http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4854408.stm
So it looks like Apple has more problems than enough to solve...
Just a bunch of money grabbing lawyers tbh... Cant stand this crap tbh... all those people waisting all that court time just because some paper pusher in one company has seen an opportunity to make a few bob from another company just by taking them to court. I hope apple* loses & has to pay apples** legals costs.
*the record lable
**the computer company
Its not about that. Apple (computers) signed a deal years ago and now they have broken it. Telling me you wouldnt sue Dave? I know i would.
Id agree with brummie.... look at the dispute over the WWF trademark...... id sue as well
I agree with Dave that wasting of the courts time is annoying, but this doesnt look like a waste of time to me. Apple Computer have violated the legally binding agreement with Apple Corps, hence they are guilty of an offence, hence they are taken to court.
looks like a perfectly sensible use of the courts time to me. Go Apple Corps!!! (/me begins waving supporting banners and whistling Beatles numbers)
thing is none of you know what the actual agreement was or whether they have actually broken it - that is the whole point of the trial
you dont get legal agreements that say "I agree to keep out of the music business"
apple is a common word - the apple computers logo is completely different to the apple records logo
tis just a bunch of money grabbing lawyers who have seen an opportunity to make some money
cant believe they got away with it a few decades ago either - would be like apple computers suing all the people who have started sticking i infront of thier product names since the success of ipod/iTunes
If theyd have trademarked/copyrighted the idea they could.... and make a killing off of it!
Quote from: Davething is none of you know what the actual agreement was or whether they have actually broken it - that is the whole point of the trial
you dont get legal agreements that say "I agree to keep out of the music business"
apple is a common word - the apple computers logo is completely different to the apple records logo
tis just a bunch of money grabbing lawyers who have seen an opportunity to make some money
cant believe they got away with it a few decades ago either - would be like apple computers suing all the people who have started sticking i infront of thier product names since the success of ipod/iTunes
Well you start up a software company and call it windows
apple agreed not to get in the music business BTW
If people stick i in front of things its to imitate apples products and make money off there success/name. They are basically robbing the name.
Quote from: brummieWell you start up a software company and call it windows
not the same thing - "apple computers" - "apple corp" (music company)
plenty of other companies out there have the word "windows" in thier name
Quoteapple agreed not to get in the music business BTW
like I said before - you dont actually know what they agreed - you cant agree to "keep out of the music business" - define the music business etc...
Quote from: Davedefine the music business etc..
buying/selling/producing/making/fencing/leasing/renting music??
QuoteGeoffrey Vos QC, representing Apple Corps, said the computer firm had been keen to use the Apple brand on its Music Store and offered to buy the rights from Apple Corps for $1m (Ã,£576,500) just before iTunes launched.
If there was nothing wrong with what they were doing then why would they want to pay them off???
Quote from: Daveplenty of other companies out there have the word "windows" in thier name
Yeah but your local glazing company hasnt branched out into software, has it :D
Quote from: brummiebuying/selling/producing/making/fencing/leasing/renting music??
yes but what exactly was covered by the legal agreement - um you dont know! - thus you cant say that agreement has been broken until the trial finishes.
QuoteIf there was nothing wrong with what they were doing then why would they want to pay them off???
to stop them from taking them to court
Quote from: SaraQuote from: Daveplenty of other companies out there have the word "windows" in thier name
Yeah but your local glazing company hasnt branched out into software, has it :D
:stupid: :lol: :D
Quote from: Daveto stop them from taking them to court
so they must have had an agreement if apple comp wanted to make sure that apple corps couldnt take them to court
Quote from: SaraQuote from: Daveplenty of other companies out there have the word "windows" in thier name
Yeah but your local glazing company hasnt branched out into software, has it :D
apple hasnt started selling records/producing music either
I doubt very much the agreement they had covered the electronic storage of music & distribution of it in this form - thus the need for the trial
Quote from: brummieQuote from: Daveto stop them from taking them to court
so they must have had an agreement if apple comp wanted to make sure that apple corps couldnt take them to court
they had an agreement but it didnt necessarily cover the area in dispute - If you think you know what thier agreement covered & are certian they broke it then please could you post the actual agreement & highlight which bit of it they broke.
