why is there no news on the apple trial.

in 1991, apple corps, ltd., the beatles record label, sued apple computers, inc., alleging that apple computers’ addition of stereo sound to its computers had violated a prior 1981 settlement agreement. apple computers paid 26.5 million and agreed not to package, sell or distribute physical music materials. this is generally understood to be cd’s.

fast-forward to the 21st century. apple computers sells a physical music player to be used in conjunction with software that allows people to create music cd’s. apple corps, ltd, in 2003, sued apple computers for breach of contract. the trial is scheduled for March 27, 2006. nevertheless, why is there no news about this?

now, to clarify, the issue is not whether apple computers is allowed to call itself apple computers. the dispute is no longer about trademark. it’s about breach of contract. define music in a physical form.

that, though, is not the puzzler. type “beatles” in macrumors. they don’t have a post on the subject newer than 2004. not even the 2005 hearing setting the 2006 trial date. appleinsider mentions the beatles in a 2004 post – referring to the music at a conference. tuaw mentions the suit a couple of times in the first half of 2004, but after that, the only beatles references are talking about how great holdouts such as the beatles would be a great addition to itms. misses the point, don’t you think.

the last mention was in an article from the washington post’s business section mentioning speed bumps in apple’s road ahead. as much as i love the washington post’s coverage and inside track on politics and international news, its tech section leaves much to be desired.
i don’t know the answer. the whole point of this post is to generate some conversation. who’s right? who’s wrong? who cares. the trial begins on monday. the business websites are all talking about apple capitalizing on the vista delay. the apple site’s are buzzing about the 4/1 announcement.

let’s get some discussion on the trial centered around 1 billion downloaded songs.

digg story

Panel Advises Disclosure of Drugs’ Psychotic Effects

Stimulants like Ritalin lead a small number of children to suffer hallucinations that usually feature insects, snakes or worms, according to federal drug officials, and a panel of experts said on Wednesday that physicians and parents needed to be warned of the risk.

read more | digg story

MS kicks the 360 up a notch

Just in time for Godfather, MS starts to capitalize on Sony’s delay. The software giant said the addition of a new manufacturing partner, Celestica, will allow it to ship “two to three times” more Xbox 360s to retailers each week. Celestica joins Wistron and Flextronics in manufacturing the system and components for Microsoft.

read more | digg story

Supreme Court Shows Split As It Limits Home Searches

WASHINGTON, March 22 — A bitterly split Supreme Court, ruling in a case that arose from a marriage gone bad, today narrowed the circumstances under which the police can enter and search a home without a warrant.In a 5-to-3 decision, the justices sided with Scott F. Randolph of Americus, Ga., who was charged with cocaine possession in 2001 after his wife, Janet, called the police during a domestic dispute, complained that her husband was using cocaine and then led the officers to a bedroom, where there was evidence of cocaine abuse.

The issue before the justices was one that has long caused confusion in state courts: whether the police can search a home without a warrant if one occupant gives consent but another occupant, who is physically present, says “no.” The majority held today that at least under some circumstances, such a search is invalid.

“Scott Randolph’s refusal is clear, and nothing in the record justifies the search on grounds independent of Janet Randolph’s consent,” Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

The result for Mr. Randolph, a lawyer, is that the cocaine-related evidence seized by the police and used to prosecute him must be thrown out, a conclusion that the Georgia Supreme Court reached earlier when it declared that since both marriage partners “had common control and authority” over the premises, the consent of both was needed to conduct a search without a warrant.

Justice Souter said a finding for Mr. Randolph — in the specific circumstances that marked this case, Georgia v. Randolph, No. 04-1067 — was compelled by Fourth Amendment principles against unreasonable searches and seizures. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the main dissenter, bitterly disagreed, as he and Justice Souter exchanged darts in writing.

Chief Justice Roberts said the result of the majority’s conclusion “is a complete lack of practical guidance for the police in the field, let alone for the lower courts.” Justice Antonin Scalia joined the chief justice’s dissent and wrote one of his own, as did Justice Clarence Thomas.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. took no part in the case, since he joined the court after it was argued.

On July 6, 2001, Mrs. Randolph complained to the police that after a fight, her husband had taken their son away. When the officers reached the house, she told them her husband was a cocaine user whose habit had caused financial difficulties, Justice Souter recounted. (Mr. Randolph denied using cocaine, countering that it was his wife who abused drugs and alcohol.)

