to seeing it in metamoderation.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Looks like Apple Corp. is appealing the decision! You think Apple Corp. would know their limitations. See here http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/05/08/apple_to_a ppeal_verdict/
The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
That's because it wasn't a Trademark Infringement case.
Apple Computers entered into a legal agreement with Apple Corp some years ago following a trademark case, in which Apple Computers agreed not to enter the music business, and in return Apple Corp allowed them to use the Apple Trademark (to which they had the rights at the time, and still do in the area of Music Publishing).
Their contention is that the iTunes Music Store is a contravention of that legally binding agreement. The judge basically agreed with Apple Corp but let Apple Computers off by drawing a distinction that Apple Computers sells Data through the iTunes Music Store, not Music. Had the judge agreed that Apple Computers was producing and/or publishing music, he would have sided with Apple Corp.
... and I was pretty fearful that Yoko Ono was gonna own me!
That'd really suck!
Not only can you replace the RAM yourself easily on any Mac, but ever since the G3 towers came out, you can do it in about 60 seconds. You obviously have never looked at a Mac up close. And if you ever had any real conversation with someone in the Mac world, you would also know that only suckers get more than the factory amount of RAM when they purchase from Apple-- everyone gets their RAM from somewhere else for much cheaper. So, I would say it is even fairly standard practice to replace the RAM.
For a band that basically redefined the popular music of its time, years ahead of their time, their management has been atrocious. I remember waiting for Beatles CDs to be released, long after everything in the major label's catalogues had already been ported to digital (Sgt Peppers was released 20 years to the day after it originally came on on vinyl, and the line stretched around the block at Cactus Records in Houston that day). I remember the Beatles choosing to release the first four in Mono (good choice), issue no American releases (they later changed their mind, to make money no doubt), then reduce their sizable Vault down to three good (if incomplete) double-Cd volumes. If the Beatles fail to secure their legacy by making their recorded music available as widely as possible (which they seem hell-bent on doing) then it is their own damn fault. And it is a crying shame. Every last child on earth should know Revolver, if nothing else.
I'm just relieved that the battle of two bazillion dollar companies turned out well.
:-)
Apple Corps has however appealed the decision.
Also, there's some name hilarity in this article:
"I find no breach of the trademark agreement has been demonstrated," Mr Justice Mann said in his judgment on Monday. "The action therefore fails."
Justice Mann is even more cartoony than Judge Dredd.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
People, posting in hurry just in case as if any fanboy shouts "Who the hell is Apple music?" or "They are nothing"
http://www.riaa.com/gp/bestsellers/topartists.asp
See, that 168.5 million selling Beatles just in USA? They own their rights.
So they have a job.
This gives a whole new dimension to the Penny Lane lyrics:
There's a story at macworld uk and el reg
Quote from Apple Corp's lawyer:So - the fight continues!
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
rectification: "Apple Corps" is not selling music like a record company would...
Their website is a placeholder! How can a company promote music without communicating the new bands to anyone?
I propose the company is renamed "Apple Corpse"
Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
Have the companies merge. Apple Computer could take over Apple Corp. under a new ParentCorperation or you could have Apple Computer become part of Apple Corp. Doesn't Apple Corp. make a lot of different things? Computers could become yet another one of them.
It would be a solution to a never ending problem. Just make sure to leave control in the hands of Apple Computer and use the parent corp as a tax shelter or whatnot.
Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
Apple Corp had a legal agreement with Apple PC that the latter would NOT engage in the music business. Apple PC then starts and 100% owns iTunes and sells music. The judge found there was no confusion in the "Apple" logo being used on itunes. He found that itunes doesn't sell music. W/o reading all the court documents if the above is a fair summary it would appear that the Judge decided to ignore the legally binding documents the 2 APPLES had previously SIGNED. I admire both Apples, but surely the root is the legal documents pure and simple, whilst the judge decided to go into the grey area of "intent" and "use of logos". Sounds like this could end up in court again, as the newcomer (Apple PC) could theoretically take over full use of the "Apple" logo which does not seem right.
This is not really on topic, but anway...
If you mean that their pricing could change with the switch to Intel-Chips: Yeah, it has changed. Since the Intel chips cost about twice as much as the G4s, the Mac mini and MacBook Pro prices have effectively gone up. Still competitive with comparable PC makers, though.
If you mean that the "closed machine mentality" could change: Uhm, what closed-machine mentality? Have you used a pro-level Mac made during the last decade?
You'd think that a geek on slashdot would know better, but there has always been a great deal of misinformed/uninformed people out there.
Case in point, seven years ago (or so), my neighbor wanted me to help him buy a Mac for his junior high school age daughter. He didn't want to buy online or thru mail order, he wanted to go to a brick and mortar store, pay for it, and bring it home.
We purchased an iMac at CompUSA. We also purchased an extra stick of RAM, despite the protests of both the sales clerk and the service technician that if i were to install it, it would void the warranty. I finally opened the box, and pulled out the printed instructions that Apple provided for upgrading the RAM, and they still were obnoxious, telling my neighbor, "Don't try to bring it back here, because we won't fix it."
