Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:11 pm

	Bosco wrote:
	As a paid consultant (but non-member) of the Western Utah Society Of Hurrying Mormons (WUSOHM), I want to officially communicate The Society's outrage at these outrageous comments. The Society doesn't have any idea what this has to do with its members' religion or their fast pace. Perhaps the Apple lawyer has The Society confused with Scientologists on Meth (aka SOM)?!?

Isn't Senator Orin Hatch of Utah a published musician?

Anyway, Apple's lawyer Horace Rumpole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Rumpole) made a good point.

Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:25 am

	Guest wrote:
	Even a moron would know the take out coffee at McDonald's is hot! Morons still win settlements.

The McDonalds' coffee lawsuit was not frivilous. First, most states have laws that regulate the coffee temperature for both health and safety reasons. McDonalds broke the applicable State's ordinance by serving coffee that was substantially above the legal limit. You may expect coffee to be hot and be willing to take the chance of receiving minor burns if you spill it. You probably, however, would not expect it to peel your skin off if it spilled on you, as was the case in the McDonalds lawsuit.

Accordingly, McDonalds did not act as a reasonable person would, and thus it was appropraitely found liable for serving coffee that was too hot on the basis of it breaking the law.

The Apple suit is a contract suit, not a negligence suit. From my perspective, Apple Computer has a strong argument (although we are not privy to all the facts). I would simply argue 1) the contract clearly allows Apple Computer to sell digital data transmissions, and 2) does not allow Apple to sell physical tapes and CDs. If the contract was meant to restrict the sale of digital music transmissions, the contract could have stated that. It did not, so Apple Computer should win.

Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:05 am

Guest wrote:

Guest wrote: Even a moron would know the take out coffee at McDonald's is hot! Morons still win settlements. The Apple suit is a contract suit, not a negligence suit. From my perspective, Apple Computer has a strong argument (although we are not privy to all the facts). I would simply argue 1) the contract clearly allows Apple Computer to sell digital data transmissions, and 2) does not allow Apple to sell physical tapes and CDs. If the contract was meant to restrict the sale of digital music transmissions, the contract could have stated that. It did not, so Apple Computer should win.

You're ALMOST right. Even if Apple (or iTunes in this case) did sell physical CD's and tapes, it's still only DISTRIBUTING content; record labels are content OWNERS and LICENSORS. Apple doesn't own the rights to the content it distributes, thus it isn't a record label. Case closed.

Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:42 am

The entities of "Apple Corps" and "Apple Records" are most likely totally meaningless (and therefore irrelevant) to anyone under the age of twenty-five. It's entirely probable that age could be extended to thirty years.

This is nothing but the desperate act of a one-time cultural icon to avoid becoming a footnote in history.

Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:50 am

Mac users everywhere should just BOYCOTT idiotic greedy Apple Corps.

Hey, I like the Beatles as much as anyone, but there's plenty of other good music out there.