View Single Post
Old 9th-May-2006, 08:21 AM   #9 (permalink)
ducasi
Lovely Moderator
 
ducasi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 9,646
Status: back down with a thump.
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 6 Rep.: 3281
ducasi is a splendid one to beholdducasi is a splendid one to beholdducasi is a splendid one to beholdducasi is a splendid one to beholdducasi is a splendid one to beholdducasi is a splendid one to beholdducasi is a splendid one to beholdducasi is a splendid one to beholdducasi is a splendid one to beholdducasi is a splendid one to beholdducasi is a splendid one to behold
Re: Apple beats Beatles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov
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.
But the agreement signed back in the '90's explicitly allowed Apple to distribute music in an electronic format.

And when Apple Computer originally showed the iTunes Music Store to Apple Corps, they had no complaints.

Again, the iPod is not part of the dispute. Apple Corps wanted Apple to stop using the name "Apple" in connection with the iTMS, and asked the court for an injunction which would have effectively shut it down. They didn't ask to have sales of the iPod stopped.
__________________
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
ducasi is offline   Reply With Quote