Apple dispute settles - lawyers left to starve?

Apple dispute settles - lawyers left to starve?

The IPKat has learned from the BBC, following a tip-off from his old friend Nick Gingell, that the generations-long Apple dispute in the UK has settled. Computer and iPod/iTunes company Apple Inc will assume full control of the APPLE trade mark, but it will grant a licence back to Beatles' record company Apple Corps for their continued use and enjoyment. This dispute began more than quarter of a century ago, following convergence of computer and sound recording technologies.

The IPKat is glad and hopes this means he can download Beatles tracks for his MP3. Merpel says, I hope the Law Society is providing counselling and therapy sessions for the many lawyers who will be forced to look for fresh work ...

History of the dispute here
Apple Crumble here
Drunken Swedish moose drowns after fermented apple binge here
Apple dispute settles - lawyers left to starve? Apple dispute settles  -  lawyers left to starve? Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, February 05, 2007 Rating: 5


  1. I hope your 'MP3' plays (DRM protected) 'AACs', because that is all you're going to get from iTunes. They have yet to sell their first MP3 file!

  2. Apparently, I spoke too soon. Steve Jobs has posted a message to the Apple website with the strongest message against DRM yet. Read it here:

    He's absolutely right; digital rights management does nothing to stop pirates, but it creates a lot of trouble for the user.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.