Apple Requests Dismissal of iTunes Antitrust Case Following Jobs Deposition

[MacRumors]

Late last month, we noted that Apple CEO Steve Jobs had been ordered to appear for a deposition in a 2005 lawsuit regarding the company's FairPlay digital rights management (DRM) system in place at that time for iTunes Store music content. The lawsuit contends that Apple's move to prevent the playing of music files from RealNetworks on iPods was anticompetitive.

According to a new report from Bloomberg, Jobs did indeed provide the required deposition on April 12th, and Apple has now requested dismissal of the case.

"Apple's view is that iPods work better when consumers use the iTunes jukebox rather than third party software that can cause corruption or other problems," [Apple attorney Robert] Mittelstaedt said at a hearing.

Apple had cited 58 consumer downloading complaints as the source of its decision to upgrade iPods to exclude other companies' downloads working with the hand-held devices.

Neither Apple nor the plaintiffs have performed scientific testing to determine whether third-party downloads were in fact responsible for the issues experienced by consumers, leading the trial judge to comment that the case may simply come down to a "battle of experts". A decision on Apple's request for dismissal is expected by next month.

Article Link: Apple Requests Dismissal of iTunes Antitrust Case Following Jobs Deposition

[AppleScruff1]

Apple can dish it out but can't take it.

[toddybody]

Not the end of the world...I can still put non-iTunes music on there. When that shoe drops...then Ill freak on ol' Apple.

[kingtj]

I would understand the merit of a lawsuit like this if iPods only played Apple proprietary file formats. If the ONLY type of file one would play was a DRM'd AAC (M4P) file? Then you'd at least have some basis for an argument. (Although even then? I think such a move would have simply rendered the iPod an inconsequential device in the marketplace -- so there wouldn't be anyone feeling a need to bring a suit in the first place.)

Since all iPods play standard MP3 files just fine, though? It seems to me it's fully capable of using the single most popular digital music file format in existence already. If it didn't play Real's proprietary file format, so what? Real and everyone else wanting to sell music should have simply ditched the DRM protection anyway, and then they wouldn't have such problems.

[Popeye206]

Makes no sense why on a classic iPod platform you'd want another player besides what is managed through iTunes. You can put anything in there.

Seems as though Apple does not care about 3rd party application players (besides Flash players) on the iOS devices. But still... it's an Apple product and iTunes is their application to manage your iOS device. Sooo again... I don't see any issue other than Real Networks lost the battle so they're grasping at straws.

[aristotle]

You can put non-DRM'ed AAC and MP3 format files all day long onto the device.

Real Networks was expecting for Apple to support their use of Fairplay DRM which would be a loss for Apple since they would be supporting some other company's customers for "free" if something did not play on the iPod bought from their store.

[allpar]

Can I sue Canon because my scanner only works with their driver and plugin?

Can I sue Apple because my iPod only works with their driver and app?

Can I sue Microsoft because Access only works within their operating system?

[pdjudd]

Remember, the suit dates back to 2005 - long before Amazon started selling music and long before iTunes went Music DRM free. Bringing up current scenarios is not going to mean much since the case is not bringing brought up today - it's dealing with actions and complaints made in and prior to, 2005.

That being said, even using arguments from 2005, I don't see much to go on, Creative was essentially hacking closed source software involving encryption - something Real had no business messing with without a license from Apple which they made no effort to get and one that Apple is not obligated to provide (Apple certainly can show that they were contractually obligated to defend any exploits).

Not to mention that iTunes is a closed source program too.

Both of these reasons, one that the actions of Real were wrong in the first place, and two, they are moot back then (since iTunes can accept multiple non DRM sources and cannot be enforced to license other DRM formats and the DRM can be stripped by burning and ripping), and now given that iTunes tracks are all DRM free.

[toddybody]

Originally Posted by allpar

Can I sue Canon because my scanner only works with their driver and plugin?

