News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users.

May 8, 2006

legal

Apple v. Apple: All you need is love…and clause 4.3

Posted May. 8, ’06, 7:13 AM PT by Dan Moren
Category | Legal

Apple v. AppleYou know, I’ve grown to admire the British court system. They’ve had a few high-profile cases in the last couple of months, between the Apple v. Apple hearings and the Da Vinci Code plagiarism hearings and, in my humble and entirely non-legal opinion, they’ve been spot on both times.

Justice Edward Mann ruled today in the Apple Corps v. Apple Computer case that Apple Computer’s use of the “apple” trademark in its iTunes Music Store does not infringe upon Apple Corps trademark, since the logo is used in conjunction with the download service, and not with the music itself.

“The primary reason there is no breach (of the 1991 deal) is because the use of the logo is still a permitted use as described in clause 4.3 of the 1991 agreement,” the judge declared.
Yeah, clause 4.3, Apple. Take that. Personally, I think the tipping point of the whole trial was the “moron in a hurry” argument made by Apple Computer’s lawyers. I’ll be implementing that tactic in my own life from now on. “Look, even a moron in a hurry wouldn’t have forgotten to buy milk.” This will go perfectly.

Meanwhile, Apple Corps is merely in the spring of their discontent. They’ve confirmed that they will appeal the ruling, to which Apple Computer’s lawyers responded: “Clause 4.3! Nyah nyah nyah!”


6 Comments

Dan said:

Does anyone know what clause 4.3 says?

May 8, 2006 9:05 AM
exnihilo said:

Appeal? You mean to say that in England, the plaintiff can appeal? Isn't that double jeopardy?

May 8, 2006 6:52 PM
Dan Author Profile Page said:

I don't think it's double jeopardy, because it's just asking a higher authority to review the judge's decision. Then again, what legal knowledge I've gleaned comes entirely from watching one episode of Boston Legal.

May 8, 2006 7:24 PM
exnihilo said:

Hmmm... I guess... But I don't think you can get an appeal just like that. I think you'd have to substantiate that the judge made a legal blunder in handling the case... What a waste of time!

May 8, 2006 8:25 PM
Dan said:

First off, it's England. They have their own rules.

Second, Double Jeopardy is when you are charged with the crime, then tried/charged again. Apple Computer didn't get charged, they won. So they can try it again.

May 9, 2006 4:37 AM
John C. Randolph said:

The prohibition of double jeopardy doesn't apply in civil litigation. If you lose a case, you can appeal it, but you must appeal on the grounds that the original trial judge made some kind of mistake, or was biased against you, etc. If you can convince the higher court of this, then you can re-try the case.

-jcr

May 9, 2006 6:54 AM

Leave a comment

 



Visit other IDG sites: