Quote from: brummie

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

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?

Ã, 
Well, I hope Apple/iPod lose regardless!

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.