Steve Jobs' Testimony Expected to Play Major Role in iPod Antitrust Lawsuit

mikef07 said:

1) You putting holes in a bunch of hypotheticals is pointless since you can do that with any hypotheticals. The point of hypotheticals is to look at it as written and say if you are Ok with it. I personally would not be OK with the things I wrote. Ironic that you assumed that I assumed your answer would be No. I did not assume anything which is why I asked. Had I assumed I would have written "You know you would not be Ok with..."

Click to expand...

1. I attacked your hypotheticals because they were poorly written. Do you know what a leading question is? If not, look it up, and then reread your question(s). I'll even provide one for you:

SO in your opinion a company can...?

Click to expand...

From my understanding this is the epitome of a leading question. Your wording of this question very well presupposed my answer (likely given my preceding post), leading me to believe that you did in fact make assumptions. A proper way to restate the question would simply have been, "In your opinion, can a company...?" There, you would not be presupposing an answer.
----------

2) I would love an explanation how I could possibly be wrong (as you wrote)when I asked you a question. I asked if you would be Ok with 3 different scenarios. Explain how I could be wrong?

Click to expand...

2. I had a few drinks when I wrote that response, and I admit that the first sentence beginning with "Now you're assuming..." is irrelevant. I did answer the three hypotheticals, albeit with an attitude I stand by most of what I said...

----------

3) Your responses are full of holes that I can pick through, but again that would be pointless. You posting things that may or may not be against the law. For example you stated that "Would I buy another iPod even though the class action had begun?". That is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

3. Although I did state something similar, what you have quoted there are not my words; do not quote me on something that I, in fact, did not state. With that, your posed question in quotes is indirectly relevant to the issue of evidence to prove or disprove the antitrust action.

----------

I can tell you from personal experience that I have personal knowledge of a case where consumers continue to do something even though the company doing so is violating the law. The fact that consumers keep doing it does not mean that it is OK, nor does it mean they are not damaged.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

----------

In the future if someone asks a hypothetical of something along the lines of "What would you do if you won the CA lotto?" my suggestion is you not give them 100 reasons why you are against the lotto, how you could not arrange transportation to CA to purchase tickets, how you refuse to do business with a specific store, etc, and just answer the question asked.

Click to expand...

In the future do not ask leading questions then argue that you did not make assumptions about one's opinions. Also, I did answer your questions in an elongated manner. I'll restate them for you.

SO in your opinion a company can sell you something that you feel you can use your media on (based on marketing, what you are told, brochures, etc.) and then change it after you buy it so that half your media does not work anymore?

Click to expand...

As I answered above: Legally, yes I am okay with this to a certain degree. Morally, no I am not okay with this. However, morality is not binding law.

Are you also Ok with them selling you a bunch of media and then making changes to that media so that when you decide you need to upgrade your hardware you are stuck with paying artificially high prices for only their hardware otherwise that media won't work?

Click to expand...

Again I answered that theoretically this should not be okay, but I implicitly answered that yes I am okay with this tactic.

What if Microsoft sold you a bunch of different suites (Windows at $100, Office at $249, Lets say they owned Photoshop and sold it at $500, and some other software you found useful for another $200). Then after you bought it they said as of next month it will only work with a Microsoft computer, but instead of $1000 (assume that is how much your computer was) you have to spend $4000 on the Microsoft computer. Would you be OK with that?

Click to expand...

Yes, I am okay with this. First of all, read the terms and conditions or be oblivious to what you are "agreeing" to. Second, this type of action very likely lead to a similar class action suit in which the company will lose on multiple contract and IP arguments.

Would you be Ok with your car manufacturer calling you tonight and telling you as of tomorrow your car will only work with a new smart key that they are willing to sell you for $1000?

Click to expand...

This was just a terrible hypothetical. My obvious answer is yes I'm okay with this because it is merely impossible, and if it did happen, it will lead to a lawsuit with a predictable holding in favor of consumers.

