Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple v Apple Decision on May 8?

dogbone said:
It's really that simple.

I've won plenty of court cases and my gut reaction after reading the details is that the wording of the law will apply and the 'spirit of the law' argument in this case will fail.

The argument for the 'spirit of the law' being what is in the minds of the consumer will not stand up. It may feebly raise it's head, but it will be ruthlessly kicked down. It's a fantasy from the expensive barrister robber-barrons representing Apple Corps.
Click to expand...

Sad to see Apple corps not realising that barristers will tell them anything to get a brief. The whole case boiled down to bumped electrons not being physical media. It was never going to stand up.
 
On a roll...

Apple (Computer) is on a roll - last week the 99 cent pricing plus French DRM on the ropes - this week sees off the Beatles and (hopefully) launches MacBook!

Can't wait for the week after - what could possibly top all this off?
 
macca said:
Apple (Computer) is on a roll - last week the 99 cent pricing plus French DRM on the ropes - this week sees off the Beatles and (hopefully) launches MacBook!

Can't wait for the week after - what could possibly top all this off?
Click to expand...
I nearly got an Apple store to say what was coming out on Tuesday, but he confirmed something would be!! 🙄
 
The facts

From CNN.com

Apple outsings Beatles in trademark court battle
London judge determines the iPod maker committed no breach of trademark agreement against Beatle-owned Apple Corps.
May 8, 2006: 6:25 AM EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - Apple Computer is not liable for trademark infringement against Apple Corps, the music company owned by the Beatles, a judge in London's High Court ruled on Monday.

Apple Corps, owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono and the estate of George Harrison, argued the computer company had violated a 1991 trademark agreement by moving into the music business through its market-leading iTunes online store.

Apple Computer (Research) argued in court hearings in London earlier this year that iTunes was primarily a data transmission service, which is permitted by the agreement.

The 1991 out-of-court settlement, which included a $26 million payment by Apple Computer, set out areas in which each party would have exclusive use of their respective fruit-shaped logos.

"I find no breach of the trademark agreement has been demonstrated," Mr Justice Mann said in his judgment. "The action therefore fails.

Apple Corps said it would appeal the decision, while Apple Computer was awarded court costs.
 
No What?

It is better that Apple Computer won vs. losing. However, it does not ssem that this entire spat over corporate logos is over. The 1991 agreement is still in effect, albeit it did not apply in this case. And thus Apple Corps can come back and sue again.
It will be interesting to see the final wording of the judgment and see if Apple Corps truly does appeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back