Can I sue Apple because my iPod only works with their driver and app?

Can I sue Microsoft because Access only works within their operating system?

You CAN sue anyone for anything...now winning is a little different

[Consultant]

There are plenty of other music players and music stores.

Probably will end up similar to Psystar case.

Wait, PlayStation only works with playstation games? Nintendo only works with nintendo games? Xbox only works with xbox games? SUE THEM ALL! Not.

[Popeye206]

Originally Posted by Consultant

There are plenty of other music players and music stores.

Probably will end up similar to Psystar case.

Wait, PlayStation only works with playstation games? Nintendo only works with nintendo games? Xbox only works with xbox games? SUE THEM ALL! Not.

OMG! You are so right! When will this anti-trust game end?

[coder12]

Originally Posted by allpar

Can I sue Canon because my scanner only works with their driver and plugin?

Can I sue Apple because my iPod only works with their driver and app?

Can I sue Microsoft because Access only works within their operating system?

Technically yes, but you probably won't win

edit: dang you toddboddy! Ninja'd!

[toddybody]

Originally Posted by coder12

Technically yes, but you probably won't win

edit: dang you toddboddy! Ninja'd!

All good dude Lets share the wealth

[FriarNurgle]

It's the "Our Consumers Are Idiots" defense.

[KnoxHarrington]

Real Networks will have a response to this motion as soon as buffering is complete.

[thejadedmonkey]

"Apple's view is that iPods work better when consumers use the iTunes jukebox rather than third party software that can cause corruption or other problems," [Apple attorney Robert] Mittelstaedt said at a hearing.

Er, did Apple just forget that when they first offered the iPod for Windows, it sync'd using MusicMatch Jukebox, which was "third party software"?

[Iconoclysm]

Originally Posted by thejadedmonkey

Er, did Apple just forget that when they first offered the iPod for Windows, it sync'd using MusicMatch Jukebox, which was "third party software"?

No, it clearly says thatt hey removed that functionality because of 58 consumer complaints.

[ericmooreart]

58 consumer complaints out of 42 million ipods sold through 2005. Thats 1 in every 724,137 people. Thats .7 complaints for the State of Wyoming. Hold the press! Ban third party players

[Banjhiyi]

Originally Posted by Iconoclysm

No, it clearly says thatt hey removed that functionality because of 58 consumer complaints.

Shame Apple picks and choses when 58 complaints is enough to change their practices.

[Stridder44]

I guess RealNetworks has to have some creative ways to make money these days.

[pdjudd]

Originally Posted by thejadedmonkey

Er, did Apple just forget that when they first offered the iPod for Windows, it sync'd using MusicMatch Jukebox, which was "third party software"?

That's becasue Apple had an existing agreement with MusicMatch - Musicmatch actually did some level of support for the iPod. This lawsuit postdates that arrangement after Apple started offering iTunes for Windows.

Creative/Real never had any such agreement with Real.

[skinned66]

As some other posters already pointed out that iPods were/are not limited to iTunes music, until recently they had a "disk mode" option to sync with whatever the hell software you wanted since it was just a matter of copying the music files.

I think they should have kept this - not like I'd use it, but still.

[caspersoong]

If Apple disallowed usage of ripped CDs, now that would cause major outrage.

[pdjudd]

Originally Posted by caspersoong

If Apple disallowed usage of ripped CDs, now that would cause major outrage.

They could do lots of things that would outrage people. Trouble is, Apple has no reason to do that since it would a very overt act that would be terrible for business since no same person is going to rely on purchased content entirely. I cannot remember who did that, but someone tried to assert their music service was superior because they could fill up an iPod like device for some monthly fee compared to $5000 for the Apple device. It was pointed out that the vast majority of music used on iPod devices at the time were vanilla mp3's obtained from CD and not from the iTunes store.

[maclaptop]

Apple -

Terrific products,

Pompous culture,

Legions of Yes men,

What an entertaining movie