----------

I would also suggest you read one of the newest headlines on this very site:
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/12/03/apple-deleted-ipod-content/

You are OK with a company deleting something you may own?

Click to expand...

I don't know anything about this issue. I will answer your question as you stated it is something I am not successful at: first, yes I'm okay with Apple deleting the songs from the iPod and the iPod only; second, I am not okay with Apple deleting the music files from my computer... quick looking around does not shed light on this issue. With this, I don't know where I stand on this issue.
Additionally, this is another example of a non-leading question, so now that you are capable of writing them I am going to assume you understood my first point in this response. Finally, if you read the comments it appears that the title of that article is beyond misleading. I am not dismissing the allegation against Apple, I'm just letting you know that you provided another lawsuit against Apple that has not yet been decided. What am I supposed to take out of this article?


SMH.

bobfitz14 said:

1. I attacked your hypotheticals because they were poorly written. Do you know what a leading question is? If not, look it up, and then reread your question(s). I'll even provide one for you:

From my understanding this is the epitome of a leading question. Your wording of this question very well presupposed my answer (likely given my preceding post), leading me to believe that you did in fact make assumptions. A proper way to restate the question would simply have been, "In your opinion, can a company...?" There, you would not be presupposing an answer.



2. I had a few drinks when I wrote that response, and I admit that the first sentence beginning with "Now you're assuming..." is irrelevant. I did answer the three hypotheticals, albeit with an attitude I stand by most of what I said...


3. Although I did state something similar, what you have quoted there are not my words; do not quote me on something that I, in fact, did not state. With that, your posed question in quotes is indirectly relevant to the issue of evidence to prove or disprove the antitrust action.


Agreed.



In the future do not ask leading questions then argue that you did not make assumptions about one's opinions. Also, I did answer your questions in an elongated manner. I'll restate them for you.



As I answered above: Legally, yes I am okay with this to a certain degree. Morally, no I am not okay with this. However, morality is not binding law.


Again I answered that theoretically this should not be okay, but I implicitly answered that yes I am okay with this tactic.


Yes, I am okay with this. First of all, read the terms and conditions or be oblivious to what you are "agreeing" to. Second, this type of action very likely lead to a similar class action suit in which the company will lose on multiple contract and IP arguments.


This was just a terrible hypothetical. My obvious answer is yes I'm okay with this because it would never happen, and if it did, it will lead to a lawsuit in favor of consumers.



I don't know anything about this issue. I will answer your question as you stated it is something I am not successful at: first, yes I'm okay with Apple deleting the songs from my iPod; second, I am not okay with Apple deleting the music files from my computer... quick looking around does not shed light on this issue.
Additionally, this is another example of a non-leading question, so now that you are capable of writing them I am going to assume you understood my first point in this response. Finally, if you read the comments it appears that the title of that article is beyond misleading. I am not dismissing the allegation against Apple, I'm just letting you know that you provided another lawsuit against Apple that does not have a holding. What am I supposed to take out of this article?


SMH.

Click to expand...

Hilarious. I'll make sure that from now on each and every poster asks a question how you would like it. I asked a simple yes or no question. Learn to read. Period. I hate to break it to you but just because a person agrees to something in a license or a contract does not mean it does not have illegal stipulations in it. Well you agreed to it so it has to be legal is not a defense.

You keep sticking to your opinion. I'll side with the judges opinion regarding law.

Oh and in the end even if you have no problem with any of these things still does not necessarily make them legal. SO while you may be OK with everything Apple did it does not mean all of it is legal. The court system will decide if it was illegal or legal. If they decide it was illegal you can still be OK with everything, but it would still be illegal.

Glad you are Ok with what they did.

The ironic thing is had you just said yes I am OK with all three things posted I would have simply said OK I see (not agree, but see) your viewpoint on this then.

eac25 said:

Ah yes, Multiven. I believe that was settled - so we'll never know whether Cisco actually "did it" (behaved monopolistically) or not... at least not from that one. Is there another?