Saying they had an agreement & it was broken is meaningless - what exactly was the agreement & which bit of it got broken.
Dave you dont know either so how can you say its a waste of time & money?? Im going on what was said in that article which is about what was said in court. How do you know different??
Im saying it is a waste of time because it is a pointless court case - apple corp & apple computers are not likely to be confused - the logos are completely different & apple corp basically just deals with beatles stuff - tis hardly going to affect the business operations of apple corps at all - it isnt as though apple computers are making records or signing artists.
also after the arguments over apples music production software in the 90s they agreed that
QuoteApple Corps was awarded rights to the name on ?creative works whose principal content is music? while Apple Computer was allowed ?goods and services . . . used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content?
Quote from: Daveapple hasnt started selling records/producing music either
Really? Then what in hell is iTunes all about?
mp3s are not records & apple is distributing content provided by 3rd party production companies - as far as Im aware they havent signed any artists themselves.
I think thats close enough to be an issue. mp3s arent records, neither are tapes, minidiscs or CDs but I bet thered be an issue with those.
Like Microsoft (probably) dont care about a glazing company called Windows, I daresay theyd start bringing in the lawyers if that glazing company decided to start selling windows with embedded monitor capabilities and then began to sell lots of various bits of software to go with them...
point is that it isnt really affecting apple corps business - they are just money grabbing
How do you know it isnt affecting their business??
Apple Corp vs Apple is like Paramount video suing blockbuster.
Apple corp produce records.
Apple sell records.
They should be going hand in hand, not bloody at each others throats. Apple dont affect Apple Corp business as they dont sign artists.
Quote from: brummieHow do you know it isnt affecting their business??
company dealing with former beatles hits vs company making music players & distributing 3rd party music in electronic form.
well I guess they are both involved in music in some way but I really dont see how that can actually affect each others business
unless you can explaing how apple computers is costing apple corp several million pounds in lost revenue?
Quote from: Daveapple hasnt started selling records/producing music either
They dont have to, the deal was on music, thats why Apple computers tried to buy Corps out with a $1 million offer, actually the offer was for a relative pittance. Apple computers agreed they would not move into the music business and that is what the case is about.
Quote from: Davepoint is that it isnt really affecting apple corps business - they are just money grabbing
The Apple name and logo is regarded as property, if one side has broken a legal deal then the other has the right to seek compensation, thats just good business practice.
Every penny going to Apple computers is one penny not going to some other company and Apple Core have more than the old Beatles records on their list.
serious it isnt quite as simple as that
saying the deal was on music is vague rubbish & meaningless
apple corps dont sell music online so no every penny going to apple is not a penny lost by apple corps - dont be so naive it is a money grabbing opportunity that they think is worth persuing becuase then may have a chance of winning depending on the contract involved - it has got nothing to do with a loss of revenue on the part of apple corps.
Ones a Macintosh, the other is a Granny Smith.
Now can we just all get along? :lol:
Ã,Â
Well, I hope Apple/iPod lose regardless! ;) :twisted:
I would have to say that it should only be a problem if there would be confusion leading to the company making money based on a person believing that one company was the other.
It is very very unlikely that someone would mistake the itunes website which is a subsiduary of the main apple.com site as part of the apple corp company.
As someone is unlikely to try and buy windows for their house from microsoft.com
If a small cola company used the coke or pepsi logo to sell their product that i would agree would be infringing on their trademark as the company is trying to relate their product to someone elses to confuse
Apple is a big and widely known trademark and the use of their logo on the itunes site is totally valid as it is part of their company. To say that is trying to cash in off a relatively small company in comparison, which i imagine alot fewer people know of its existance is farcical.
Apple Records sued Apple Computer years ago, Apple computer agreed not to get involved in _any_ way with the music business, while apple records agreed they would not enter the computer business.
It actually got to court IIRC and Apple Computer agreed to the terms that APple Records put forward. Initially Apple record wanted them to stop using the brand completeley, but they agreed that as long as neither party entered the others business there was no further case to answer. IIRC Apple records got a chucnk of money as well at the same time.