I've never been back to that particular CompUSA. I don't know if they were lying or if they were obnoxiously insistent on being ignorant, but I guess it doesn't matter. Anyway, that's how the misinformation continues to be past on.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Judgment day, huh? Well, Jesus Christ will return to judge all men whenever He decides. But in the meantime, my thought on this matter is: does anyone really think someone could confuse Apple Computer's work with Apple Corp's work? Steve Jobs is not signing bands and recording their music for release, and neither does iTunes yet even sell the Beatle's catalog. If you sign onto iTunes and can't find the Beatles, there is yet another clue you aren't dealing with Apple Corps of the Beatles.
Most countries in the world have laws against breaching restricted agreements.
Most countries in the world have laws against barratry, which is essentially the crime Apple Records committed by bullying (the then tiny) Apple Computers into signing the agreement in the first place. Okay, there might be an argument for iTMS conflicting with Apple Records, but no lawyer on earth would reasonably believe there was a case against Apple Computers when they first started making computers. They were simply two completely different markets back then, with no possibility whatsoever of confusion. So Apple Records were making baseless legal threats against a small startup when they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on.
If I had a say in the matter, that would be cause for revoking Apple Records' trademark altogether. If you can't be trusted to wield the power responsibly and lawfully, you shouldn't have it in the first place.
Apple Computer has been so extremely picky with their own trademarks that judges should apply the same tight standards when the company is being sued by others.
This is not correct. One can install/upgrade RAM in the mini, and it does not void the warranty, provided you do not damage the computer in the process. The trick is to use a putty knife to carefully open the case.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Bullshit. Apple Corps see Apple Computers as a tool for making money. Yes, Apple Computer has agreed not to enter the music business. But is selling mp3-players and music "being in the music-business"? No. Selling mp3-players means that they are in the consumer-electronics business. Selling songs means that they are in the retail-business (although their "store" is in the internet). If they actually PUBLISHED music, then they would be in the "music business".
Average person does not even know what "Apple Corps" is. They are furiously protecting something that they don't even have. When was the last time Apple Corps has actually DONE something, apart from basking in former glory and suing Apple Computer?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
"Geoffrey Vos, QC, representing Apple Corps, had argued that call the download system just an electronic device was a "perversion" of the constraints laid down in the agreement between the two companies. He said that Mr Jobs, Apple's founder, had said that the downloading of music from the internet was exactly the same as buying an LP in the modern world."
So if I set up a service delivering illegal content, let's say naked pictures of your underage daugther, can I argue that it's just an "electronic device" and get away with it? I think not!
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
Sorry about that getting a flamebait mod, I thought it was funny. I have a feeling this post will be modded off-topic (and rightly so) so I am going to post it AC.
Beatles: Hey Jude, I thought we agreed there's only room for one apple in this business!
Apple: STFU, we're not IN your business.
Beatles: I know it's been a hard day's night for you, but yeah, you are.
Apple: STFU.
Beatles: Right, we'll see you in the Court on Penny Lane.
(later)
Court: Beatles, STFU.
Apple: We have triumphed yet again!
Beatles: Waaaaaah! Twist and Shout! You never give me your money! We'll appeal and then you're going to lose that girl!
All: STFU!
Towards the Singularity.
I'd suggest that that was more a case of a stuck up store manager, than what apple themselves actually think or do. Every desktop mac i've owned have had easy access to its internals (LC iii pizzabox!). Some machines, granted, have not - such as the iMac and certain other models. But even on the laptop models do they have an easy way to change ram and put in an airport card or whatever - on my pismo G3, there were two latches on the keyboard to push, and instant access to the ram slots and so on. The current Mac I have is the G4 mirror drive door (aka the windtunnel). There was no sticker anywhere that said "warranty void". In fact, there is a huge handle on the side that you pull, and down comes the entire motherboard (as it's stuck on the side-wall), with instant access to the ram, to pci slots and so on. In my manual, there is detailed descriptions of how to change the parts of the computer such as ram, harddrives, cd-roms and so on. The harddrives even comes in neat bays that you flip a handle, and it slides out. The windtunnel is well known throughout the mac community, due to the fact that its fans are -extremely- loud, both in the power supply and the cabinet itself. Apple even offered a fan replacement to the customers who complained. I was the reciever of one of those packages. If Apple had been concerned about "letting only technicians do the work to keep warranty", they would not have sent me what I got. I got a new power supply, as well as new fans. I also got detailed instructions of how to dismantle the exisiting powersupply (which required quite a lot of work because the cables are rooted behind "everything else". The whole procedure took me an hour or so. Half a year later, something in my computer failed, and I sent it in for service. I got a full repair and even extended warranty for free, even though I'd essentially dismantled the whole computer myself (and they of course knew about this).
Mac tower cases open up easily. But all of the "all in one" types with the built in monitor are a fricking nightmare. Looking at the new iMacs I don't have the faintest idea how you'd do "easy" maintenance on them. I remember working on the old SE's...It was like that game "Operation" because if your screwdriver slipped it could go right through the damn picture tube. The newer eMacs aren't that bad, but they're still above and beyond most home users.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Dude, you'd have to really suck to lose to France. ...and, btw, poo, to all of you who don't have a sense of humor :P
yours,
kbs
For those of you who want to read the court document first hand (I know there are at least a few groklaw people out there).
From Times Online.
