Federal Lawless Judge? Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 12/09/2014 2:34:08 PM PST by Swordmaker
Edited on 12/09/2014 4:09:53 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The antitrust lawsuit against Apple is on its last legs after a federal judge dismissed the plaintiffs' last remaining witness.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said Monday she was "concerned" and "troubled" by the remaining plaintiffs' witness in the class action case.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
On a similar note, I just watched “The Social Network” the other day.
I have soooo little respect for the guy who founded that company, assuming the story told in the movie is true. (If not, someone let me know.)
He and the guy who started Napster apparently screwed over their friend and financier Eduardo.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
I don’t have time to read about that, I’m waiting for word on the states attorney generals lawsuit on Microsoft.
“Guilty as sin, free as a bird” - Billy Ayers
YOU would think that.
Swordmaker's and Kathy's proposed diagnosis for the new ICD-10 addenda:
90210 iOS Munchausen's Apple-Plexy Syndrome (MAPS), The overwhelming compulsion to post negative, judgmental, aggressive, and false commentary on any website thread related to Apple products wherever found, including phobic reaction to projected Apple user euphoria. First and subsequent encounters.
Founded 1968 Founder The Beatles 
Apple Inc., Date founded April 1, 1976
>>Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is a 2011 appointee of President Barack Hussein Obama to the Federal Bench and is considered to be an Activist Judge who wants to revolutionize the Law. <<
Didn’t “The Godfather” suggest that “The lawyer with the briefcase can steal more money than the man with the gun.”
Likewise a judge can take more rights away than revolutionistas with rifles.
Even Apple’s lawyers said that they want to win this case on its merits, not procedural technicality.
And your point is... what? The name/logo/trademark/etc. issues between those two companies were worked out long, long ago.
They have lots of merits to argue and the facts are wholly on their side. . .
But a Legal adversarial case can not and should NOT continue without a legitimate injured party plaintiff. There is a rule of law in this country that conservatives have to support. Apple's attorneys did not say that this was a mere "technicality." In fact they MADE THE MOTION TO DISMISS, Fool in P.
If they wanted to argue the case on its merits, they would not have made the motion. Get real.
So what’s your problem with me bringing it up?
No problem. I was curious about why you posted the two in conjunction with no explanation, and so I made a conjecture, that’s all. Then I looked up the Wikipedia page and thought you might enjoy it, since obviously the topic interests you. No problem. Have a great evening.
I hate apple for stealing from the Beatles. No lawsuit will take it away or make that better.
I really dislike any stealing of artistic ideas. Just not right. Money doesn’t fix everything. Lots of kids today do not know that Apple was their very original idea. So, once in a while I like to expose that.
The Beatles were my favorite band of all time. Their first appearance on the Ed Sullivan show in 1964 made me decide to play the guitar; at age 63 I'm still a performing and recording musician, and the music of the Beatles remains my original and most powerful inspiration. So I get where you're coming from, believe me, I do.
> I really dislike any stealing of artistic ideas. Just not right.
As a musician, writer, and performer, I totally agree with you on that point.
> Lots of kids today do not know that Apple was their very original idea.
Anything that educates kids on the history of important parts of our culture is a good thing. Thank you.
The name and logo of Apple Computer was NOT stolen from the Beatles, Beowulf.
Although both Jobs and Wozniak were Beatles fans, the inspiration of the Beatles could not have been further from their minds. Jobs stated he got the idea for the name while wandering in an Apple farm while he was on his Fruitarian diet. In addition, no one would mistake a computer for a record, or assume a record company was endorsing an obscure computer being made by two guys in a garage (if that is where it was made, which, even though Wozniak has befuddled that story, it was).
Have you ever seen the original Apple Logo? Obviously not. If you had, you would not be spouting nonsense about Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne stealing a logo and name from the Beatles when they founded Apple Computer Company. . . which they could not have stolen anyway because a computer company's trade mark cannot infringe a record company's trade mark. They are in completely different industries.
Here is that original Apple Computer Co. Logo which looks absolutely nothing like Apple Corps Logo. . . but does give some idea of what they were thinking:
As you can see, there is NOTHING Beatle like about that Logo which was designed and drawn by Ronald Wayne, one of the three original partners in Apple, who should KNOW what the inspiration was. Nor is there anything at all Beatle like in the Company Motto.
I once had a framed letterhead from Apple with that Logo on it. . . a very rare piece but someone stole it in a pilfering of my house. Frankly, it was not a good design for a letterhead. It took up far too much room on the paper, leaving little room for the content, LOL! I have a feeling Steve Jobs was outvoted on the design by Ron and Woz. It is just not anything like his design esthetic.
When Ron Wayne was replaced by people with money who were going to bankroll the building of the Apple II, the NEW partners fairly quickly decided the original Logo was too complicated and hired a commercial artist Rob Janoff to design a new logo who created one for them. . . the stylized Rainbow Apple based on the name of the company, again, NOT based on a record company in Great Britain.
incidentally, in the United States, all the Beatles recordings were released under Capitol Records, not Apple Records, who occasionally used an Apple picture on the records. Few Beatles fans ever saw an Apple Corps record. . . or heard of it. . . nor was it a recorded TradeMark in the US. Apple Corps was dissolved in 1975, a year before Apple Computer Company was formed.
I don't expect you to give up your years of misdirected hate based on mis-information. Most people who believe this stuff will keep on believing it despite the facts that rebut their erroneous beliefs because they've become a matter of faith for them. . . but these are the facts. However, you may not be so quick to post your mis-information when you get the urge to spread it again. You see I intensely dislike seeing myths being repeated being spouted as the truth. . . and i will expose that every time I see it.
Oh, incidentally since 2007, Apple Inc, owns all Apple TradeMarks and licenses the appropriate parts of it BACK to Apple Corps. . . a result of the settlement of those vexatious repeated lawsuits.
Actually that original Apple Computer logo always reminded me stylistically of the Dr. Dobbs' Journal cover/logo artwork. :)
Honestly, I'm not all that upset that the name "Apple" was re-used by Jobs & Co. Icons and mascots and images provide inspiration and get borrowed, re-used, and at times outright stolen all the time. Apples are everywhere, using an apple for a logo or a name is no big deal, IMO, and I'm surprised more companies haven't done so.
My own complaint was about the way Apple Computer handled their transition from being a computer company to being (in part) a media company, which IMO was in conflict with the the original agreement with Apple Corps to not get involved with that.
I think Jobs, being the brilliant strategist and fearless entrepreneur, just decided to plunge ahead into whatever business he thought best to plunge into, and let the lawyers duke it out on his behalf. I don't believe for an instant that he held any ill will or untoward designs on Apple Corps; I think rather that he simply didn't care, and figured it would work out somehow since he knew what was right for his company and was going to do it. Which is essentially what happened.
So I agree in principle with Beowulf on theft of artistic intellectual property; I don't think Jobs did so, but even if he did I'm not that concerned with the original similarity. I'm more disturbed by how it played out over the years. But since it eventually worked out to everyone's satisfaction (with a hat-tip to Beowulf's comment that money doesn't fix everything), I don't care to spend any more time on it this evening.
Best of the evening to you and all...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.