Quote from: Daveserious it isnt quite as simple as that
saying the deal was on music is vague rubbish & meaningless
apple corps dont sell music online so no every penny going to apple is not a penny lost by apple corps - dont be so naive it is a money grabbing opportunity that they think is worth persuing becuase then may have a chance of winning depending on the contract involved - it has got nothing to do with a loss of revenue on the part of apple corps.
No, there was a precise agreement, Apple computers broke it before and had to pay Ã,£17 million ($30 million). now they have broken it again so they have to pay more money in damages.
It doesnt matter how Apple Corps sells their music its how the agreement was produced, there was no differentiation in format so selling it as a music file across the web is equally against the agreement. Apple Computers *know* they are in the wrong.
Quote from: SweensterApple is a big and widely known trademark and the use of their logo on the itunes site is totally valid as it is part of their company. To say that is trying to cash in off a relatively small company in comparison, which i imagine alot fewer people know of its existance is farcical.
Its a case that Apple have agreed to not do something and then they went ahead and did it, its a moral issue and not about losses.
Quote from: SeriousNo, there was a precise agreement, Apple computers broke it before and had to pay Ã,£17 million ($30 million). now they have broken it again so they have to pay more money in damages.
It doesnt matter how Apple Corps sells their music its how the agreement was produced, there was no differentiation in format so selling it as a music file across the web is equally against the agreement. Apple Computers *know* they are in the wrong.
LOL - so weve gone from the agreement was about music to there was a precise agreement - ok then serious which bit of this agreement was broken then? what exactly did this precise agreement contain? - I doubt very much there is anything precise or clear cut about this case though what is fairly certina is that apple corps are money grabbing.
All companies are money grabbing, some more than others.
and if you want specifics look them up yourself, its easy enough to google.
Im asking you which specific bit of the agreement has actually been breached - you said:
QuoteNo, there was a precise agreement, Apple computers broke it before and had to pay Ã,£17 million ($30 million). now they have broken it again so they have to pay more money in damages.
Im asking you to quote the actual precise agreement that they have breeched with the iTunes service & explain exactly what they have done to breech it? - I dont think you can which is why I think your statement above is complete rubbish.
You cant say for sure that they have broken it as you dont actually know what the agreement contains.
My argument however is that apple corps is just money grabbing simply because they can & iTunes isnt affecting thier business at all.
Quote from: DaveYou cant say for sure that they have broken it as you dont actually know what the agreement contains.
apart from the bit where Apple computer agreed many years back to not ship computers with advanced sound capability, and not become directly involved with the music business?
I think iTunes would class as directly involved with the music business, wouldnt you?
Yes, i would!
I bet Dave wont ;) :P
I do wish people would stop getting brainwashed by the media and start thinking for themselves. Yes we all know there was an agreement, we all know it was to do with music. What we cant say for sure is whether it has been broken or not. My position is that apple corps is simply money grabbing whether the agreement has been broken or not yet we have a bunch of people who are convinced already that the agreement has been broken without even knowing what the agreement covered.
Quote from: brummieApple (computers) signed a deal years ago and now they have broken it.
Quote from: MongooseApple Computer have violated the legally binding agreement with Apple Corps, hence they are guilty of an offence,numbers)
Quote from: SeriousNo, there was a precise agreement, Apple computers broke it before and had to pay Ã,£17 million ($30 million). now they have broken it again so they have to pay more money in damages.
So without posting vague rubbish, links to general stories or speculation can any of you actually state which part of the agreement was actually broken or are we going to just have more vague drivel along the lines of the agreement was about music and iTunes is to do with music so it must have been broken! We know the agreement was to do with the music business however agreements arent drawn up on scraps of paper saying "we agree to have nowt to do with music & stuff innit" what exactly did they agree to & how was it broken? Can one of you people actually explain this? (back it up please dont just post the same rubbish that has been posted already)
Quote from: Beakerapart from the bit where Apple computer agreed many years back to not ship computers with advanced sound capability, and not become directly involved with the music business?
I think iTunes would class as directly involved with the music business, wouldnt you?
stop being so obtuse - you wont get a legal agreement saying we agree to not be directly involved in the music business
they will have agreed not to take part in specific activities - whether or not iTunes is covered by the agreement is for the court to decide because strangly enough electronic media wasnt widly distributed via the internet at the time of thier last agreement.
