Charles on… anything that comes along

Thanks heavens for the Net, and for
As The Apple Turns, which has a pointer to the original (1991) agreement between the two disputatious Apples in the
judge’s ruling on where to hear the case.

Note especially point 6, about what can and can’t be done under the agreement. As AtAt points out, it says: Apple Computer’s field of use includes “data transmission services” and “broadcasting services” (which ought to cover the iTunes Music Store) and “the parties acknowledge that certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use,” in which case Apple Computer is apparently in the clear “provided it shall not use or authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content.” Like we said before, what physical media? Apple has yet to ship a music CD.

Apple Corporation’s PR didn’t ring back. That’s gotta be some meeting the guy went to.

These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
• So who's the Apple user? (19 May 2008; score: 47.49%)
• "Some lunatic with too much time and money on his hands disassembles the new device... and posts pictures" (30 July 2004; score: 39.28%)
• Is everyone going to buy last night's Apple shares back now? (10 March 2005; score: 36.41%)

Just re this: clearly some people have been on overdrive on the rumour control. Take this for instance:

Some speculation suggests the settlement could see Apple Corps. becoming a major shareholder in the computer company, with Paul McCartney maybe even becoming a board member.

Yes, and some people smoke crack cocaine. Shall we pause a moment and ask a few questions? Like, would Macca even want to be on the board of a multinational computer company, when he’s got a very young child and has never shown any interest in that? Would the shareholders ever vote for such a scheme? And how exactly would Apple Corps (the Beatles’ management company) become a big shareholder in Apple Computer? Issuing new shares would dilute the stock so much it would tank. Giving away shares would surely break some SEC law.

Sorry, but that remedy is daft. This might turn into a huge thing, but then again it might be that the judge will decide that Apple Corps has faded from the public consciousness (how many years ago did the Fab Four break up?) and that there’s no confusion in the public mind between Apple Corp and Computer.

Maybe Macca could write a song about it.

Update 16:47: OK, I’ve been trying since 10am to get any sort of sensible response from Apple Corporation. They definitely win my prize this season for being completely bloody useless in press relations. The PR guy has gone out alledgely to “lunch” (then at 2.40pm it became a “meeting”, according to the person answering the phones). His mobile phone number is a secret. The head of the company has gone out. Nobody else here can speak to you. What, not even to say ‘No comment’ or ‘All this is rumour and speculation and we’ll comment in the fullness of time’? I’m sure he’s getting dozens of poeople calling him, in which case he should have sussed that it makes sense to give the long-suffering people answering the phone (not to mention those calling them) a two-line statement they could read out.

Forget “Back in the USSR”. These guys could show the North Koreans a trick or two.

These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
• Predictions for 2008: they're back! (6 January 2008; score: 49.81%)
• If you don't know antitrust law, why write a long article suggesting Apple has broken it? (20 September 2006; score: 26.78%)
• So who's the Apple user? (19 May 2008; score: 23.75%)