Apple Corps v Apple Computer: judgment in full
Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 996 (Ch)
Case No: HC03C02428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
08/05/2006
Before:
MR JUSTICE MANN
Between:
APPLE CORPS LIMITED, Claimant
and
APPLE COMPUTER, INC, Defendant
MR. G. VOS Q.C., MR. D. ALEXANDER Q.C. and MR. R. MEADE (instructed by Eversheds LLP) for the Claimant.
LORD GRABINER Q.C. and MR. D. TOLEDANO (instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) for the Defendant.
Hearing dates: 29th, 30th, 31st March 2006, 3rd and 5th April 2006
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Mann
Introduction
This is a claim for breach of an agreement made between the claimant and the defendant in 1991 in which they sought to arrive at an agreement as to how they would each use their respective similar marks. The claimant, whom I will call "Corps", claims that the defendant, whom I will call "Computer", has acted in breach of that agreement in circumstances arising out of the creation and operation of Computer's iTunes music download service. At this stage of the trial I am asked to determine liability only. If I determine that question in favour of Corps any damages or other financial compensation will be determined at a separate inquiry; whether any, and if so what, injunction is necessary or appropriate will also be dealt with once liability is determined.
The Parties
As is widely known, Corps is the record company synonymous with the Beatles. It was incorporated as The Beatles Limited on 20th June 1963. On 4th December 1967 it changed its name to Apple Music Limited and on 9th February 1968 it changed its name again to its present name. From that time at the latest the apple mark, both in the sense of the word and as a graphic symbol, became an important part of its business. Its symbol was a sideways view of a whole apple. On 19th March 1968 the first apple trade mark was registered. Corps owned, and still owns, the rights to a large number of Beatles recordings, and extensive other rights both in relation to the Beatles and in relation to other artists. For many years its principal activity has been the continued exploitation of those rights in a variety of ways which it is not necessary for me to go into. In the course of exploiting those rights, its apple marks have been an important benefit for it. In this case Mr Geoffrey Vos QC led for Corps.
Computer was founded in 1976. It is the well known computer and software house. It started producing computers (the Apple I and II) at the end of the 1970s and has continued to develop computers and software ever since. While it has had nothing like the market share of Windows-based computers, its market share in the personal computer market is nonetheless significant and it has large numbers of devotees. It too has adopted apple marks, including the word "Apple" and a stylised apple with the bite taken out of it. Its own marks have been important to it in the development of its business. In this case Lord Grabiner QC led for Computer.
The Genesis of the Agreement sued on
From time to time, the marks of Corps and Computer created conflicts. In November 1981 they entered into an agreement concerning the use and registration of the word "Apple" and various apple logos. I do not need to set out the detailed terms of that agreement. In general terms, Computer was allowed to use its marks in relation to computer goods and services, but not use them in relation to computer equipment specifically adapted for use in the recording or reproduction of music, or in relation to operational services relati
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
And for all those Apple Corps apologists that suggest Apple Corps market a macintosh coat, how about Apple Inc creating a new "innovative" mouse design and calling it the new "Apple Beetle?"
Because the judge seems to have bought "Hey it isn't Apple, it's iTunes". It is an apple product and the Apple logo is used. FTFJudge:
Mr Justice Mann ruled iTunes was "a form of electronic shop" and not involved in creating music.
But the distributors (Sony, BMG/EMI et al) are a form of shop and not involved in creating music. They just get the pressed disc out.
[continued from 1st page]
iv) On occasions Computer makes available collections of recordings of an artist as a notional (or virtual) "boxed set". There have been three of these so far. These sometimes extend to copies of all the published musical works of an artist or band. They can be purchased with one "click" of the mouse. Sometimes a "boxed set" will include tracks that have not hitherto been released. As always, the IP rights remain with the artist or record company - ITMS has the right to sell the digital tracks.
v) The Store offers its own collections of tracks in the form of "iTunes Essentials". The online Help facility describes Essentials as being "favorites chosen by our iTunes Music Store staff experts."
vi) It is possible for artists to sign themselves up to ITMS by means of an online application procedure. By this means their product is put on the Store with all the other products. The application procedure on site suggests that there are few qualifications attached to the material which will be sold. The evidence of Computer's witness on the point suggested that in fact there was little real selection. I find that a little hard to believe, and I think there must be some. But be that as it may, ITMS is still signing up content and artists so that their content is then sold online, and Corps relies on this as further conduct tending to equate the overall conduct of Computer to that of a record company and thereby associating its mark with music content in breach of the TMA.
Advertising and publicity matters
Certain publicity-related matters are relied on as breaches. They are as follows.
Video advertising
I was shown 4 adverts which were broadcast on television in at least one country. They are said to contravene the TMA. Each is roughly 30 seconds long; they can be described as follows.
"My Generation"
This is obviously the earliest of the adverts since it contains a reference to applemusic.com, an address which was abandoned after a few months (at least so far as publicity was concerned). It shows a middle-aged man holding and listening to an iPod over his earphones, clicking his fingers and apparently singing along with it - he is singing "My Generation", recorded by The Who in 1965. After 21 seconds his image is replaced by a screen which says:
"Your favorite songs 99 each"
for about 2 seconds. The man then reappears and stays until the end when the final screen displays Computer's apple logo over the word "AppleMusic.com" for about 3 seconds.