Quote from: Davestop being so obtuse - you wont get a legal agreement saying we agree to not be directly involved in the music businessQuotethat was _exactly_ what they got. Apple Corp agreed not to pursue Apple Computer any further if they agreed to terms as laid down by Apple Corp. Apple agreed to the terms, and included in there was that Apple Comp would not get involved in Producing, Licencing or Distributing music without the express permission of Apple Corp.
Quote from: Beakerthat was _exactly_ what they got.
prove it then
Quote from: DaveQuote from: Beakerthat was _exactly_ what they got.
prove it then
we have this from the 2004 High Court Rulings tha appplies directly the the present case.
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2468/apple-v-apple.htmthis referencing both the 1991 and current rulings
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=8012sometimes i like The Guardians Archiving Fetish
http://www.guardian.co.uk/thebeatles/story/0,11212,606522,00.htmlvarious other sources, but Apple Corps reserved the right to music distribution. I remeber it at the time, i was keeping up to date with it because i was a long standing apple user.
edit: there is also the little issue of Trade Mark Law. If two companies use the same name or trademark, yet do not trade in the same field there is no issue, however if they do trade in the same field then the person using the trademark in that field the longest has prior claim, therefore the right to use it.
Examples of this are scattered around all over the place. For example I run a website called "prestone", it concerns itself with the local music scene around Preston (my home town). Here is a US Company called Prestone, they sell antfreeze and car accessories. Now as long as i dont enter their market im perfectly fine from a legal standpoint, and conversely as long as they dont enter mine they are fine from a legal standpoint. Its trademarks and patents law defining areas of business.
A nice short version on El Reg:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/03/31/apple_vs_apple_day_two/
Quote from: DaveSo without posting vague rubbish, links to general stories or speculation can any of you actually state which part of the agreement was actually broken or are we going to just have more vague drivel along the lines of the agreement was about music and iTunes is to do with music so it must have been broken!
Is anyone going to actually state how they can say for sure that the agreement has been broken by apple computers or are we just going to get more links giving the outline of the case?
The end of the above link posted by sara pretty much sums up my understanding of the case - one side is arguing that they havent specifically breached the agreement the other side is arguing that the principle of the agreement has been breached. - Whether it has or not has yet to be decided in the high court.
for example apple computers is covered for
Quote, data transmission services, broadcasting services, telecommunications services;
So will any of the people who are so certian that the agreement has been breached actually be able to back up their claim? or are you all just speculating? Im not saying it has or hasnt - what I am saying is that if you believe it has on the basis of a few media reports & the fact that the agreement was to do with music & iTunes is to do with music then you are pretty naive at best. They wouldnt go as far as a case in the high court if both sides didnt think they had a good chance of winning.
Yeah dave we could, but Im not bothering as you wouldnt be able to understand it anyway.
Quote from: DaveQuote from: DaveSo without posting vague rubbish, links to general stories or speculation can any of you actually state which part of the agreement was actually broken or are we going to just have more vague drivel along the lines of the agreement was about music and iTunes is to do with music so it must have been broken!
Is anyone going to actually state how they can say for sure that the agreement has been broken by apple computers or are we just going to get more links giving the outline of the case?
The end of the above link posted by sara pretty much sums up my understanding of the case - one side is arguing that they havent specifically breached the agreement the other side is arguing that the principle of the agreement has been breached. - Whether it has or not has yet to be decided in the high court.
So will any of the people who claim that the agreement has been breached actually be able to back up their claim? or are you all just speculating?
do you still thinks its a waste of time and money protecting your property?
Quote from: DaveQuote from: DaveSo without posting vague rubbish, links to general stories or speculation can any of you actually state which part of the agreement was actually broken or are we going to just have more vague drivel along the lines of the agreement was about music and iTunes is to do with music so it must have been broken!
Is anyone going to actually state how they can say for sure that the agreement has been broken by apple computers or are we just going to get more links giving the outline of the case?
The end of the above link posted by sara pretty much sums up my understanding of the case - one side is arguing that they havent specifically breached the agreement the other side is arguing that the principle of the agreement has been breached. - Whether it has or not has yet to be decided in the high court.
So will any of the people who claim that the agreement has been breached actually be able to back up their claim? or are you all just speculating?
you dont read the pages do you.
