Yeah dave we could, but Im not bothering as you wouldnt be able to understand it anyway.

Quote from: Dave

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.

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: Dave

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.

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: Dave

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 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?