A quote from Shakespeare's Twelfth Night that seems to fit this very Shakespearean story of a war between two prestigious Apples...
On one side a music company called Apple Corps founded in 1968 by The Beatles and on the other a computer/software company called Apple Computer founded in 1976 that is now famous for it's product the iPod but also iTunes both of which have brought Apple Computer to the forefront of the music industry's attention.
However both companies came to an agreement in 1991 that prevented Apple (the computer one) from going into the music market. The issue seems to be with the selling of pre-recorded music. They have obviously not been able to come to some amicable agreement over this change of heart since Apple Corp has taken Apple Computer to court and a ruling is expected shortly...
Justice Edward Mann presiding over the case cut Apple Computer's lawyer short when they were explaining how Apple software worked with an "I've got it and I use it". Some articles I've read about this were curious as to why a recusal wasn't requested !!?? Also the judge is supposed to have asked each party if they minded that he himself owned an iPod. Imagine nearly getting into trouble over owning an iPod !
Some interesting information that has come out concerning this trial is that the current boss of Apple Corps, Neil Aspinall, quotes Steve Jobs as having admitted to him that Apple Computer had been named after the record label.
Can you tell the difference between the two logos ? And do you need a photo to remember who the Beatles are ? 😉
But when considering the raw facts of the case "What you will" call the real motivation is neither romantic courtship between two famous Apples nor negotiations in disguise (rumours of negotiations of inclusion of The Beatles in iTunes) but rather about bringing the opponent to his knees in order to claim the bounty.
To come back to the title, money does seem to be the reason that prevails in this case. On the one hand it is difficult to uphold that one could mistake Apple the record label with Apple Computer especially with regards to the design of the logo. The dispute however seems mainly about the fact that the agreement was that Apple Computer would not use the Apple logo to sell music which is what they are now doing...
Update: In a Washinton Post article today (April 13, 2006) it has been confirmed that the Beatles are ready to 'join the online Revolution', well, as soon as they are ready; digitally remastered versions of their songs are being made at the moment. Aspinall, quoted in the WP article, from a court statement says :
I think it would be wrong to offer downloads of the old masters when I am making new masters
So Beatles fans like myslef will be able to get digital versions of our favourite songs, maybe from iTunes !? LOL 😉
I question the reliability and accuracy of Generative AI (GenAI) in enterprise scenarios, particularly when faced with adversarial questions, highlighting that current Large Language Models (LLMs) may be data-rich but lack in reasoning and causality. I would call for a more balanced approach to AI adoption in cases of assisting users, requiring supervision, and the need for better LLM models that can be trusted, learn, and reason.
I discuss my experience with chatbots, contrasting older rules-based systems with newer GenAI (General Artificial Intelligence) chatbots. We cannot dismiss the creative capabilities of GenAI-based chatbots, but these systems lack reliability, especially in customer-facing applications, and improvements in the way AI is structured could lead to a "software renaissance," potentially reducing society's technical debt.
The article discusses the contrasting debate on how AI safety is and should be managed, its impact on technical debt, and its societal implications.
It notes the Center for AI Safety's call for a worldwide focus on the risks of AI, and Meredith Whittaker's criticism that such warnings preserve the status quo, strengthening tech giants' dominance. The piece also highlights AI's potential to decrease societal and technical debt by making software production cheaper, simpler, and resulting in far more innovation. It provides examples of cost-effective open-source models that perform well and emphasizes the rapid pace of AI innovation. Last, the article emphasises the need for adaptive legislation to match the pace of AI innovation, empowering suitable government entities for oversight, defining appropriate scopes for legislation and regulation, addressing ethical issues and biases in AI, and promoting public engagement in AI regulatory decisions.
Japan has made its ruling on the situation between Content creators and Businesses. Japanese companies that use AI have the freedom to use content for training purposes without the burden of copyright laws. This news about the copyright laws in Japan reported over at Technomancers is seen as Businesses: 1 / Content Creators: 0 The […]