QuoteApple Computer agreed it could use the Apple logo for computers, data processing and telecommunications. Apple Corp retained it for music.
from the 2nd link.
plus do a little research, the contract eventually leaked into the public domain. That is likely where MacWorld got the info from. This is a Trademarks case.
it is a fairly simple request guys - Im just asking you to back up what you have stated & you cant.
Quote from: Daveit is a fairly simple request guys - Im just asking you to back up what you have stated & you cant.
or you are being intenttionally dumb, we know you arent stupid man.
As simply as i can explain:
Apple Computer hold the Trademark "Apple" for the Selling of computer hardware, telecoms and data.
Apple Records hold the Trademark "Apple" for the distributionand sale of music.
There are 45 business classes as regonised under British Law. These fall into 2 main groups. "Goods" and "Services". There are 34 classes of goods, and the remainder are "services". Companies may trade in any combination of classes, rovided another company doesnt already do so.
For Example:
Lets say "Alpha Tek" make household electronics like TVs, while "Alpha Tech" make computer equipment. Both can use "Alpha" as their recognised rading name. However neither of them could legally enter the others market without using a different name. Lets say "Alpha Tek" started churning out computers, then "Alpha Tech" could sue them under their Trademarks Act 1994 for breaching their Trademark.
It is what stops otehr companies opening up a software house and calling it "Microsoft", or starting brewing beer and calling yourself "Bass"
Quote from: brummiedo you still thinks its a waste of time and money protecting your property?
No I think that apple corps is out to make money by taking advantage its intelectual property rights. The case isnt all that clear cut however and I hope apple computers wins - they have come up with a fairly inventive & well designed music player & knocked up a distribution service to go with it.
for example apple computers is covered by the agreement to distribute data & the service they are offering doesnt affect apple corps business.
Quote from: SeriousYeah dave we could, but Im not bothering as you wouldnt be able to understand it anyway.
LOL you mean you had a quick yahoo - couldnt find anything - couldnt think of an argument to back up your side of the debate & so have resorted to insults.
Quote from: BeakerAs simply as i can explain:
Apple Computer hold the Trademark "Apple" for the Selling of computer hardware, telecoms and data.
Apple Records hold the Trademark "Apple" for the distributionand sale of music.
Im not looking for a simple explanation as it isnt a simple case - we know that apple computers deal with computers & we know that apple corps deal with music - that doesnt mean that a website distributing music on behalf of 3rd party copmanies in electronic form necessarily breaches the agreement.
If people are so sure that one side is in the right then back up your argument - stating that apple corps deals with music
& iTunes is to do with music therefore apple corps wins isnt necessarily correct - youve got a 50% chance that you are right - but you arent necessarily right.
Quote from: DaveNo I think that apple corps is out to make money by taking advantage its intelectual property rights.
Like apple corps are the first to want to protect what is theirs??
If someone was robbing your bike you left outside a shop while you bought your sweeties would you want it back? They could claim they found it. Doesnt mean they have a right to take it. Theft is theft and im pretty sure apple corps wouldnt take on the bigger apple comp if they thought they didnt have a case.
Quote from: DaveQuote from: BeakerAs simply as i can explain:
Apple Computer hold the Trademark "Apple" for the Selling of computer hardware, telecoms and data.
Apple Records hold the Trademark "Apple" for the distributionand sale of music.
Im not looking for a simple explanation as it isnt a simple case - we know that apple computers deal with computers & we know that apple corps deal with music - that doesnt mean that a website distributing music on behalf of 3rd party copmanies in electronic form necessarily breaches the agreement.
If people are so sure that one side is in the right then back up your argument - stating that apple corps deals with music
& iTunes is to do with music therefore apple corps wins is simply generalising the entire case.
it breaches the agreement because Apple Computer have become involved with the distribution of music. They agreed not to do so. Its Trademark law, backed up with a written contract. Apple Corps is likely to win this one tbh, the law is more likely to rule in favour of Apple Corps than Apple Computer, if they rule for Apple Computer then it opens the floodgates to massive abuses. For instance you would be perfectly within your rights set by legal presidence to start making cars and call yourself "Ford Motors"
Quote from: DaveIf people are so sure that one side is in the right then back up your argument - stating that apple corps deals with music
& iTunes is to do with music therefore apple corps wins isnt necessarily correct - youve got a 50% chance that you are right - but you arent necessarily right.
