Former iTunes Engineer Claims Apple Aimed to Block '100% of Non-iTunes Clients'

[J. Jizzle]

You can run windows programs and even windows on a Mac. Been doing this myself since the G3 era. Since moving to Intel cpus, you don't even need an emulator. And Apple provided the tools. And now you can even run windows programs without windows with the use of what is essentially a translation layer, and run said programs directly in os x (as you can with Linux as well).

So not the best comparison.

I understand you can run the Windows OS on a Mac. That's not what I was referring to. I was giving an example that you can't take Microsoft Office designed to operate on the Windows operating system and install it on Mac OS X. If you want to use Microsoft Office on Mac OS X you have to install Office For Mac.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Actually, the problem was that they used Apple's proprietary code without license. That's what got them in trouble.

There is no law against making clones if your clone does not duplicate code that you have no license to use and also doesn't violate any patents etc. Doing this to produce a mac clone would be very tricky, but possible. In the end, the number of man hours would prove it to be impractical and without profit.

Take for example Intel's attempt to sue Nec over Nec's v20 chip that cloned Intel's 8088 (or was it 8086?). Intel lost that suit because Nec did their clone without duplication. No code was duplicated. Yet it was 100% compatible. Nec hired one team to write down what Intel's chip did without writing down any code or design information. Then they brought in another team that never saw the code or design and had that team produce a chip that did the same thing. Perfectly legal.

It possibie to produce a Mac clone legally. Just impractical for such a small market.

Psystar's invasion of Apple's intellectual property was the issue that set off the legal battle, but Psystar's last and final defense was that Apple was competing unfairly, and using that logic, brought an antitrust suit against them. Unfortunately for them, they were claiming Apple was competing unfairly in a market that did not exist (and in fact, was one Psystar was trying to create).

What you are suggesting is reverse engineering. As you say, if a function can be duplicated legally without copying the code itself, then no intellectual property is invaded. This was how the IBM-PC was cloned, but this was a significantly easier task than cloning the Mac would be, because the only proprietary part in the PC was the ROM-BIOS.

In any event the point I am making here is that no company will be obligated to license or otherwise share their intellectual property, unless the ownership of that property prevents others from competing equally in a broader market. This is what a case for antitrust law violations requires. The broader markets being cited here are digital music players and digital music downloads, not the market for Apple's own products. It does not stand to reason that if Apple is found to have exerted undue influence in these markets that somehow they could be forced to open up all of their other technology platforms to any comer.

 

[AFEPPL]

And so what?! You bought an Apple device and apple only lets you use their music or ones you upload through iTunes? Sounds acceptable to me. I don't buy a Mercedes and throw a fit when a Volkswagen part won't work! OR buy Xbox games expecting them to play in a Playstation.

BOGUS LAWSUIT

Its no different to Microsoft and explorer thing of years ago...

You can't deliberately go out and engage in abusive practices including stopping others from actively developing technology for use on other platforms. The central issues will be if apple had taken actions to stop threats to their iTunes monopoly.

 

[booksbooks]

Its no different to Microsoft and explorer thing of years ago...

You can't deliberately go out and engage in abusive practices including stopping others from actively developing technology for use on other platforms. The central issues will be if apple had taken actions to stop threats to their iTunes monopoly.

Sometimes I don't even know why I try anymore. But anytime something comes up like this against Apple, the defence council comes out defending them until the end.

I don't know if I can say this any more clearly: Apple doesn't care about you. They want your money. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this. They just want money. If they don't get your money, they won't survive. I think Apple's a cool company and love their products. I think people at Apple genuinely love what they do in the interest of the customer. But the bottom line is the bottom line.

We need anti-competitive laws and organizations because together they discourage and break up abusive market behaviour and monopolies. Get past oversimplifying this. Assume all of the following:

-Apple colluded with the music labels to stamp out competition as they worked together to fix/increase prices. Same thing happened in the eBook case where Apple was found guilty;
-Apple intentionally blocked competitive clients and music to reduce/eliminate competition for their own products and services in the space. They knew what they were doing, and they knew they would fall back on the excuse of doing these things for "security purposes" if ever faced with litigation.

Please... if you believe that Apple basically blocked, carte blanche, competing clients as well as music for security purposes, you'll believe anything. That's an absurd excuse. There were a lot of clients/companies that were credible in the space with no indication whatsoever of any security risk. It's just manufactured BS.

Consumers/Apple lovers simply outright reject any court ruling against the company. I've been involved in some complex litigation and respect the legal system. It has its problems. But it works. Judges are smart and incredibly logical. They don't have some emotional, illogical connection to a brand. They just care about the truth and the law. Do yourselves a favour and get some air. If Apple is found guilty here, there's a reason. This isn't some conspiracy against Apple. They've done wrong several times in the past. The eBook case is one of the them. As is the employment non-compete case they and other tech companies lost.

 

[Joesmith13245]

Hmmm. Funny. Always thought iPods can only be used with iTunes.

 

[IJ Reilly]

-Apple colluded with the music labels to stamp out competition as they worked together to fix/increase prices.

Agree with most of what you said, but just for the record, the complaint against Apple does not allege any collusion. The absence of this charge seems just as conspicuous as the lack of any witnesses (or even depositions) from anyone in the music industry.

 

[Col4bin]

So why are Microsoft forced by law to offer you the choice of other browsers for use in Windows if it's their product?

If you say Apple can do what they like as it's their product and if you don't like Apple's rules then don't buy it.
Then the same can Apply to Microsoft, yes ?

Because we're not discussing open operating systems like Windows and Mac OS. iTunes is proprietary and closed software. Apple doesn't "have" to allow other 3rd party devs or software access to iTunes. It does already allow 3rd party plugins at least. What more do you want them to do? Where exactly was Apple in the wrong, here?

