tommikele

Punultimate said:

tommikele said:

david | dahoveed said:

Is this the darts approach to the law? Keep throwing darts until one of them hits something? If these are taken seriously by the courts, Apple will file to have them combined into one case before one court.

Actually, it’s not the darts approach. It’s called "I own the songs and you are part of a chain of illegal distribution. I want the money." The only question here for Apple is will they be held jointly and or separately libel once the ownership rights are established. The law is hazy on establishing liability in a supply chain like this. Apple may be able to establish they had no reason or evidence to doubt distributors right to sell the music and get out from under. Otherwise it will cost them the profits and the plaintiffs will look for punitive damages. That's the big money if you can get it from a set of deep pockets. Doubtful, but worth a try. This claim will be taken quite seriously by the courts as it should be. It's an intellectual property case. The gentle outrage is amusing since I bet you’ve expressed plenty of it when Apple says someone else is stealing their IP. Did you ever know anyone who made their living as a musician or writer or artist and found their work being sold illegally or pirated? I do. I am married to a pretty successful writer.

It's interesting how you have such in depth knowledge around the guilt in a case that was only recently filed and feel so assured that Apple is at fault.  The music industry is a spider web of licensing, cross licensing, where rights and frequently sold and acquired, regardless of who originally wrote the music.  Sounds like you just don't seem to be a fan of Apple yourself from your tone.

My first Apple computer was a IICi and haven't owned another brand since. Does that establish my Apple cred for you? Where you even alive then?.
.
Did you miss the part where I mentioned what my wife does for a living? I am incredibly familiar with this issue and the laws surrounding it. Our family has had hundred of thousands dollars stolen from us over the last 25 years and we have pursued more than 12 lawsuits to recover damages. Aside from a lawyer who specializes in these types of cases, I probably know more about it than 99.9% of the population and certainly more than you do.
.
If you read my post carefully you will find I did not say Apple was guilty of anything and I said "once the ownership rights are established" and "if they can't get out from under.". I spoke of what was likely to happen if those events are established. "Apple" has nothing to do with it. The name is irrelevant to any legal aspect of the suit. They are part of the distribution chain and therefore included in the lawsuit.
.
Yes, the music business is a spider web of deals, transfers, sub rights and confusing structures, but that doesn't change any of this.
.
If you look at who the lawyers represent you will quickly learn they are creators or their heirs. The first thing they will do is try to untangle the web you spoke of and as I said "establish ownership rights."
.
The idea that anytime Apple is sued it is a victim of greedy lawyers and being taken advantage of because of their size and success is garbage. They are just as capable of committing these acts as any other company is. Big powerful companies, including the ones we like a lot, commit more than their share of less than admirable acts. Apple, while more socially conscious than most, is a big powerful company.

david | dahoveed said:

Is this the darts approach to the law? Keep throwing darts until one of them hits something? If these are taken seriously by the courts, Apple will file to have them combined into one case before one court.

Actually, it’s not the darts approach. It’s called "I own the songs and you are part of a chain of illegal distribution. I want the money." The only question here for Apple is will they be held jointly and or separately libel once the ownership rights are established. The law is hazy on establishing liability in a supply chain like this. Apple may be able to establish they had no reason or evidence to doubt distributors right to sell the music and get out from under. Otherwise it will cost them the profits and the plaintiffs will look for punitive damages. That's the big money if you can get it from a set of deep pockets. Doubtful, but worth a try. This claim will be taken quite seriously by the courts as it should be. It's an intellectual property case. The gentle outrage is amusing since I bet you’ve expressed plenty of it when Apple says someone else is stealing their IP. Did you ever know anyone who made their living as a musician or writer or artist and found their work being sold illegally or pirated? I do. I am married to a pretty successful writer.

I thought people had finally learned to ignore his blathering, whiny complaints about everything and anything.

lkrupp said:

Competition? No way. The AirPods Pro are from a well respected, well known brand that the public trusts.  This is yet another case of comparisons that only matter to self-appointed audiophiles and tech forum denizens. It simply does n’t matter if these Jabra products are competitive. In the real market, not the tech blog market, the AirPods Pro will outsell this “competing” product by a factor of 100 or more.

Outsell does not mean better. GM outsells Porsche and Ferrari.

The sound quality of Soundcore/Anker's Liberty 2 Pro is far superior to either of these and far less cost and that's what I bought them for after a personal comparison. Personal music based choice based on what was most important for me. I could not care less about phone calls and other uses. And no, I am not a member of "self-appointed audiophiles and tech forum denizens".

Condescension and arrogance are not redeeming qualities. Take heed.

nunzy said:

You don't merge at 1 MPH. You merge at the speed of the traffic you are joining.

Unless you are an old lady who never has merged before. Then you cause accidents.

If you are stuck on an entrance ramp waiting for a gap to fit into, 1 MPH is exactly the speed you should be moving at if you were moving at all. Would you suggest it would have been better for the Apple test car to read end the car in front or to force its way into traffic flowing at a very high rate of speed? You couldn't possibly be that dumb, could you?