LOL why are you right??
Apple Corps is way way way out of line. Apple computer cannot create content under the agreement, but it says nothing about distribution. End of story.
If you want better protection from this sort of nonsense, create a better company name instead of using the obvious.
Compaq, for example, is a company that made up their own word, and would have an easy time defending trademark violation.
Quote from: maximusotterApple Corps is way way way out of line. Apple computer cannot create content under the agreement, but it says nothing about distribution.
I think it did mate. IIRC According to the Times article i read, distribution was included.
Basically, when the latest deal was drawn up, they didnt put on their future-caps and see how much the audiovisual and computing world would start meshing into each other.
So Apple comps have a piece of paper saying they can use the name apple to distribute any data in any way they see fit.
Apple corps on the other hand have a piece of paper saying they have all the rights to use apple with anything concerning music.
Ideally, never the twain shall meet.
But both of these, nowadays, overlap. But they didnt in 1991.
So its a big old argument. Personally I think apple comps knows it is treading on the toes of apple corps - but it isnt going to let go of its handy sheet of paper which allows it the loophole to distribute music.
Arent those agreements from before internet music distribution was even a tingle in a hackers pants?
Quote from: maximusotterArent those agreements from before internet music distribution was even a tingle in a hackers pants?
yup, but they are still legally binding.
QuoteCritically, however, the agreement prevented Apple Computer from distributing content on physical media. This was designed to cover CDs and tapes, but it is unclear whether it included later inventions such as digital music files or devices used to play them.
Apple Computer will argue that its music service, which has sold more than a billion songs since 2002, is merely data transmission.
I think apple corps are trying to prove that ipod is delivering music on a physical media. If apple had no restrictions on how the media was used after it was downloaded they may have got away with the just data transmission.
Time will tell
Quote from: brummieLOL why are you right??
that is what Im asking you to explain - if you can that is.
Ive not actually put forward a view as to whether the agreement has been broken or not - Im not sure tbh... as I think the case isnt all that clear cut. You on the other hand have stated that it has & yet you cant actually explain why it has.
read my last post
yes you are speculating again - why cant you back up the statement of fact you made previously though? I think that might have something to do with the fact the trial hasnt come to a conclusion yet.
??
stop editing ya posts DOH
What friggin fact are we on about here??
Im asking you why you are so sure that apple computers has broken the agreement - as far as I can tell the case isnt clear cut
(http://img125.echo.cx/img125/7155/attention9ha.gif)
Quote from: timesonline.co.ukCritically, however, the agreement prevented Apple Computer from distributing content on physical media. This was designed to cover CDs and tapes, but it is unclear whether it included later inventions such as digital music files or devices used to play them.
Apple Computer will argue that its music service, which has sold more than a billion songs since 2002, is merely data transmission.
it isnt hard brummie - just think for yourself & explain your reasoning.
Btw.. your times quote is supporting my pov.
Quotebut it is unclear whether it included later inventions such as digital music files or devices used to play them.
Are you going to actually back up your previous statment or have you now changed your mind?
WTF are you on about??
Im asking you to explain how you can, at this point, know for sure that apple computers has actually broken the agreement - IMO it isnt all that clear thus the need for a trial.
Apple Comps has broken the agreement, by walking all over Apple Corps turf - yet it hasnt actually breached any of the conditions on the piece of paper that says what Apple Comps is allowed to do.
Lots of turf overlappage. They *have* broken the agreement - but at the same time - they havent.
the agreement is the bit of paper & they may well have breached the conditions on it tbh...
Well in my story, there were two bits of paper :p
While Apple comps hasnt done anything wrong on their sheet, Apple corps are screaming and shouting waving their own piece in the air going "WTF?!"
LOL either way it isnt clear cut which is why Im trying to get some reasoning out of the various other peeps who seem to think that apple computers are definately the ones at fault.
I think Apple comps have been cheeky as hell, working the loophole for all its got, because its obvious the original agreement was for one firm to stick to music, and the other to computing.