U2
This commercial features the band U2. It starts with a brief silhouette of a dancer holding a white iPod with white earphone cables. It then cuts to and between various band members all depicted in greyscale against a coloured background. One is playing an electric guitar with a white cable - plainly an allusion to the white iPod earphone cables. There are then brief cuts back to silhouetted dancers (with iPods) until after 22 seconds:
"U2's new album
Now available
Online exclusively at iTunes"
appears against a solid colour background for about 2 seconds. The advert reverts to shots of the band for 3 or so seconds, and then puts up a screen saying:
"iPod and iTunes"
followed by brief shots of band members and ending with 2 seconds of a screen showing Computer's apple logo centre-screen.
Coldplay
This advert features the band Coldplay and was shown on only one occasion - after the season end of a series of Saturday Night Live on US TV on 21st May 2005. This starts with 20 seconds of music and fast cutting between band members. Then the following appears centre-screen:
"Coldplay's new album
Plus exclusive tracks on iTunes"
for about 2 seconds. The band reappears and the advert ends with Computer's apple logo with "iTunes.com" on screen for the last 2 seconds.
Eminem
This is another video in which an artist called Eminem is shown performing heavil
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Well, RAM is easy enough to install on the iMacs through a door along the bottom of the computer: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302 506
You're right that any other internal maintenance is a pain in the ass. Still, I think it's a fair trade off for the absolutely amazing design that you get. Show me a way to make a computer with a similar form factor to the iMac easy to open up and repair and I'll be very impressed.
I enjoy the fact that OSX has Bourne-Again SHell (BASH) capabilities (correct me if I'm wrong) although I hate their pricing and closed machine mentality--though that may change with x86 architecture. If I want to slap another stick of RAM into my machine, I should be able to without being a licensed Apple technician.
Well that's news to me, as I have a G4 tower and a G4 PowerBook at home which I have upgraded the memory in, as well as a Mac Mini, a G5, and this MacBook Pro on my desk here at work that I have upgraded the memory in.
Guess I better go take the licensing exams before someone figures out that I've broken some kind of FUD.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
With the agreement thus construed, Corps says that each of the matters relied on is a breach. The use of the Apple logo, as described above, is in connection with musical content whether or not it is also used in connection with a delivery service. Dual use is infringing use. One of the things that makes it a use in connection with the content is the fact that the content is sold (and, in the case of three of the video advertisements, actually advertised as well). The pronouncements of Computer, either through Mr Jobs or formal SEC documents, make this plain. If one looks at the overall picture, Computer is acting as a record company - it is pre-packaging music, and it is procuring recordings and then selling them under its banner in exclusive tracks and virtual boxed sets.
Computer's case on the true construction of the TMA and breach - an outline
Computer's case gives a different meaning to the words use "on or in connection with". For most of the case Computer said that it meant a use which indicated the source or origin of the rights to the music, but in his final speech Lord Grabiner expanded this slightly to mean a use which indicates the source or origin of the rights in, or the right to control, the music. Computer emphasises the wide range of products within its own field of use, and particularly category (ii) (the services). Corps' field is narrower and confined to content. For Computer to cross into Corps' territory with its mark it would have to have indicated, by its use of the mark, that Computer was the source or origin of the music. That is said to be fundamental. It did not do so and has never done so. Its advertisements are always of the service (or of the iPod, which is hardware within head (i) of clause 1.2), and not of the content. The ownership of the rights is always attributed to the correct person within the ITMS and in the track information on any downloaded track. Other service providers use their marks in the same way - they use their marks to identify the service and do not go further and attribute them to the musical content.
Clause 4.3 is an "avoidance of doubt" clause which affirms the right of the parties to use their respective marks in their own respective fields. Computer's main case was that there was no overlap of fields of use for the clause to deal with because conceptually the boundaries were clear. Lord Grabiner says it was designed to ensure that the arguments now advanced by Corps could not be correctly advanced. Alternatively, (and I think this was an alternative argument) it actually has the effect of meaning that "in connection with" cannot be taken as referring to a situation where Computer's mark is applied to a service delivering musical content. On this argument the provision goes somewhat beyond an "avoidance of doubt" provision. Computer then says that there is no material difference between the use of the apple logo in iTunes and its use on the ITMS, so Corps' non-objection in relation to the former means that there is no legitimate substance in their objection to the latter. Lord Grabiner also says that if he needs to he can also rely on head (iii) in Computer's field of use (the ancillary matters) including the references to financing and distribution, which permits the business-like performance of the fields of use in head (ii).
The proper construction of the TMA
I preface my conclusions on the proper construction of the TMA with two points. First, I am aware that I must be careful to keep the TMA in its correct place in the chronology and the development of technology and to construe it accordingly. The use of the internet, and the ready availability of all sorts of downloads, was not part of the technological scene at the time, and I cannot approach the question of construction as though the particular activity now conducted by Computer (and other digital suppliers) was in the parties' minds at the time. It is true that, as Mr Vos pointed out, it remains necessary to consider how the words of the agreement apply to
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Somehow I think the judge would have had access for far more documentation than you did, and would also have had many years of presiding over cases such as this.
I'm sure that his decision is most likely going to be fairly reasonably close to the actual reality of the situation.
