so su mi

In 1990, during the development of the new Macintosh operating system software, System 7, Apple Computers was being sued by Beatles’ Apple Corps.

The two Apples had an agreement that stated that Apple Computer was prohibited from entering the music market and were again battling in court after the introduction of the Apple IIgs, which had MIDI capabilities. This meant that any new work on audio features was closely reviewed by Apple’s legal department.

Jim ReekesOne of the new features of System 7 was a new Sound Manager, which replaced the older APIs and, among other things allowed higher quality playback of audio.
One night Jim Reekes, the engineer who managed the develoment of audio on the Mac from 1990 to 1999 and, among other things*, created the startup chord, found out that one of the new system alert sounds he created** for System 7 was problematic. It was deemed “too musical” because of its name, Xylophone, and had to be renamed. (more…)

Thursday 02 October 2014, 4:25 pm
Tags: , , , ,
Any comments?

Apple Corps Vs Apple

Filed under: Did you know that...

Ten years ago, on the 4th February of 1989 Apple Corps, the Beatles-founded holding company and owner of their record label Apple Records, sued Apple Computer for the second time, seeking unspecified damages, charging that Apple violated the terms of a 1981 trademark coexistence agreement.

Apple Corps logoThis was the result of a 1978 lawsuit against Apple Computer which was settled three years after with US$80,000 being paid to Apple Corps: Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business while Apple Corps was not to enter the computer business.

But in 1986 Apple added MIDI and audio-recording capabilities to its computers and the suit mentioned these capabilities present in the Mac Plus, Mac SE and MacII, the Apple IIGS and in an upgrade kit for the Apple IIe. Also mentioned as infringing were the AppleCD SC drive and Apple’s MIDI device. Although Apple maintained that it had not violated their agreement, it again decided to settle, in October 1991, paying US$26.5 millions and keeping an eye on possibile future violations since it was prohibited from using its trademark on “creative works whose principal content is music”.
(more…)

Monday 02 February 2009, 5:54 pm
Tags: , , , ,
1 comment




 


Based on WordPress and the Conestoga Street theme by Theron Parlin