Here is an interesting article about two famous "Apples"
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article354474.ece
Your thoughts?
Apple vs. Apple
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main
|
skip to sidebar
Egypt6 © 2005
3 comments:
Wow, that's... really dumb. Is it me, or does it just seem like the British Apple is trying to make a quick buck off Steve Jobs and co.? I just can't see how Apple Computer creating a digital download service would have any effect on the business of the other Apple. Is anyone going to get them confused?
I mean, one is a record company and one is a computer company who lets you buy MP3s (whose original recordings are created by other record companies, not Apple Computer). Am I missing something?
I agree that I don't think I would have ever confused the two companies, however I am intrigued by the actual language of the agreement. That agreement was written long before devices like the ipod and itunes were even imagined. It is curious that Jobs try to buy the name outright before launching itunes, which has to make you think they might have been aware of the ramifications.
By the nature of the agreement, if they are going to be distributing exclusive music, they are a type of a "record" company, which they agreed not to be.
Overall, I just found the issue bizarre. Maybe the issue is bigger in the UK, where Apple Records probably is more identifiable, but here, it is just a silly struggle over some corporate dollars.
Yeah, I guess the exclusive music puts it over the edge into questionable
legality. I hadn't really realized that they did that.
Post a Comment