And indeed who the hell would confuse Apple Computer and Apple Corp? The logos are actually significantly different, and one is a computer company - look, it says so quite clearly in the name, that does computery stuff like have online stores that sell data. Apple Corp could be anything to be honest, but just happens to be a music publisher.
That's a false conclusion. To be able to care less he merely needs to care more than zero.
How long ago did they get rid of the special tool without which it was impossible to (nondestructively) open the case? The sheer hostility of that move stuck with me for a very long time. I'm finally considering a mini for porting, but I've heard they have many of the same upgrade limitations as a laptop, so it may have to be a throwaway (if the Intel switch ever pushes down prices on used PPC models).
Ummm...no. Apple signed a contract that said they would not get in the music business. That is sign, promote and distribute their own artists, as far as I know the agreement never states that Apple is prohibited from being a retail outlet of the music business.
Probably. Most all Macs take standard PC memory. Since almost the beginning. Even the first PowerMacs used a slight variation of normal SIMMs.
Actually, Apple started using SIMMs about 2 years before PC manufacturers did. Back in the '386 days "extended" RAM required a vendor-specific board which could usually only be bought pre-populated, at outrageous markups. Tandy was the first PC to adopt SIMMs, in about 1987 or so, shortly after Apple, but the others waited much longer.
I'm just relieved that the battle of two bazillion dollar companies turned out well. Phew. I hope that was sarcasm although it does not convey well over the internet.
Yes it does. Try reading a few examples of better English than the shit that gets passed off as it on the 'net. Like... books? There are subtler clues than having to have lame "sarcasm tags" or even worse, "emoticons". For fuck's sake.
"In fact, I would wager that the material aspects of their lives and the selling of their works are what in the end ruined them."
Eh? Lenon getting shot probably had more of an impact, I'd say.
Which iMac? The origional form factor was a serious PITA to upgrade...generally would take you at least 20-30 minutes the first time unless you wanted a bunch of extra screws when you reassebled it. When the switched to the iLamps, though, I thought it was a simple matter of popping off a panel on the backside to put in another stick.
True, any amateur can try, but apple will void your warranty if they found out you opened your mini.
Where do they say that?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-217097 7,00.html
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. - Douglas Adams
Again, that is incorrect. The Mini is user upgradable. Whoever told you otherwise was wrong.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
True, any amateur can try, but apple will void your warranty if they found out you opened your mini.
No, they won't. You are either badly misinfomed or else you are just spreading FUD.
I have a mini, ordered the day they were introduced, and I upgraded the memory myself as soon as it arrived. I also swapped out the hard drive for a 7200 RPM one a few months later.
The 1-year warranty remained 100% valid. (Although, obviously the 3rd-party items I installed are not covered by AppleCare.) I didn't buy the extended warranty, so I believe it just ran out last month.
The mini is very easy to open. The little clips are not nearly as brittle as the FUD-meisters would have you believe. They bend away and/or snap out with no damage at all.
I found the tricky part to be getting it to close back up correctly. You gotta line up the airport antenna just right, then get all those little plastic clips clipped back in while lining up this little pad with the back panel. Took me 2 or 3 attempts the first time I did it.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
But all of the "all in one" types with the built in monitor are a fricking nightmare. Where have you been for the last 18 months? The latest iteration of the iMac (the "all in one" models you must be talking about) are almost completely user accessible. In fact, when there were noise problems with the Rev. A version, Apple was sending out the mid-planes directly to the users for replacement. I'll agree that the "sunflower" model was not terribly accessible, nor was the original CRT iMac, but the flat panel is incredibly well designed from an accessibility standpoint. Adding RAM is a snap - just look at this diagram http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303 084. In fact, there is a whole list of things you can replace on your iMac - all involving opening up the back of the computer http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=868 12.
Thanks for all the cool comments on the last topic of Apple vs. Apple, like when hell freezes over, or fat chance of "winning in England", so all you that posted nice comments, you're cool, for all the jerks who got all worked up and fed me lines of shit, go piss up a rope!
Sig Hansen?
The article says that Neil Aspinall, now manager of Apple Corps, was the Beatles' first roadie. Neil wasn't a roadie, he was a press agent. Mal Evans is well know as the Beatles roadie, go-fer and body guard.
The Beatles were great musicians, but terrible business men. The story of the mess that was Apple has been documented in several books including "The Love you Make" by Peter Brown.
If you want complete openness you can buy your own parts and build a PC. If you want an Apple Mac, you have to buy their machine and no one is forcing you to do so.
In terms of pricing, this argument is so old. You can get a Dell with the basic requirements for cheaper. But when you start trying to exactly match the models in terms of both hardware and software specs, Apples are pretty competitive price wise.
As for servicing your Mac, this is untrue except for the Mac mini. Ever since the resurrection of Apple with the iMac, Apples have used more and more PC components. With the latest generation, even the CPU is PC based. I added standard PC memory to my parent's eMac when I bought it four years ago. The Apple tech that helped me with the sale even showed me how.
The Mac mini is different. You can service it if you want. You might void your warranty though. The Mac mini was designed to be a lowend machine with few customizations allowed. Hence the lower price. Could it have been designed to be more user servicable? Probably but the compactness may have been sacrificed.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Your story makes no sense. If his computer was under warranty, he would not be charged to do the repairs. If the computer was not under warranty, the threat of losing his warranty would be meaningless.