My point was simply that your conclusion (that none of the examples I gave represented market power) was incorrect. That's all - nothing more. Probably ought to go ahead and keep your real job after all....

My point was, in fact, similar to you pointing out that I misused the term "trust." Thanks for correcting that... (seriously)

Click to expand...

Not to go round and round about this more than we have already, but establishing that a company possesses market power in a defined market is the key any antitrust action. The error that so many people make is in not understanding this concept, thinking that if consumers have "any other choice" then no antitrust law violations are possible. The other error is to believe that a market can be defined as the one for a company's own product.

mikef07 said:

Its pointless to continue since you obviously don't understand the legal system well enough. If it's in a complaint it is relevant to the case. the word marketing is in the complaint. marketing is relevant. Consumer laws are in the case therefore any and all consumer laws are relevant to the case. No where in the complaint did I see a bunch of discussion about emails, yet we know that there are specific emails that are relevant to the case. The plaintiff attorney is going to use an and all applicable consumer and antitrust law to prove damages to their clients. That includes, marketing, emails, collateral, designs, engineering reports, etc. If you don't see that then you simply are blind to the facts. Using your words what is central to the case is any and all ways consumers may have been harmed by Apple. Even if Apple proves they did not break antitrust laws, but did break consumer laws (as stated in the complaint) they lose this case.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's your comprehension level that is at issue if you believe that marketing and antitrust are linked somehow. You are also sadly lacking in understanding if you believe the attorneys for the plaintiffs can introduce new legal theories into the courtroom outside of the complaint. Judges take a very dim view of lawyers who don't seem to quite know under what laws they are suing. A very dim view. Evidence is not legal theory, it is provided to support a legal theory.

As a matter of personal curiosity I looked up the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. What it does is provide an avenue for consumers to collect damages from companies that misrepresent their products or engage in acts of unfair competition. You will no doubt already know from your careful reading of the complaint (yes, that is sarcasm) that the plaintiffs do not make any allegations that Apple misrepresented their products in any way. So the reason this "consumer law" is cited in the complaint is for its enabling of consumers to sue and collect damages for alleged antitrust violations.

All of this of course is for people who are interested in actually knowing.

IJ Reilly said:

Actually, it's your comprehension level that is at issue if you believe that marketing and antitrust are linked somehow. You are also sadly lacking in understanding if you believe the attorneys for the plaintiffs can introduce new legal theories into the courtroom outside of the complaint. Judges take a very dim view of lawyers who don't seem to quite know under what laws they are suing. A very dim view. Evidence is not legal theory, it is provided to support a legal theory.

As a matter of personal curiosity I looked up the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. What it does is provide an avenue for consumers to collect damages from companies that misrepresent their products or engage in acts of unfair competition. You will no doubt already know from your careful reading of the complaint (yes, that is sarcasm) that the plaintiffs do not make any allegations that Apple misrepresented their products in any way. So the reason this "consumer law" is cited in the complaint is for its enabling of consumers to sue and collect damages for alleged antitrust violations.

All of this of course is for people who are interested in actually knowing.

Click to expand...

No I don't think marketing and antitrust are linked. In fact not at all. What I know to be true (based on the complaint) is that the plaintiffs attorney are saying that consumers were harmed with BOTH (CAN YOU READ THE WORD BOTH?) antitrust law being broken and consumer laws being broken. If they can prove that antitrust laws were broken, but that consumer laws were not they win. If they can prove consumer laws were broken, but not antitrust laws they win.

You need to learn to read a complaint. Read point 7.

Ms. Rosen thereby suffered injury in her property, in the form of overcharges, injury that antitrust and consumer laws are intended to prevent and remedy.

DO you see where it says consumer laws. There is a reason that is in the complaint along with antitrust laws.

