PDA

View Full Version : Apple sued over 'music monopoly'


MacBytes
Jan 3, 2008, 10:29 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Apple sued over 'music monopoly' (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20080103232926)
Description:: Complaint refers to iPod OS as 'crippleware'

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

winmacguy
Jan 3, 2008, 10:57 PM
LMFAO!
Apple competes on an open level playing field and kicks the competition's collective asses and nobody likes it so they all throw their toys out of the cot.
:apple:

dukebound85
Jan 3, 2008, 11:06 PM
lol that was good for a laugh

people just like to make money off other's good fortunes

bluebomberman
Jan 3, 2008, 11:16 PM
Where do these jokers who desperately want to play .wma files on their iPods come from?

*runs off to browse Amazon MP3*

gadabout
Jan 3, 2008, 11:23 PM
ridiculous

if you need to play .wma's, get a different player, or get a converter. no one is making you use an ipod.

Nermal
Jan 3, 2008, 11:25 PM
As mentioned over on Slashdot, somebody should also sue Microsoft for using Samba instead of AFP.

QuarterSwede
Jan 3, 2008, 11:27 PM
Did anyone tell them that you can buy DRM free AAC's on iTMS now? And they can actually play ... wait for it ... on other digital music players! GET! OUT!

balamw
Jan 3, 2008, 11:39 PM
Did anyone tell them that you can buy DRM free AAC's on iTMS now? And they can actually play ... wait for it ... on other digital music players! GET! OUT!

Not to mention the Zune, which can play iTunes Plus content, but not PlaysForSure WMAs.

B

Genghis Khan
Jan 3, 2008, 11:47 PM
This confused me a bit, just checking

the lawsuit revolves around apple deciding what legal downloadable music can be played on products they sell? and calling this monopolistic?

does that mean i can be sued for allowing the people i choose to enter my house?

bluebomberman
Jan 4, 2008, 12:14 AM
the lawsuit revolves around apple deciding what legal downloadable music can be played on products they sell? and calling this monopolistic?

does that mean i can be sued for allowing the people i choose to enter my house?

Not a great analogy, unless you're running some sort of business out of your house, in which case it would depend on the nature of your business... :D

...and even then, I doubt whatever business you're running out of your house has a crushing market share.

jackc
Jan 4, 2008, 06:15 AM
Maybe Apple users will quit crying about big bad Microsoft and just talk about which products are better.

MarcelV
Jan 4, 2008, 07:32 AM
I can't play Super Mario on Playstation. The Nintendo DS games are not compatible with PSP. XBox games don't play on the Wii, nor playstation.

And what about Sony and Betamax, should they sue the VHS camp? Or HD DVD vs. BluRay?

mainstreetmark
Jan 4, 2008, 07:36 AM
ridiculous

if you need to play .wma's, get a different player, or get a converter. no one is making you use an ipod.

And might I point out that iTunes for Windows has WMA->AAC conversion built right in.

netdog
Jan 4, 2008, 07:38 AM
Somebody should sue Apple for not allowing us to run Windows on our Macs.

Oh wait...

Nevermind.

I demand the right to play BetaMax tapes on my iPod!

AlmostThere
Jan 4, 2008, 07:59 AM
As mentioned over on Slashdot, somebody should also sue Microsoft for using Samba instead of AFP.

Microsoft have already been forced to document and license their protocols.

If Microsoft prevented a Windows desktop OS from receiving files from anything but a Windows server OS then there would be outrage, a court case and Microsoft would be guilty of using their desktop monopoly to achieve dominate file server market (after all, nobody would buy a file server that wasn't compatible with their desktops). This is (of course, arguably) what Apple does with the iPod - leveraged their portable player monopoly market to dominate the download market.

I can't play Super Mario on Playstation. The Nintendo DS games are not compatible with PSP. XBox games don't play on the Wii, nor playstation.

This is different. If Sony/Nintendo/MS achieved a monopoly in the console market and then used this to prevent anyone else but themselves from selling games, then there could be a case.

pdjudd
Jan 4, 2008, 08:24 AM
This is different. If Sony/Nintendo/MS achieved a monopoly in the console market and then used this to prevent anyone else but themselves from selling games, then there could be a case.
That is the main point. The difference between a legal monopoly and an illegal one is how the monopoly decides to twist the market.

There is nothing inherently illegal to having a huge percentage of any market by popularity like Apple has as long as there is competition. Since Apple has competition in both the hardware and music side, their monopoly is because of popularity. Nothing illegal about that.

Furthermore, they do not force the consumer to buy anything. You are not forced to buy music, nor are you forced to buy an iPod. Apple sells Non DRM music and you are still permitted to burn music to a CD and re-import. All of these limitations is clearly outlined in their terms of usage. Heck, they don;t even have a controlling interest in AAC unlike WMA which is owned by MS.

Furthermore, the DRM mechanism is not by Apple's choice but rather due to the terms of their partnerships.

The only way Apple has an illegal monopoly is if they try to control the market and erect barriers to entry. The only thing that Apple has has is popularity given to them by the consumers. You cannot fault Apple for that.

synth3tik
Jan 4, 2008, 08:29 AM
Why must people make a mockery of the legal system. Maybe I should sue Apple because I can not run Wimamp on my Mac under OS X.

jholzner
Jan 4, 2008, 08:58 AM
Ha! The other day I bought 5 songs on Amazon's mp3 store because Apple didn't have them. Some monopoly.

IJ Reilly
Jan 4, 2008, 10:36 AM
The full article, worth reading:

http://informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205207895

I'm not impressed with the merits of this lawsuit, but I don't consider it to be a "mockery" of the legal system, either. Whenever a company has a market share as large as Apple's, then they have to be very careful about the way they use it against competitors.

The key here seems to be whether Microsoft ever tried to obtain WMA playability on the iPod.

ShaneOMac
Jan 4, 2008, 10:48 AM
does that mean i can be sued for allowing the people i choose to enter my house?

Actually the way things are going in this country with less property rights and individual freedom that may be the case in the not so distant future :)

boscher
Jan 4, 2008, 05:40 PM
Maybe Apple users will quit crying about big bad Microsoft and just talk about which products are better.

I think most Apple users can give a crap about big bad Microsoft. Apple's products ARE better. ;)

solvs
Jan 4, 2008, 11:12 PM
Should MS be the ones sued here? I mean, sure, you can use the ITMS to buy stuff and put it on your iPod, but you can also use MP3s and a bunch of other formats. Apple isn't stopping anyone from using unprotected files bought elsewhere from being used on the iPod. You don't even need to use iTunes, there are 3rd party softwares out there that work with the iPod. You can also use it, and protected AAC files, with Macs or PCs, even Linux with the right software. Protected WMA files can only be played on Windows via MSs software, and can only be played or converted with their approved software and the hardware they approved. Doesn't even work on Macs, though non-protected WMA does with 3rd patty freeware.

I guess Apple could license PFS from MS, but I don't see why they would want to, other than to maybe try and get those who currently have a lot of WMA files, which apparently, there aren't a lot of.

IJ Reilly
Jan 5, 2008, 12:03 PM
I guess Apple could license PFS from MS, but I don't see why they would want to, other than to maybe try and get those who currently have a lot of WMA files, which apparently, there aren't a lot of.

Right. I'd be a lot more concerned by this suit if Microsoft was a plaintiff. I think Real would have a better case against Apple, since they did make an effort to get their music format on the iPod.