As it turned out, Mr. Randolph returned to the house just after the police arrived, explained that he had taken the child to a neighbor’s place and — most importantly — “unequivocally refused” permission for the police to search the house.

But having already been given permission by Mrs. Randolph, the officers searched anyway and found traces of what appeared to be cocaine. An officer bagged that evidence and, at the direction of the district attorney’s office, stopped searching until a warrant could be obtained.

With the search warrant, the police re-entered the house and found still more evidence of drug use, on the basis of which Mr. Randolph was indicted.

Justice Souter said nothing in today’s ruling would bar the police from entering a house, with or without warrant, under different situations — to protect a person from harm or to catch a fleeing suspect, for example. Justice Souter noted that prosecutors did not maintain that Mrs. Randolph told the police that she needed protection.

But Chief Justice Roberts was not persuaded. In his first written dissent in a criminal case since joining the court, the Chief Justice said: “The possible scenarios are limitless, and slight variations in the fact pattern yield vastly different expectations about whether the invitee might be expected to enter or go away.” “Such shifting expectations,” he wrote, “are not a promising foundation on which to ground a constitutional rule.”

Justice Souter said some of Chief Justice Roberts’s concerns that the majority’s finding could protect spousal-abusers nothing more than a “red herring.” Justice Breyer agreed, declaring in a concurring opinion that “today’s decision will not adversely affect ordinary law enforcement practices.”

Justice Souter, in alluding to the chief justice’s complaint that the majority did not address what would happen if there were a third household occupant involved, said, “We decide the case before us, not a different one.”

But both Justice Souter and the chief justice agreed that factual differences that might appear trivial to a layman, or the fruit of nothing more than pure luck, could be all-important in court.

Justice Souter wrote that “we have to admit that we are drawing a fine line; if a potential defendant with self-interest in objecting is in fact at the door and objects, the co-tenant’s permission does not suffice for a reasonable search, whereas the potential objector, nearby but not invited to take part in the threshold colloquy, loses out.”

Chief Justice Roberts saw the same possibilities, to his dismay. “What the majority’s rule protects is not so much privacy as the good luck of a co-owner who just happens to be present at the door when the police arrive,” he wrote.

Had the majority decided logically, the chief justice said, it would have found that, just as Mrs. Randolph could turn her husband’s drugs over to the police, “she can consent to police entry and search of what is, after all, her home, too.”

read more | digg story

wednesday waiting

wednesday evening, 830 pm. as usual, no word as to where i’ll be getting my drink on tomorrow nite. what’s the deal? well, i cant really complain. at this point, i’m used to hp posting the locale at 4 am. not like there’s any surprises involved. i spect it will be the patriot. beer and burgers. not a bad combo and my usual thurs nite.

well, time to fix some din and watch american idol. sj was all about mandissa so i have to check that out. maybe i’ll post later.

Fake ‘IRS’ e-mails flood consumers’ in-boxes

The logo looks real. The message appears to be sent from “admin@irs.gov.” The “copyright 2006 IRS” at the end of the message seems authentic.It may look like the IRS, but it’s scammers who are swamping consumers’ e-mail inboxes with messages notifying them of an audit or offering access to a refund.

read more | digg story

Apple attacks plan to open iTunes

Apple has criticised a French law that could break the locks tying songs from the iTunes store to iPod players. In a statement Apple said that if the law were passed it would result in “state-sponsored piracy”.

read more | digg story

French I-pod Restrictions Move to French Senate

French lawmakers approved copyright legislation on Tuesday with a novel approach to the idea of digital freedom of choice: requiring online music vendors to make songs available for use on any digital player.
It passed the French House with a 100-vote margin and now moves to the Senate.

read more | digg story

kiefer kicks ass to new music

we all know that jack bauer kicks ass 6 ways from sunday (and twice on tuesdays). now, he’s kickin’ ass to new incidental music. good episode (natch) and good music. full gush on this week’s 24 later.

windows vista delayed to 2007

arrgghh!! mr softee is killing me. no vista till 2k7. randy’s right (that prick! always right). so, no vista, maybe no pc. i’ll see on april fool’s when apple releases its next product.

intel ibook for 1400 or less. i’ll bite and say go screw to vista.

of course, no ibook and i stay with mr softee

read more | digg story