From a technical standpoint, you still are short. G4 computer have all used standard ATA(PI) optical drives. You could have bought from any number of online resellers and replaced it yourself (quite easily).
From a historical standpoint, you seem mistaken. Apple Press Release (October 17, 2001):
"We accomplished a lot in FY 2001, even though it was a challenging year for us and our industry," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "We gained market share in education, and iBook sales to education tripled last quarter; we launched Mac OS X, and released the stunningly fast 10.1 update in September; we opened our first Apple retail stores, and are on track to open 25 stores across the U.S. by the end of 2001." [emphasis added]
You should have put your emphasis on the "bit" part.
I also added in more RAM just a year ago, and had no trouble doing that either.
True, if you want to change out something more complicated than the RAM, you're probably facing a bigger challenge - but RAM has never been untouchable.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Where did you see it referred to as Apple iTMS?
It's iTunes Music Store, not Apple iTunes Music Store.
And the reason for this must be pretty obvious.
Yeah, I could figure Apple Corps could start their own music service, called Apple iDMS. Steve Jobs is such a Beatles' fan (even after all this), Apple Computer would never sue Apple Corps.
As to a lack of "Fair Play". I just don't see it that way. Apple Computer and Apple Corps settled this issue TWICE over the past twenty years (with payments and agreements). Apple Corps for some reason then decided they didn't need to stick to the terms of the settlement.
In the end, if you feel being there first and occupying a small corner of the music marketplace means you get to be the only one who gets to use the name of a popular fruit, then yes, there was some massive railroading going on here. Apple Computer ran over Apple Corps repeatedly and like a freight train.
But I just don't see it that way.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
How can this fact and quote be a "Story Update" if they're included in the story itself? (on page 1, nothing less). Moderators have been tricked.
How soon they forget.
It's been quite a bit longer than 18 months since the computers he's talking about were current. Do you know what one of these is?
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
Apple Corp, I get it.
Apple Computer sells digital content - Music, TV shows, audio books.
If Apple Computer is in the music business, then so is 7-11 for selling cheap CD's in the store.
Apple computer is in the retail business, not the music business.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Jeez... Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If someone makes a sarcastic comment, and leaves off tags, someone will flame him for being an idiot. If someone makes a sarcastic comment, and included sarcasm tags, he gets flamed for including unnecessary comments. Christ, people, relax!
Rhapsody in Numbers
Well, there was the ultra-long torx wrench and case-cracker combo, but that was more than 15 years ago...
I guess you're thinking of the Mini, which needs a spatula-style implement to spread the case snaps out to lift the shell off. No big deal really, just a factor of having a snug, small case with no obvious screws, a trade-off for nifty appliance-like design features. Given how easy it is to get into the iMac, I don't think Apple's particularly hostile to you getting in there. If you need to, you can. If you can't go to a support website, you shouldn't be in there anyway, :p
Regarding treating a Mac as a throwaway: let me introduce you to the used Mac market. It's outrageously overpriced, ostensibly because Macs obsolete more slowly, so you don't need to trash or upgrade, just trade up. I hate computer/car metaphors, but in this case, resale value of a Mac really is like that of a Honda. Often the price of upgrading is more than selling your old machine and buying a new one, if you sell at the right time (18 months or so, I can't remember the metric).
Damn those pesky terrorists
Glad I finished my coffee first, cuz doing a spit-take all over the monitor would NOT be covered under warranty...
First, if his machine was under warranty, just bring it back and have Apple replace it for free. Apple, like every other vendor, can't just hand out hardware cuz you swear there's a bad one twenty blocks away. 2000 is before they had Apple Stores so this must have been a reseller, but still...
Not just Apple, but anyone - RS, BestBuy, Walmart - ANYONE would want the old one back before they hand you a free one. Honestly, did he think they were just handing out spares on the word of anyone who walks thru the door?
Unless it's not gone bad but perhaps used as a coffee holder, donut holder, bookshelf or pet perch, in which case he's unfortuately out of luck. On the other hand, when I sent my iBook in for a screen failure that was under warranty, they also supplied me with a shiny new case top, palmrests and fresh Little Rubber Feet.
Someone got their signals crossed:
1. Apple doesn't have to send it back for testing - any Apple store will first bench test it with known-good parts and/or the standard hardware tests on the network or an external drive.
2. There is no $20,000 fine for violating any customer agreement. You just void your warranty, period.
3. If in the end he did what they wanted him to - brought it in to keep it under warrany - then why would they charge him $1,000 for a drive that supposedly went bad under warranty? In 2000 it had to be the original G4 tower - and there's no way a CD swap in a G4 tower is a $1,000 repair.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
If Michael Jackson ala Sony owns the beatles library, what does apple corps own?
Huh? I've upgraded the RAM in the original iMac, and it had a nice little door on the bottom that you opened up to insert more RAM. You didn't need to (and weren't supposed to!) crack the case. It was just a matter of unplugging it, setting it face-down on a towel or something, unscrewing the compartment cover, inserting the memory, and then putting the door back on.
I have stuff that's harder to change the batteries in than that. (Questionably designed stuff, but still.)
I can't remember exactly what "rev" that iMac was, but it was one of the original CRT ones; it might have been a slot-loader.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"Do not hate the companies that use the laws in their favor, hate the government that enforces the laws."
