View Single Post
Old 9th-May-2006, 12:03 AM   #8 (permalink)
Barry Shnikov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 5,846
Status: No Status
Rep Power: 4 Rep.: 1226
Barry Shnikov is a name known to allBarry Shnikov is a name known to allBarry Shnikov is a name known to allBarry Shnikov is a name known to allBarry Shnikov is a name known to allBarry Shnikov is a name known to allBarry Shnikov is a name known to allBarry Shnikov is a name known to allBarry Shnikov is a name known to all
Re: Apple beats Beatles

Quote:
Originally Posted by ducasi
I don't think this was a major issue in the case – it was about the iTunes Music Store.

The judge ruled that just because it says "Apple" on the outside of the store, there was no confusion over who had created the products inside it.

Apple here are a bit like Woolworth's... Just because it says Woolworth's on the shop, you're not going to think that you're going to be buying "Woolworth's Records" CDs in the shop.
As I understand it, Apple agreed twice in the past not to get involved in the music business. This is (at least in part) a contractual dispute. I think the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords are quite likely to take a different view of the argument - Apple Computers may not be selling vinyl or CDs or tapes, but to suggest that iTunes and iPod are simply data storage and retrieval devices unrelated to music can't be right.

As for ESG, the point is that if it's just data storage, earpieces are not required. Only if it's an audio retrieval mechanism will earpieces be required. If it's storing .jpg or .raw files, like a Compact Flash card, earpieces will be - well, superfluous. It's also worth pointing out that a true data storage device, like Compact Flash, does not itself interpret the data, but requires another device - digital camera, PC - to convert the data into a form humans can interact with.
Barry Shnikov is offline   Reply With Quote