Apple beats Beatles

[azande]

From The Register: Beatles recording company Apple Corporation has failed to persuade the English High Court that Apple Computer's iTunes Music Service is a violation of a 1991 deal struck by the two companies to define their respective business domains.

[Aleks]

For those of us who have minimal interest in these things...
:yawn:.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Originally Posted by Aleks

For those of us who have minimal interest in these things...
:yawn:.

Would you like for some of us to post ":yawn:" in all the threads that you enjoy, too?

[drathzel]

Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo

Would you like for some of us to post ":yawn:" in all the threads that you enjoy, too?

Go ahead, although it might take you a while!

[Barry Shnikov]

Originally Posted by azande

From The Register: Beatles recording company Apple Corporation has failed to persuade the English High Court that Apple Computer's iTunes Music Service is a violation of a 1991 deal struck by the two companies to define their respective business domains.

Don't count your chickens just yet. The judge (apparently) accepted Apple Computer's argument that an iPod is simply a data storage device. In my view that is eminently appealable on the grounds when was the last time you saw a Zip drive with headphones?

The sad part about it is that if Northern Songs hadn't been sold then this money would be small change to the Beatles and their heirs - well, Lennon and McCartney mostly. Michael Jackson recently, reportedly, sold 50% of his 50% holding in (what used to be) Northern Songs for a figure north of £300 million. To Sony Corp, who already owned the 25% that Jackson didn't own. He sold that a while ago and p!ssed it away on [words redacted by libel filter] one after the other, resulting legal costs and his poxy Wonderland.

[ducasi]

Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov

Don't count your chickens just yet. The judge (apparently) accepted Apple Computer's argument that an iPod is simply a data storage device. In my view that is eminently appealable on the grounds when was the last time you saw a Zip drive with headphones?

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.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov

Don't count your chickens just yet. The judge (apparently) accepted Apple Computer's argument that an iPod is simply a data storage device. In my view that is eminently appealable on the grounds when was the last time you saw a Zip drive with headphones?

Why choose a zip drive as your archetypal data storage device? Part of the concept of a data storage device is to be able to retrieve the data, and if the data is music, then the set of headphones is just a retrieval mechanism, like the Firewire or USB interface.

Besides, as Ducasi points out, did the case really hinge on the iPod? Surely not - since I can download from iTunes and create a CD or use my PC to play back the music - uses to which Apple Corp to exception equally.

[Barry Shnikov]

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.

[ducasi]

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.

[El Salsero Gringo]

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.

True, it's a contractual dispute, so any judgement is going to turn on the precise wording of the contract. Have you read - all of - the contract? If not, then this is just supposition, and pretty pointless.

Originally Posted by Barry

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.

There's never been in existence a data storage device which doesn't include a suitable retrieval mechanism - it would be as useful a paperweight, so I don't see that you can or should separate them. Alternatively, you can argue that the earpieces are a separate device and not part of the iPod (which they are, in fact.)

Originally Posted by Barry

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.

By that argument even the computer is a data storage device (for images) and it's the video screen that converts the data to human-readable format (unless you can stick your finger in the VGA socket and make sense of the voltages you feel at your finger...) That certainly applies to the iPod/headphones too.

[Barry Shnikov]

Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo

True, it's a contractual dispute, so any judgement is going to turn on the precise wording of the contract. Have you read - all of - the contract? If not, then this is just supposition, and pretty pointless.

Rather like existence. Nonetheless, I have read the judgment in full and found I fell into the trap I usually avoid like the plague - to wit, relying on a newspaper report of legal matters. The judge did not find that an iPod was a data storage device.

Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo

There's never been in existence a data storage device which doesn't include a suitable retrieval mechanism - it would be as useful a paperweight, so I don't see that you can or should separate them. Alternatively, you can argue that the earpieces are a separate device and not part of the iPod (which they are, in fact.)

I disagree. Although it depends on how you define a retrieval mechanism. A cassette or CD is a data storage device, but it has no retrieval mechanism. You have to process the data - with a tape deck (Die Hard: Takagi "Hey, we're flexible. Pearl Harbour didn't work out so we got you with tape decks) or a CD Player to utilise the data.

Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo

By that argument even the computer is a data storage device (for images) and it's the video screen that converts the data to human-readable format (unless you can stick your finger in the VGA socket and make sense of the voltages you feel at your finger...) That certainly applies to the iPod/headphones too.

Well, yes. Unless you consider (as I think I probably do) that a computer is all the components. and therefore separating the system unit from the monitor is only possible due to an accident of history. cf original Macintosh computers. And in fact the more recent ones. This means that the system unit contains a data storage device - RAM, the hard disk - but is capable of processing the data and putting it out in several meaningful ways - screen, printer, Soundblaster.

[El Salsero Gringo]

You know, I've forgotten which bits of your posts I was trying to argue with, or why. Something about storing iPods, but the rest has just gone...
In fact, what's my name again?