The Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) is attempting to reinstate a levy of $5 - $75 CDN to MP3 players. This was attempted 2003-2004, but was overturned by the courts.
So innocent Canadians get to pay a surcharge to cover "piracy". A perfect example of majority doesn't rule and punishing the users instead of the abusers.
Finally, Apple has settled with Apple. Apple reported paid Apple between 50 to 100 million dollars to use the Apple name. Unfortunately, the joint statement did not include Apple allowing Apple to sell the Beatles' catalog through Apple's iTunes Store. But I'm glad it is at least settled. It was hard watching my two favorite things at such odds with each other. Let's pray that the deal quietly includes licensing the Beatles' catalog on iTunes. Not that I need any of the songs - I have them all, but if they're remastered to the same sound quality as on "1", then I'll have to buy them all again.
The term "Visual Voicemail" is potentially owned by Citrix so here comes another lawsuit, right? Well, maybe not - the author of the article can't find a trademark filing for "Visual Voicemail", there's no trademark mention on the Citrix web site and Citrix did not return calls, so this is probably some anti-Apple person trying to dig up more dirt. Can't the press be doing something more important like digging up dirt on politicians conservatives and celebrities? That's what we really want anyway.
(via Engadget)
Who didn't see this coming? Cisco is suing Apple for trademark infringement. Cisco obtained the trademark in 2000 when they bought Infogear, which filed for the mark in 1996. Linksys, a member of Cisco's family, markets and sells a line of iPhones. It seems the two companies have been negotiating a long time about use of the name, but talks broke down moments before Jobs hit the stage earlier this week. Apple's response to the suit?
"We believe that Cisco's U.S. trademark registration is tenuous at best," [Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris] said. "Apple's the first company to use the iPhone name for a cell phone. And if Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're very confident we will prevail."
Apple disclosed that it is facing several significant lawsuits. One alleges that the link between the iPod and iTunes software is a monopoly, not unlike the link between Windows and Internet Explorer that has caused Microsoft tons of problems for many years. Another suit alleges a patent infringement for the Nike+iPod product. Finally, some are alleging that the logic board on the iBook G4 fails at a high rate. This all in addition to the securities and service problems from the past few weeks. The price of success.
One thing I missed while reading about the settlement between Apple and Creative is that Creative will be releasing "Made for iPod" accessories later this year. Also, the settlement essentially amounts to a license for Creative's patent. The bottom line for Apple is that some of the $100 million may be recouped if Creative is successful in licensing the patent to other manufacturers.
It's good to see even more competition in the iPod accessory biz. It seems prices have been escalating while quality and variety remain stagnant. Hopefully this will change things. As for the music interface patent, I've never been too sold on it, particularly when you have a full 60gb iPod. It's pretty unruly with that much music unless you make creative use of smart playlists courtesy of iTunes. As always, what makes the iPod a huge success is the whole package.
Apple announced today that they have settled 5 patent lawsuits with Korean-based Creative for $100 million.
I think it has something to do with Apple pie, but I'm not really sure.
Apple computer is being targeted by several European countries including Norway, Sweden and the UK to remove their copy protection scheme (DRM or Digital Rights Management for those in the know) and make iTunes inter-operable with competing MP3 players.
There have also been some consumer protests, but my guess is that the government actions and "consumers" are really organized by competing companies who haven't been able to actually offer a product that even competes with the iPod. And no 2poppy, I am not a conspiratorialist.
What is Apple going to do? I hope they pull out of the markets. The consumer support FOR Apple & iTunes will far outweigh those against. That would show those no-good politicians. Yeah.
Somebody help me why people are supposedly anti-DRM. Without DRM the record companies would never have gone along with iTunes (and Rhapsody, Napster, etc.). What is wrong with protecting the rights of artists and their evil, greedy record companies. I can see customers wanting a choice in MP3 players, which they do. They can buy any ol' crappy Creative or Samsung or Sony MP3 player and load up any old song onto it. Just not ones bought from iTunes (unless you burn the song to a CD then import it into whatever crappy software those crappy players come with).
Apple Computer was judged today not to be infringing on the Apple Corps trademark. Of course Apple Corps is filing an appeal.
To me it's an absurd case. Both companies have a very distinct business model, logo and corporate culture. iTunes is so associated with the iPod device that no one would ever confuse Apple Computer with Apple Corps. iTunes offers over x million songs; Apple Corps a few hundred. Apple Computer is in the music sales business, Apple Corps is in the music creation business. The differences are obvious, even to the most oblivious of people.
Thanks to my fellow Apple fan Camille for the update.
**Update** Yahoo! News has better coverage of the ruling.
Just a quick update on the Apple Corps (The Beatles) and Apple Computer. Trial is set for the week of March 27, 2006 for this lawsuit, which was filed more than two-and-a-half years ago.
An iPod user is suing Apple Computer over the sound volume on the iPod.
Okay, so the iPod at full volume is as loud as a jet airplane taking off (115 decibels). But you don't need to listen to it at full volume. Apple's lawyers have always had the legal copy talking about listening to music at high volumes is bad for you, yada yada yada. Bottom line - it is your personal responsibility - not Apple's.
Now back to my lawsuit against the hair dryer industry for the volume of my hair dryer.
The recent iPod battery class action settlement has been delayed due to an appeal. Apple confirms that the appeal is not from them. It is likely from a consumer who is smart enough to know that the only ones that benefit from class action lawsuits are lawyers.
Ah, new technology. The porn industry embraces it first, the Beatles last. According to this article, EMI, who owns the masters, but not the rights to the Beatles music, has been pressuring Apple Corps to embrace the digital music age.
But Apple Computer is yet again in a trademark infringement lawsuit with Apple Corp. Seems the last time they were in court, Apple Corp agreed that Apple Computer could use the name "Apple" as long as they didn't make music. The reported settlement Apple Computer paid was 30 million. When the Macintosh came out, it was capable of producing sounds and music. In typical Apple Computer rebelious fashion, one of the system alert sounds was named "Sosumi" (So Sue Me).
Now that Apple Computer is selling music, Apple Corps believes they are violating their agreement. I'd say that the case was delaying the Beatles appearance on iTunes, but I'm not sure. If you look back in history, they were always the last to jump on the technology bandwagon. Stereo. 8-Track. Cassette. CD's.
As a Beatles fanatic, I already own every song commercially released, as well as quite a few more. So I don't need to download their music. I'm just patiently waiting for them to upgrade the current CD's which were released in the 80's. Listen to their latest release, 1, and you can hear the incredible difference in quality. The bass is incredible (Come Together) and the quality is pristine.
C'mon Apple (Corps), get with the times and get on iTunes so that your fans - old and new - can get the Beatles music. Even the friggin' Rolling Stones are on iTunes.
It was bound to happen. When reports surfaced soon after the Nano's release that it was too easily scratched, you could see this coming. Apple doesn't comment about its lawsuits, but was the Nano rushed to market? I guess the court will have to tackle that issue if it isn't settled like the battery controversy.
