Ok then. I guess a statue would be kind of big for a dashboard. What about a bobble-head John Galt? I think that would be a nice addition to any vehicle.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Wins iPod Antitrust Lawsuit, Found Not Guilty of Harming Consumers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ok then. I guess a statue would be kind of big for a dashboard. What about a bobble-head John Galt? I think that would be a nice addition to any vehicle.
Aren't good lawyers great? I mean.... Geesh, I remember my daughters original ipod and how impossible it was to play nice with anything other than overpriced iTunes songs.
This is a joke...almost as bad as OJ Simpson walking but whatever.
This is a joke...almost as bad as OJ Simpson walking but whatever.
Aren't good lawyers great? I mean.... Geesh, I remember my daughters original ipod and how impossible it was to play nice with anything other than overpriced iTunes songs.
This is a joke...almost as bad as OJ Simpson walking but whatever.
Your daughter's original iPod couldn't play simple MP3s? Or, you couldn't figure out how to make an MP3 and get it onto the iPod to begin with?
Aren't good lawyers great? I mean.... Geesh, I remember my daughters original ipod and how impossible it was to play nice with anything other than overpriced iTunes songs.
This is a joke...almost as bad as OJ Simpson walking but whatever.
Every iPod I had over the years played perfectly fine with any MP3 that was iTunes purchased or DRM free.
Any music you ripped off your CD's would have been an easy "drag and drop" into itunes to get onto your ipod.
also yes: Comparing a tech company not getting fined for something that they didnt do... is absolutely equivelant to an alleged murderer getting off free because of reasonable doubt.
The hyperbole is strong in this one
Speaking of hyperbole, the suit was never about being unable to play MP3s on an iPod.
No. It was about a company (Real) circumventing the DRM that the content providers made Apple apply to their files in order to be able to sell them via the iTunes Store. People decided to purchase tracks from Real instead of Apple, and didn't pay attention to the terms.
Because Real couldn't or didn't want to actually compete, they decided to reverse engineer the FairPlay DRM and try to piggyback off Apple's success.
If you think the case is about something else, you are wrong
The post i was directly repsonding to was:
so ummm. what? I'm not arguing the suit. I agree with the verdict. Apple did nothing wrong. This user who i was responding too's issues were not because of Apple or the case, but because of his own inability to handle technology.
unless he was being sarcastic... in that case.. you know sarcasm really doesn't translate well in text without a plethora of smiley faces to indicate so
It wasn't about that, either. The case turned on whether Apple not licensing FairPlay was for technical/contractual reasons, or as a restraint on competition. The jury decided that the former was the reason. Real was trotted out as a supposed example of Apple using this restriction for competitive advantage.
----------
You kind of lost me there. I've read so many comments in these threads about how people who could not figure out how to circumvent Apple's DRM are too stupid to live, that I'm finding it difficult to separate satire from real opinions.