"With great respect to the trial judge, we consider he has reached the wrong conclusion. We felt that during the course of the trial we clearly demonstrated just how extensively Apple Computer had broken the agreement. We will accordingly be filing an appeal."
Even better, call it eMacs and bundle it with GNU/Hurd and Emacs.
*snort* - that would be funny! I'd distribute it with Darwin over GNU/Hurd tho' - for extra (Alanis Morissette style) irony points. (Plus, you could actually ship it)
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.
Let me be the first whiney mac fanboi to say "waaah, waaah, waaaah," Apple Computers was always a bigger company then Apple Corp (even in 1968;-)
Seriously - you make a good point, expect to be modded down for it as soon as the legions of Apple fanbois arrive.
Would Apple Computer care about someone selling a coat?
Oh for Gods sake - stop being such a whiney fanboy. All large corporations are litigious and Apple is one of the worst offenders.
They've issued legal threats to everyone from The Church of Satan (for "Made with Macintosh banner") to the (now ex) owners of the itunes.co.uk domain (registered long before Apple started selling music)
Go and register AppleMac.co.uk (or something similar) and see how long it is before the lawyers arrive.
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.
But Lord Grabiner, QC, for Apple Computer, countered that "only a moron in a hurry" could confuse his client's download system - which, he said, was basically transmitting data - with a record label.
If I were Apple Corp, I would start selling the new "Apple Macintosh" online. After all, "only a moron in a hurry" could confuse a coat with a computer company.
If I've ever seen an advertisement on slashdot (thank you ad block) this is it.. There is NOTHING remotely news worthy about this article, infact it is more or less a Google advert with more space and an icon.
Oh come on - I'm hardly the biggest Zonk defender, but the linked article seems (whilst boring) fairly appropriate for the games section of slashdot.
Also (fires up Internet explorer), it appears to have no advertising on it at all - so I'm not sure what motivation they could have for having zonk link to their page. (Hmmmmn, lets pay slashdot for a big spike in bandwidth costs, with no corresponding revenue. Nope.)
Shockingly they HAVE to, or said copyright/trademarks are diluted.
1) Please learn the difference between copyright & trademark law (and how they are so different that they can't be referred to together) before you post here again (diluted, yeesh!)
2) You deserve my username far more then I do - please reply to this post with a promise to only use my username in the future & I will email you the password.
Yes, but even the worst Starbucks pollution doesn't include Calcium Oxide in any concentration. And the Double Shots are all aluminum, so if you have community recycling, you can put it there. I don't think there's a way to reclaim the materials in the self-heating coffee.
Calcium oxide is just lime - its not particularly bad for the environment. I thought you were objecting to the large quantities of plastic in the can.
A more enviornmentally (and wallet) friendly idea is to just buy a thermos and fill it with coffee from home.
Haven't self-heating cans been used in Japan for years now?
Yup, and a quick look at this wikipedia article shows that they've been around everywhere for over 100 years
Why not just use the same design as there?
The design is pretty old & pretty standard - the problem is almost certainly poor quality control (Brandsource trying to be cheap). Presumably they spent too much money buying the rights to Wolfgang's name to spend money on the production process.
I've just had a look at the official How It Works (wmv, bleh) video on Wolfgang Puck's site - and there's no mention in the (surprisingly good) explanation that the cans may explode (funny that).
Also, check out this guy's dissection of a used can.
In your photograph & screw examples - how are you deprived if someone copies said screw or photograph? You still have the priceless photo of your parents, you still have the screw holding up your shelf.
Thus, by copying the work, you have deprived the owner of the value of the work as the owner sees it--namely, the cash he can make from selling it.
For how long? You make it sound like a natural right, rather then a government mandated monopoly.
Remember - I was advocating people copy a 30 year old work, that has made its owner a lot of money - not wholesale breaking of copyright across the board.
Congratulations to Zonk. You've authored an article containing 14 words (or words containing) 'spell' - and not a single spelling mistake (unlike this post).
Truly, a Slashdot first!
I await the spelling mistakes in the inevitable dupe (and the corrections to my spelling in the inevitable replies)
Slashdot Mirror
"We can still squeeze some blood from this stone! We have to! Ringo needs a new mansion!"
Exactly what I was thinking - it's not like this is two multi-national corporations squabbling about a 15 year old deal.
Steve needs the money to make cool new things for whiney mac fanbois to play with. Ringo & Paul will just waste it (and are rich enough already).
Cute little A.C. - is that the best you could come up with?
I said 'joke' because the following really doesn't flow very well:Now, this has gone far off-topic enough. (Feel free to mod me "virtuous" here)
There's a story at macworld uk and el reg
Quote from Apple Corp's lawyer:So - the fight continues!
Even better, call it eMacs and bundle it with GNU/Hurd and Emacs.
*snort* - that would be funny! I'd distribute it with Darwin over GNU/Hurd tho' - for extra (Alanis Morissette style) irony points. (Plus, you could actually ship it)
Hmmmmn, why did you log out before commenting?
