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.
I wonder how much the estate of the late John Lennon or other Beatles really wanted a legal fight with Apple Computer. I think they missed out on millions of USD in downloads from iTMS due to their absence. So was it really Apple Corps led? I don't see on which basis an appeal from Apple Corps will be successful. Let's hope to see the old (and upcoming newly digitalized spiffed-up tracks) on iTMS soon.
Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
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.
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
This is a travesty - not for the gain or loss of two billionaire corporations ...
... Naked album of a few years ago, wasn't all that well liked, but we fans bought it anyway. It reminds me of Eddie Murphy's old joke about giving a starving man a cracker. He's not going to refuse to eat because he wants something else, he's going to say "Man, that was the best cracker I ever ate!"
Why does everyone keep repeating this incorrect statement? Just because the submitter thinks it's true, doesn't mean it is.
Folks, Apple Records, Apple Corp, whatever you want to call it, is NOT a billionaire corporation. Sir Paul McCartney is a billionaire, but it's not because of Apple Corp or the Beatles. He is a billionaire because he bought out song publishing companies years ago, which is where the real money is. The Lennon estate was worth $100 million at the time of John Lennon's death, most due to investments Yoko made. The late George Harrison's estate was probably worth less than $100 million at the time of his death and Ringo Starr is definitely worth less than that. If you have any knowledge of royalty rates in the industy, you will know that the Beatles simply can't be making the kind of money some of you attribute to them. In my opinion, the Beatles and their lackeys have seriously mismanaged their catalog and the failure to put out "new" product (yes, believe it or not, there are still things in the vaults that could be released officially for the first time, such as the White Album demo sessions) more than once every 5+ years have actually kept them from earning as much money as they could have earned. They release material so infrequently that it sells simply because of scarcity, not because of merit. The last offical release, the Let It Be
I don't think there is any realistic chance of the Beatles (Apple Corp) competing against Apple Computers. Apple Corp likes to sit back and get paid. They don't like to actually do something to get the money and setting up their music download store would require real work.
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.