OK, fine, I took a cheap shot at an Anonymous Coward who made a tired and inaccurate joke at my expense. I'm not offended, but only wished to point out that the comment "lawyers suck" is unhelpful in every possible way, and actually obscures the real issues in this situation. He didn't give reasons that lawyers suck, but he suggested a few reasons IP law sucks. To say that the problem is that the protection afforded to various forms of IP goes beyond anything needed to actually encourage innovation (in copyright) or protect reasonable market expectations (in trademark) is just preaching to the choir at/.
Let's look at Anonymous Coward's points in more detail. Basically, AC notes:
(1) no risk of confusion in the marketplace. True--as lots of others have pointed out. But it seems like the settlement reached between Apple and Apple Corp was intended mostly to keep it that way, not to extort anything from anybody.
(2) this is about contracts, not IP law. True, and as
I pointed out along with several others, we have no idea what that contract says. Almost everything on/. is speculation so far.
(3) Fear of an unreliable and irrational court system. I think it far more likely that this is about lack of vision on the part of Apple. It is very possible that what Apple Corp was after in the first place was not damages, but that Apple stay the hell out of the music business. (They may also be greedy jackasses, but I have no idea about that.) To Apple, the settlement may well have looked like a cheap and easy way to end the whole thing with the same result quickly at 0 cost. I mean, why on earth would anybody want their Mac to play music? Then, it was a concession that cost them zip. Now, Apple has a nasty biting sensation in its ass, and discovers the settlement wasn't such a good idea. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
My $0.02 (not that you asked for it) is that I have absolutely NFC what Apple should do now, and I won't until I have a look at that settlement agreement.
I agree that this is a primarily a contract case, not a trademark case, but until we see the agreement I would not conclude that "the settlement has been breached."
The result, for example, could be very different depending on whether the agreement reads "Apple Computer shall not enter the music publishing business," "Apple computer shall not enter the music distribution business," or "Apple Computer shall not enter the music business." We just don't know enough about the settlement beyond each company's own statements, which are naturally limited and self-serving.
The result could also depend on whether the agreement is governed by English law, or the law of one of the States (venue is a different question--an English court can enforce an agreement made under US law). This might have a big impact on damages.
Of course, if anyone knows where the agreement might be found, I'd love to see it. For the record, and in the interest of full disclosure, IAAL, but am not expert in IP law.
Slashdot Mirror
If you add speed holes, though, you will improve acceleration by up to 2.7 furlongs/fortnight/fortnight. Which is almost 3.
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.
Let's look at Anonymous Coward's points in more detail. Basically, AC notes:
(1) no risk of confusion in the marketplace. True--as lots of others have pointed out. But it seems like the settlement reached between Apple and Apple Corp was intended mostly to keep it that way, not to extort anything from anybody.
(2) this is about contracts, not IP law. True, and as I pointed out along with several others, we have no idea what that contract says. Almost everything on /. is speculation so far.
(3) Fear of an unreliable and irrational court system. I think it far more likely that this is about lack of vision on the part of Apple. It is very possible that what Apple Corp was after in the first place was not damages, but that Apple stay the hell out of the music business. (They may also be greedy jackasses, but I have no idea about that.) To Apple, the settlement may well have looked like a cheap and easy way to end the whole thing with the same result quickly at 0 cost. I mean, why on earth would anybody want their Mac to play music? Then, it was a concession that cost them zip. Now, Apple has a nasty biting sensation in its ass, and discovers the settlement wasn't such a good idea. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
My $0.02 (not that you asked for it) is that I have absolutely NFC what Apple should do now, and I won't until I have a look at that settlement agreement.
I disagree. His son will come back to kill him, but for the money. In that moment, Lucas will realize that his son's skills are complete.
People who do whatever you do for a living suck! How's that for a witty, well-informed rejoinder.
The result, for example, could be very different depending on whether the agreement reads "Apple Computer shall not enter the music publishing business," "Apple computer shall not enter the music distribution business," or "Apple Computer shall not enter the music business." We just don't know enough about the settlement beyond each company's own statements, which are naturally limited and self-serving.
The result could also depend on whether the agreement is governed by English law, or the law of one of the States (venue is a different question--an English court can enforce an agreement made under US law). This might have a big impact on damages.
Of course, if anyone knows where the agreement might be found, I'd love to see it. For the record, and in the interest of full disclosure, IAAL, but am not expert in IP law.