Anyway, it was not so much of a joke, as a form of self-depreciating humour (link included, so you can read up & understand next time).
My advice, quit posting in public forums until your sense of humor (and chilledness) improves.
Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, this is Pot.
Joke, meet ciroknight, circoknight, th-... oh, too late, Joke just wooshed over your head.
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.
;-)
Let me be the first whiney mac fanboi to say "waaah, waaah, waaaah," Apple Computers was always a bigger company then Apple Corp (even in 1968
Seriously - you make a good point, expect to be modded down for it as soon as the legions of Apple fanbois arrive.
Would Apple Computer care about someone selling a coat?
Oh for Gods sake - stop being such a whiney fanboy. All large corporations are litigious and Apple is one of the worst offenders.
They've issued legal threats to everyone from The Church of Satan (for "Made with Macintosh banner") to the (now ex) owners of the itunes.co.uk domain (registered long before Apple started selling music)
Go and register AppleMac.co.uk (or something similar) and see how long it is before the lawyers arrive.
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's no way Apple computers would sue. After all - they're never lawyer trigger happy.
Next time you have someone asking you questions about Linux not knowing whether they should try, you can just direct them to this article."
With all respect to Mandriva, I'd much rather just point them to ubuntu
(I feel I should make an OS X reference, but I just can't be bothered)
If I've ever seen an advertisement on slashdot (thank you ad block) this is it.. There is NOTHING remotely news worthy about this article, infact it is more or less a Google advert with more space and an icon.
Oh come on - I'm hardly the biggest Zonk defender, but the linked article seems (whilst boring) fairly appropriate for the games section of slashdot.
Also (fires up Internet explorer), it appears to have no advertising on it at all - so I'm not sure what motivation they could have for having zonk link to their page. (Hmmmmn, lets pay slashdot for a big spike in bandwidth costs, with no corresponding revenue. Nope.)
Shockingly they HAVE to, or said copyright/trademarks are diluted.
1) Please learn the difference between copyright & trademark law (and how they are so different that they can't be referred to together) before you post here again (diluted, yeesh!)
2) You deserve my username far more then I do - please reply to this post with a promise to only use my username in the future & I will email you the password.
Aaaah, right - I understand now.
Well, arguably, as the owner, it would continue as long as it provides value to me. If that means my entire life, then I think that's reasonable.
Your one of the people who think copyright is a natural right - one that soley benefits the 'owner'.
You do not believe it is (was or should be) a government mandated limited monopoly, designed to benefit society as a whole.
It's better than a new top level comment, and as we can't edit comments here, it's about the best you can do.
I guess so - but the fact you can't edit comments is a good thing right?
Yes, but even the worst Starbucks pollution doesn't include Calcium Oxide in any concentration. And the Double Shots are all aluminum, so if you have community recycling, you can put it there. I don't think there's a way to reclaim the materials in the self-heating coffee.
Calcium oxide is just lime - its not particularly bad for the environment. I thought you were objecting to the large quantities of plastic in the can.
A more enviornmentally (and wallet) friendly idea is to just buy a thermos and fill it with coffee from home.
Not only that, the can is a disgusting waste of material that just ends up in landfills.
If I need my coffee on the go, I'll stick with room temperature Starbucks Doubleshots.
Where do you think your starbucks cups end up? In landfill too.
Sure, it doesn't generate as much, but god there's a lot of litter around starbucks stores. (and its a pity starbucks don't recycle more too)
Also, check out this guy's dissection of a used can.
Sorry to reply to myself, but Make Blog has a much better dissection
Who wants a self heating can when you can get a self cooling beer!
(although I'll wait for the non-miller version, as I prefer my beer with flavour thank-you-very-much).
Haven't self-heating cans been used in Japan for years now?
Yup, and a quick look at this wikipedia article shows that they've been around everywhere for over 100 years
Why not just use the same design as there?
The design is pretty old & pretty standard - the problem is almost certainly poor quality control (Brandsource trying to be cheap). Presumably they spent too much money buying the rights to Wolfgang's name to spend money on the production process.
I've just had a look at the official How It Works (wmv, bleh) video on Wolfgang Puck's site - and there's no mention in the (surprisingly good) explanation that the cans may explode (funny that).
Also, check out this guy's dissection of a used can.
I'm going to disagree too.
In your photograph & screw examples - how are you deprived if someone copies said screw or photograph? You still have the priceless photo of your parents, you still have the screw holding up your shelf.
Thus, by copying the work, you have deprived the owner of the value of the work as the owner sees it--namely, the cash he can make from selling it.
For how long? You make it sound like a natural right, rather then a government mandated monopoly.
Remember - I was advocating people copy a 30 year old work, that has made its owner a lot of money - not wholesale breaking of copyright across the board.
Congratulations to Zonk. You've authored an article containing 14 words (or words containing) 'spell' - and not a single spelling mistake (unlike this post).
Truly, a Slashdot first!
I await the spelling mistakes in the inevitable dupe (and the corrections to my spelling in the inevitable replies)
Of course!
*hugs pieinthesky*
Better?
Thank you - you also.