[firestormer]

I hate apple. They Are EVIL

Who else hates apple.

Want me to prove it.

See the word doc ive compiled

[linskyjack]

Which Apple---

[firestormer]

Apple as in Apple Mac or Apple I-pod

[Stoner]

I generally don't download .doc because of potential virus problems.
Could you post that as a .txt file?

[firestormer]

Sure
it's basicly a compilation of news articls from the BBC
unfortunatly you wont get the pretty pics and formating in .txt

[linskyjack]

You are talking about the current case between Beatle Apple and Jobs Apple. Jobs is no better then Gates. He is Gates with a human face.

[cristobal03]

They're patching the volume issue.

chris.

[firestormer]

who said anything about gates?

if you look at the doc again youll see more articles

[Tapeuup]

stoners's request


Apple giants do battle in court

The Beatles' record label Apple Corps is suing Apple Computer at London's High Court over use of the Apple name and logo to promote music products.
The London-based record label claims the US computer firm is in breach of a 1991 agreement which forbade Apple Computer to enter the music business.
Apple Computer opened the first iTunes music store in 2003 and is currently the market leader for music downloads.
Apple Corps is seeking to reinstate the 1991 deal and financial damages.
Judge Martin Mann will hear the case at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, having rejected an application by Apple Computer to have the case heard in California in 2004.
"Unfortunately, Apple and Apple Corps now have differing interpretations of this agreement and will need to ask a court to resolve this dispute," said Apple Computer, when the case was first brought in September 2003.
Apple Corps, owned by former Beatles stars Sir Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and the widows of John Lennon and George Harrison, was founded in 1968.
Apple Computer, the firm whose Macintosh machine launched the personal computer industry, was founded in 1976.
The computer company's logo is an apple with a neat bite out of the side; the record company is represented by a complete green Granny Smith apple.
An agreement between the two companies to share use of the Apple trademark was first established in November 1981.
However, as Apple Computer's business increasingly entered the world of entertainment, the company sought a less restrictive trademark agreement, and a court battle ensued in 1989.
Details of the eventual deal, thrashed out in London's High Court over two years, were never disclosed - but Apple Corps were believed to have emerged with about $30m (£17m) from the computer firm.
The launch of the iPod, a portable music player, in 2001 and the launch of its iTunes music program two years later has prompted the latest battle between the two firms.
About 3 million songs are currently downloaded everyday from the service.
Tracks by the Beatles have not been licensed for downloading and are not available on the service.
High Court judge Mr Justice Mann has said the new court proceedings are the result of shortcomings in Apple Corps and Apple Computer's 1991 agreement.
He said: "If their intention was to create obscurity and difficulty for lawyers to debate in future years, they have succeeded handsomely."

[firestormer]

You will find that and many other bad apple things in the attatched files above

[Paquadez]

Question.

How many people, really, would actually recognise the Apple Music logo?

Since Michael Jackson and/or Sony Corporation own most of the rights to Beatle's songs, other than an attempt to try and exploit large amounts of money out of Apple Computer and Steve Jobs, does it really matter?

Question.

Which enterprise, Apple Computer or Apple Music has added more significant value to the world?

Interesting that Jobs and his animator, John Lasseter, have just sold Pixar to Disney for $7.4 billion.

Since both Jobs and Gates pinched the whole concept of windows driven software architecture from PARC (The Xerox research think tank: Xerox did nothing with their seminal findings!) and since the Beatles could never actually agree about either Apple or its forward strategy and since most of their IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) were sold off, years ago and since Jobs's vision with the iPod has made it one of the world's greatest innovative products, does this dispute really matter?

Paq

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by Paquadez

...
Since both Jobs and Gates pinched the whole concept of windows driven software architecture from PARC (The Xerox research think tank: Xerox did nothing with their seminal findings!) ...
Paq

Hi Paquadez,

Actually, first Jobs went to a demo at Xerox Parc and ripped off the concept PARC created about windows. Later, Gates ripped it off of the work that Jobs had done at Apple Computer, indeed, even naming their flagship product "Windows".

Since Apple Corp creates original musical material, and Apple Computer does not - its easy to guess that since Apple Computer creates electronic devices and software that the disconnect in the interpretation will revolve around Apple Corps misinterpretation of what constitutes entering the "music business" which clearly Apple Computer have not. No one in their right mind mistakes Apple Computer as being in the music business per se. While their devices may facilitate the listening of such music, clearly they do not create music, and therefore have not entered the business of "creating music" which would be a violation of the previous agreement..

-- Tom

[Stoner]

Well, having not owned an Apple computer product, I don't hate them......yet

[Chicon]

I love apple ....











pie with a cup of boiling coffee ...

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by Chicon

I love apple ....











pie with a cup of boiling coffee ...

Would that be ala mode?