And you are flat out wrong. The reason consumer laws is written is to find any and all consumer laws that may have been broken. Under the legal system any consumer laws that have been broken can be brought up in this case. I know this from experience and I guarantee I have more experience in these large multi faceted litigation suits than you do. You keep thinking what you want though.

In fact in this post you said "to collect damages from companies that misrepresent their products or engage in acts of unfair competition." SEE THE WORD OR. That means if a company misrepresents their product AND does not engage in unfair competition it is still valid. There is only one way to misrepresent your product- Marketing in some form. Labeling, communication, advertising, word of authorized distributers, etc.

You need to learn that in a legal document the words "and" and "or" are very important.

Ironically- Cue and Phil Schiller, Apple’s head of marketing, are expected to testify this week, and portions of a videotaped 2011 deposition of Jobs are expected to be played. They probably have the head of marketing testifying because of his expertise in underwater basket weaving. I can't wait to read the testimony and watch you try to spin how it had nothing to do with misrepresentation and/or marketing in some capacity.

Just, plain, no.

IJ Reilly said:

Just, plain, no.

Click to expand...

Just, plain, yes.

How many complaints have you written?

Personally my name are attached to a lot more than you obviously and I know specifically why certain language is and was put in.

IJ Reilly said:

You are wrong on virtually every point. It seems that I am the only one here who actually does understand something about the law, and I am certainly the only one who's bothered to read the complaint against Apple. It would also help if you read and understood what I've said already, but I am sure that's way too much to ask.

Click to expand...

The law isn't that hard to read or understand and your interpretation may match the way the government and court has treated it for the past 30+ years, but that isn't what it says. It's clear as crystal and you're flat out wrong. Tying with intent to restrict trade is against the law regardless of market power. Proving "harm" without a monopoly or near monopoly may seem trivial to the government but clearly, as Apple proves, it makes them rich (richer than any tech company on earth) and destroys all consumer choice in the process. Psystar proves nothing since it was not tried as Antitrust against Apple, but as a copyright violation against Psystar (they stupidly pre-installed the software instead of letting the consumer buy and install it themselves and so the case never faced review at all). Since Reganomics took over the country in the mid-80s, big business has dictated the government's behavior ever since. They don't enforce the law as written. They let businesses merge until there's no real competition on a regular basis. They let banks get "too big to fail". Sorry, but your belief is dead wrong. The law doesn't permit what Apple does; corrupted government allows it. No branch of government is more corrupt than the judicial one these days with bought and paid for Big Business friendly cronies having over 50% of the Supreme Court and allowing Corporations to act as an individual with all the protections of a person when that makes about as much sense as saying diet drinks promote obesity more than sugar ones. This country is back-arsewards.

jon3543 said:

Then the implication is, "Once hacked, you must accept the hack and support it forever."

Or, "You must support everything from the start." Next up, people who want to play FLAC file a class action.

Ridiculous. Just ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Don't think of it as a hack, that is not correct. It is like saying a tire manufacturer making a tire for another companies wheel a hack. How they made it is not the point.

It is another manufacturer making products that work with your platform - which is 100% legal. Stopping said competitive products working deliberately for the sole purpose of stopping them is anti competitive. If stopping said products was a side effect of the system is another thing, see todays news that they had to stop them for licensing purposes, whether that is a good enough reason will be decided. The they had buggy software statement doesn't hold water in my personal opinion..... they'd have to prove that for starters and I think the other side are more easily going to prove it worked fine (and probably will in the case).

But anyway, none of this really matters to you or me. At the end of the day Apple had the best selling product and it was probably THE product that put them where they are now. The fact they kept the iPod platform locked up no doubt helped massively. If there was any anti-competitive bits like this, even by accident, in the long term it doesn't matter. Apple might have to pay out, no big deal, if this does happen then good on those who won and they deserve it for being pioneers themselves too.