Given the way multimedia & PCs have gone hand-in-hand for a good 10 years now, in was kind of inevitable that there was going to be some conflict here, and I dont blame Apple comps for making the most of it. But I hope theyll make some kind of concession to Apple corps
Quote from: DaveLOL either way it isnt clear cut which is why Im trying to get some reasoning out of the various other peeps who seem to think that apple computers are definately the ones at fault.
So youve gone from- "they are completely wasting time and money" to "maybe its not so clear cut and it should be sorted by the courts"
Quote from: DaveJust a bunch of money grabbing lawyers tbh... Cant stand this crap tbh... all those people waisting all that court time just because some paper pusher in one company has seen an opportunity to make a few bob from another company just by taking them to court. I hope apple* loses & has to pay apples** legals costs.
*the record lable
**the computer company
Agreed! I hate it when that happens! It does sound amusing until you realise theyre 2 totally different companies then its not funny as its just 2 different companies.
Quote from: brummieQuote from: DaveLOL either way it isnt clear cut which is why Im trying to get some reasoning out of the various other peeps who seem to think that apple computers are definately the ones at fault.
So youve gone from- "they are completely wasting time and money" to "maybe its not so clear cut and it should be sorted by the courts"
LOL
um no
Im saying that they are money grabbing & dont deserve to win but whether they win is another matter.
So are you finaly going to support your original statement?
Dave your gonna have to point it out to me (http://img116.exs.cx/img116/934/z0tdntknw.gif)
I have done several times.
Quote from: DaveI have done several times.
thats nice :roll:
well are you going to back it up or not?
you said apple computers had broken the agreement - how could you be sure?
ill let you know at the end of the case ;)
LOL - so basically your statement was actually just a guess & there is a 50/50 chance you may be right ;)
Quote from: DaveLOL - so basically your statement was actually just a guess & there is a 50/50 chance you may be right ;)
TBH may assessmant was based on the "Factual" information given by varying third parties. Im not the one makeing the wild accusation before i read anything about the case
And TBH again i dont really care
Quote from: brummieIm not the one makeing the wild accusation before i read anything about the case
And TBH again i dont really care
um actually you were - you made a wild accusation and I asked you to back it up
but never mind
Dave you said it was a waste of time and money then you changed your mind and are waiting for the outcome.
If you actually took your head out your arsehole then youd know why i put what i did :roll:
youve missed the point again - Ive not stated whether I think they will win or not or whether the agreement has been broken - Ive said that I think they are money grabbing.
youve stated that apple computers have broekn the agreement - all Im asking you to do is explain your reasoning - youve since failed to do so for about 5 pages & have resorted to posting the occasional news link, quote or silly picture.
Ive already made my point. Its not my fault you cant see it :roll:
Im asking you to actually backup what you originally said - that is all.
TBH ive made my point earilier in the thread and i aint going over it again as i really dont give a FC UK what happens.
LOL - :D - I know youve made your point, you said that in your previous post. Im not asking you to make your point Im asking you to back up your point. In fact I asked you to do it a while ago & you kept posting silly pictures & links to news stories.
Whatever
:lol: go on - post another funny pic brummie and derail the thread even more :roll: :lol:
If you on about the pay attention smilie thing i posted its because you really need to. If it offeneded you then sorry but i meant it!!
Quote from: Dave:lol: go on - post another funny pic brummie and derail the thread even more :roll: :lol:
Dave stop being a complete muppet.
sorry but it is you two who are being a bit retarded here - Ive just asked for a simple explanation to support a statement made & it has now gone on for several pages.
i did my bit try rereading. Retarded probably aint the nicest word to use tbh.
tis pretty accurate
"To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede."
the thread is going round in circles tbh.. I read you pov brummie Im asking you to back it up. If you think youve done so already then crack on & simply press the quote button but if you cant be bothered to back up what you stated then please dont bother posting silly pictures, links to news stories or one word replies saying wtf? & Whatever etc...
Enough.
Thread locked. If any of the other mods enjoy self flagellation, they may open it.
FWIW, on the subject of Aple vs Apple: I dont give a crap, so Im not closing with bias against anybody.
Well try again tomorrow when youve all had time to reflect.
Id prefer you didnt but its your choice Clockd ;)