In all countries I know of, the law allows people to be assholes.
BUT someone being an asshole is not a problem with the law, but a problem with that someone.
That said, the leaders of a company hold the greatest responsibility for its behaviour.
Wait, wait, wait, by what law can a plaintiff file an appeal? Most American law is based on English common law, including the court process. Filing in a higher court on new grounds for the same request is premissible, but I am uncertain how they can simply appeal a judgement found in the defendant's favor.
It's a girl!
I've heard of the Beatles
I've heard of Apple (computers)
But I've never heard of Apple Corp., I doubt a lot of consumers have heard of Apple Corp. even though they are a wealthy company. I doubt Apple (computers) is affecting their bottomline.
Can I bum a sig?
new A.C. Low!
/. success
your obviously another whiney mac user who's jealous of the real whiny mac user's
Yeah closing the damn thing up took freaking forever.
Why not fork?
Apple Records is a record label, founded in 1968 as a division of Apple Corps Ltd. by The Beatles. ... EMI and Capitol agreed to distribute Apple Records until 1975; Apple owned the rights to records by artists they signed, while EMI retained ownership of the Beatles' records, though issuing them under the Apple label. The label survived the breakup of the Beatles in 1970, and was resurrected in the late 1980s, for use on all Beatles CDs. Apple Records own the rights to all of the Beatle videos and movie clips. ... During the 1974 proceedings dissolving the Beatles as an entity, a court ruling decreed that eighty perent of all profits from Beatles albums (as a group) would accrue to Apple Records, and five percent would go to each of the four members.
What did the label actually do? If we assume Apple took care of all the nasty little details of signing bands recording their music, what did Capitol and EMI do? Are they lables even though they did little more than make a contract and "distribute" recorded music?
How is that different from what Apple Computer is doing? The only obvious difference between what Apple is doing and what the "labels" are doing is that, once again, the labels are keeping all of the money and others are doing all the work. Apple has indeed become a publisher of music and a label and just another part of the business of screwing musicians.
They also look like they have violated their agreement by using their apple logo and name all over the iTunes site.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Also, didn't Michael Jackson own a large chunk of the Beatles' IP rights for a while (presumably being sold off to Sony to over his debts...)?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I would remaster all my greatest hits and sell them online at the Apple Store.
This all started in the 80s when there was a battle over the Apple trademark (Apple Corp owned the Apple trademark and an Apple logo).
They both settled fairly - Apple records would allow Apple computers the use of the Apple trademark AS LONG AS THEY DIDN'T GET INTO THE MUSIC BUSINESS.
This was okay for a while, thinks were good.
Then Apple computers went and blatantly broke that agreement.
The reason they won this case is because they had better lawyers - They managed to twist the case to convince the judge that they were not music publishers, but merely distributors of data.
I mean, come-fucking-on!!! That is just such a load of BS!!!
I'm not a big fan of Apple records because they are monopolistic bastards regarding the Beetle back catalogue, but in this case I hope they get Apple comp...
They way they've just gone and broken that agreement and then cheesing such a deceitful win in court really riles me.
Apple records could have *destroyed* them back in the 80s, but they settled instead, and now Apple comp have gone and stabbed them in the back!
Now... I agree that in the land of Rational Thought, there is no way you could confuse Apple Comp with Apple Records, but when the heck has that ever stopped ANY company from suing another company in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT INDUSTRY for having a similar name?
It certainly never stopped Apple comp...
You're wrong. Neil was the Beatles' original roadie; he happened to be friends with Pete Best, and became the Beatles' roadie because he owned his own van. Mal was later hired when the job became too demanding for Neil to do alone. Later, when the Beatles became hugely successful, Neil and Mal went from being roadies to personal assistants/confidants. It was only when the Beatles decided to run their own affairs following the death of Brian Epstein that Neil assumed a management role. He was never the Beatles' press officer, that task being taken by Tony Barrow and Derek Taylor.
...so much greatness came into this world that the gods decided to take out John Lennon just a few hours later via some insane nutjob to keep the greatness-meter in balance.
It's a girl!
after all, he's the voice of Thomas the Tank Engine!
I remember commenting on this before, and although one or two dismissed my suggestion that it was a braindead Americanism, others concurred, as did some here. The Yanks appeared to try to justify it by saying it was ironic and now a standard idiom, but in Britain at least, it is quite simply wrong, and "couldn't care less" is the correct term.
:P
Personally I don't buy the justifications and believe it just boils down to pure stupidity, but then I am English, so of course I would think that.
iqu
'' Apple signed a contract that said they would not get in the music business. That is sign, promote and distribute their own artists, as far as I know the agreement never states that Apple is prohibited from being a retail outlet of the music business. ''
Actually, I could imagine that Apple Computer could be quite keen to create its own record label. And there would be three ways to do this: 1. Buy Apple Records. 2. Pay Apple Records for the right to use the Apple Computer trademark anywhere they like, including the record business. 3. Start the "iTunes Record Company", carefully avoiding any mentioning of Apple in the process.
If Apple Computer can convince Apple Records that they are willing to do (3), they might be able to make them agree to (2) for a reasonable price.
They could just paint some screws white? I don't think that'd ruin anything...
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
If the contention is that Apple Computers is not selling music, but data, does that mean that if I rip a cd (or even better vinyl) myself, and share it on line, I am sharing my own data, not someone else's music.