One more thing, this looks like it is a massive case, how many years has it taken to come to court? I wouldn't dwell on one thing, there's going to be lots of tit for tat.

RedBanana said:

Don't think of it as a hack, that is not correct. It is like saying a tire manufacturer making a tire for another companies wheel a hack. How they made it is not the point.

Click to expand...

I prefer to talk about the actual things instead of analogies. Real found a weakness in Fairplay and exploited it to do things that were not supposed to be possible, things they were not licensed to do. That is a hack.

It is another manufacturer making products that work with your platform - which is 100% legal. Stopping said competitive products working deliberately for the sole purpose of stopping them is anti competitive.

Click to expand...

I guess the jailbreak users are the next class, because once hacked, you must accept the hack, and you must support it forever.

mikef07 said:

Hilarious. I'll make sure that from now on each and every poster asks a question how you would like it. I asked a simple yes or no question. Learn to read. Period. I hate to break it to you but just because a person agrees to something in a license or a contract does not mean it does not have illegal stipulations in it. Well you agreed to it so it has to be legal is not a defense.

You keep sticking to your opinion. I'll side with the judges opinion regarding law.

Oh and in the end even if you have no problem with any of these things still does not necessarily make them legal. SO while you may be OK with everything Apple did it does not mean all of it is legal. The court system will decide if it was illegal or legal. If they decide it was illegal you can still be OK with everything, but it would still be illegal.

Glad you are Ok with what they did.

The ironic thing is had you just said yes I am OK with all three things posted I would have simply said OK I see (not agree, but see) your viewpoint on this then.

Click to expand...

haha! Of course I'm going to stick to my opinion, you're the type of person that reinforces my own opinion given your stubbornness. Also, show me where I said that I don't see a problem with it that it in fact makes what they did legal. Oh wait, I didn't say that...

Get off of your high horse, I'm clearly not the only person you're provoking in this thread. Learn to admit you have the ability to be wrong. I'm not even going to tell you where you're wrong at this point because you cannot accept it. Out of curiosity, are you an attorney? Maybe that's where your indestructible self esteem came from...

mikef07 said:

Just, plain, yes.

How many complaints have you written?

Personally my name are attached to a lot more than you obviously and I know specifically why certain language is and was put in.

Click to expand...

The wording of this makes me believe you are not an attorney. Just because you have experience with the law does not mean you are omnipotent about the law. Good for you


----------

To get this back on track and avoid being punished by the mods, what sort of outcome do you expect to come of all of this? Don't give details given the fact that this is early in the litigation process and it will make your argument more susceptible. I want to know where you see this all going given your strong opinions

Well, this is interesting: Apple files to dismiss iPod antitrust case as plaintiffs are disqualified

jon3543 said:

I prefer to talk about the actual things instead of analogies. Real found a weakness in Fairplay and exploited it to do things that were not supposed to be possible, things they were not licensed to do. That is a hack.

Click to expand...

You don't understand licensing. You do not need a license for a platform to make something other than to make it easier to develop for (e.g. receive and use dev kits and specs amongst other things).

For example: third party printer cartridges are usually not licensed as well as the majority of anything else you see on the shelves in your hardware store.

IMO: it is only in the past couple of decades that most systems that involve electronics have required licensing due to the complex communications and storage systems. For example printer cartridges suddenly have microchips in them to talk to the printer, joysticks and memory cards for games consoles suddenly do everything encrypted or with ultra complex communication with micro-controllers (micro controllers on the devices). Back in the Sinclair Spectrum, C64, Sega Saturn, Playstation 1 days there were all sorts of companies making non-licensed memory packs, joysticks and add-ons, now there are zero.

jon3543 said:

I guess the jailbreak users are the next class, because once hacked, you must accept the hack, and you must support it forever.

Click to expand...

No. That is a main part of the case, the other side trying to prove it was deliberate.

Sigh.

mikef07, banana, et. al.

Did you guys learn anything?