Opinions anyone?
It's wrong, but this battle is pretty much lost.
Turns out apple is very tight-lipped about this. Find me ONE PAGE at apple.com that tells you how to upgrade memory in a mac mini. There are several dozen pages that tell you how to upgrade your memory on every other model of mac.
4 0646~family~macmini_intel.asp
Here's best I could do.
http://www.clubmac.com/clubmac/families/new~dp~70
Memory 256MB Upgrade installed into your Mac mini. Upgrade is a 512MB RAM module, but due to the necessary removal of original 256MB RAM module, net gain will be 256MB. Price of upgrade includes $39.99 install fee. Memory is not user-installable.
It's not word from Apple, but since there IS no word from Apple, a memory retailer (someone that WANTS to sell you memory) would be a good authority when telling you what their product cannot do.
Please remember there is a big difference between "I can do this" and "the manufacturer says I can do this without voiding my warranty". Too many trolls replying to my post that apparently want to brag that they can do the upgrade. That wasn't my point.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Again, that is incorrect. The Mini is user upgradable. Whoever told you otherwise was wrong.
Guess you can go run to Steve and tell him he doesn't know anything about macs...
Quoteth the Apple Service Manual for the mac mini:
Additional memory should be installed by an Apple Retail Store or Apple Authorized Service Provider.
(there's a reason "Apple certified Macintosh repair tech" is in my user profile)
Though I still find it odd that there are no public documents that state this. Guessing Apple doesn't want y'all to realize that installing memory in a Mini isn't for the newbies.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I can buy a dirt cheap CD player and CD in a lot of retail stores - exactly like what Apple is selling. You confusion in distinguishing between devices that PLAY music and companies that RECORD music is fiarly astounding.
You do realize there's not a tiny little band inside that iPod right? Not even the first gen model.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It was just a matter of unplugging it, setting it face-down on a towel or something, unscrewing the compartment cover, inserting the memory, and then putting the door back on.
:) You had to remove a plastic panel on the back, unscrew the video & power supply cords, remove the screws holding the chasis to the monitor, pull out the chasis, remove the cpu cover, and add your memory. If you wanted to upgrade the existing 32 meg chip that came with the computer, you also had to take off the daughter card. Some of the early iMacs had plastic clips to hold in the memory that were easy to break off as well, making the slot rather useless. Some pictures and instructions here.
Not on the Rev A it wasn't.
"should" and "must" are two very different concepts.
A lot of people should have a service provider upgrade their memory.
Then again, a lot of people should not attempt to do their own car brakes.
To restate: Changing the memory in a mini DOES NOT void your warranty. Not only is such a thing never stated by Apple, I know from actual, real-world experience that they still honor the warranty on home-upgraded minis.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
What you are saying is complete nonsense.
The Beattles experimented with avant guard techniques, were conversant with modern composing methods of their times, investigated and used Estern music influences, and in general demonstrated that they were musicians through and through. The Stones remained pretty much where they started, and as for The Animals, you surely are joking.
I know a lot of people that are bored by Mozart, Beethoven or even Stravinsky (for bunnies sakes, Stravinsky) but that reflects badly in the inculture of the speaker, not in the worthiness of the artist.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You must mean Linux users.
Seeing as there is no public information to support either of our views as to warranty, I'll have a chat with them tomorrow and see what their official position is. I would tend to believe that this could void your warranty, but that in most cases Apple would turn a blind eye, but hold onto their options in the event a customer say.. snapped a dimm clip off or something while trying to upgrade it. Just because they chose to honor a warranty in one or two cases doesn't mean they have to. Companies like to keep their options open.
3 407
;) I've sent an email out to get the final word on the matter.
OK I stand corrected, I found one reference to upgrading a mini's memory:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30
This talks about 'if the user installs their own memory' to try to install in matched pairs for improved video performance. This seems to support your argument. So we're 1 and 1.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Apple Corps gave Apple Computers the right to do exactly what they are doing with iTMS. And now Apple Corps wants some of the iTMS action.
Now explain how Apple (Mac) has violated the terms of their agreement with iTMS. Anyone??
Justice Mann got it right.
In case anyone still cares, (it's an old thread) I have official word from Apple on the matter.
What it boils down to is that opening your mini to add memory in and of itself does not void the warranty, HOWEVER, any damaged caused by the user attempting the upgrade, or any problems that result from the upgrade, voids the warranty. So for example, if you try to upgrade your memory and now it won't boot, and you have to spend half an hour on the phone with Apple to figure out you didn't have the new memory stick properly seated, you will be billled for that time and your warranty is kerpoof.
I prefer direct answers from Apple over "I think" or "in my experience" because those are two highly variable things from person to person.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The manual that came with my iBook showed how to do it. It took all of five minutes to upgrade.
"Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
CompUSA did this to me as well when i purchased a 12" PowerMac and an extra RAM stick as. they insisted that they had to install it if i wanted to maintain the warranty. when i asked them how long it would take the salesperson went and asked the tech people, and they told him that they were closing shop in 20 minutes so i should just do it myself rather than waiting overnight. overzealous salespeople at CompUSA will tell you just about anything to get you to spend more money there, i think it's the reason that store will never, ever win the sales race.