 

[zed1291]

Can someone explain this to me?

I bought my first iPod in 2005 and there was no problem importing music from a CD or downloaded from anywhere on the web.

Is this something from before 2005? I've never even heard of not being able to get a music file onto an iPod as long as it's mp3, wav, aiff, Apple Lossless etc.

Maybe someone who understands the complaint better can give me an example of an option that was limited in an anti-competitive way.

You're thinking in the wrong direction. The complaint isn't that you couldn't put music on the iPod from anywhere, but that music purchased from the iTunes Store could only go onto iPod and no other music playing device. This lawsuit is bogus because anyone could easily convert the file (either by burning a cd or countless different applications) and then be able to play it on competing music players.

----------

I read every single comment. Every. Single. Comment.
Can I get those 10 minutes back?

 

[AlecZ]

Because we're not discussing open operating systems like Windows and Mac OS. iTunes is proprietary and closed software. Apple doesn't "have" to allow other 3rd party devs or software access to iTunes. It does already allow 3rd party plugins at least. What more do you want them to do? Where exactly was Apple in the wrong, here?

Windows, Mac OS (X), and iTunes are all closed-source and proprietary. The issue is that MS only allowing IE to run on Windows would be a blatant abuse of Windows market share to push IE. And what did they do with IE market share? Promote Windows of course. I remember when old websites used recommend or force users to use IE for Windows because MS deliberately violated web standards in IE.

In this case, I don't see what the problem is with making iTunes, which is made for Windows as well, the only way of putting music onto an iPod.

----------

The "supported formats" were proprietary to apple.

MP3 and AAC are not proprietary to Apple, only ALAC (which the iTunes Store didn't use).

 

[IJ Reilly]

In this case, I don't see what the problem is with making iTunes, which is made for Windows as well, the only way of putting music onto an iPod.

It isn't a problem, and the case has nothing to do with this.

 

[AlecZ]

It isn't a problem, and the case has nothing to do with this.

The wording here and on the WSJ article is ambiguous. It says that Apple "intended to block 100% of non-iTunes clients," and I assumed (maybe wrongly) that they meant the client used to sync music with the iPod.

 

[Googlyhead]

Real Networks had software that allowed DRM'd files from their store to be used on the iPod in 2004 (link to Macworld article ) which they called "Harmony". Apple then fairly promptly (4 months I believe) released software updates locking out purchases from Real Networks music store.

From my point of view; that's a positive. Apple fixed an exploit / hack of their drm code, and still allows standard drm-free files to be used. The only issues highlighted here are that another company was using rather underhand software/practices to enforce drm on purchases from their system.

Tbh. I'm struggling to see how there's anything in this; as has been said countless times; you can put any standard mp3 or similar music file on the iPod. If some other place has a propriety format that can't be converted, then the issue lies with them.

 

[slapple]

And so what?! You bought an Apple device and apple only lets you use their music or ones you upload through iTunes? Sounds acceptable to me. I don't buy a Mercedes and throw a fit when a Volkswagen part won't work! OR buy Xbox games expecting them to play in a Playstation.

BOGUS LAWSUIT

But do your XBox games suddenly vanish when you try to play them in a Playstation? That's what the lawsuit is saying.

 

[Googlyhead]

But do your XBox games suddenly vanish when you try to play them in a Playstation? That's what the lawsuit is saying.

If I used some reverse-engineered hack to load them into the playstation internal storage by unauthorised modification of file parameters, and a software update removes this and any other memory corruption...

It's merely the non-compliant copies that are affected. Any originals are not, nor any that haven't specifically misused drm code.

As before; if there's a proprietary file from a different source that relies on unauthorised modification instead of compliance, that's an issue with the supplier, not the software that got hacked.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The wording here and on the WSJ article is ambiguous. It says that Apple "intended to block 100% of non-iTunes clients," and I assumed (maybe wrongly) that they meant the client used to sync music with the iPod.

Most of what we are given in these articles is out of context and misleading.

 

[a0me]

Sorry, no, you're not missing anything. Just a lament that hardly anyone bothers to educate themselves about what is actually at issue here legally.

Here they are:

Amended Complaint

Apple's Answer

It's a lot to wade through, and will also require a bit of side research if you want to understand it more completely. Warning: None of what you learn will be of much interest to anyone here. It seems knowing what this case is about gets in the way of expressing feelings about it.

Thanks for the link. Indeed that looks like an involved read, but I'm surprised that there aren't more articles about this lawsuit mentioning the documents.

 

[Tech198]

If Apple keeps bring up Steve Jobs, he'll never RIP..

 

[tentales]

it's the labels "fault" !

Sometimes I don't even know why I try anymore.

Don't then, no one's begging you for your contribution.

-Apple colluded with the music labels to stamp out competition

Are you an attorney ? Where you involved in the music or download industry of the time ? Or are you just mouthing off the usual drivel about big corp collusion ?

Please... if you believe that Apple basically blocked, carte blanche, competing clients as well as music for security purposes, you'll believe anything. That's an absurd excuse.

Yes, I do believe it, because I have knowledge that you don't.
In 2005 I was a technical PM for a competing Music Download service and the music labels supplied us with unprotected AIFF files which we were required to convert to a protected format that would only play on designated software and their associated players. None of these files could be played on an iPod because it had been designed that way. You can probably guess the companies and products involved, but I'm bound by an NDA.

My point is, in 2005 and for several years afterwards, it was the labels that intentionally limited ease of duplication by imposing DRM requirements on each licensee. They didn't care whether they sold their digital media thru iTunes or competing websites. They did not collude with Apple, nor with any other competitor TMK.

Furthermore, they did not develop DRM protection themselves, but asked Apple and "us" to develop verifiable protections for their content. Our licence, and I assume Apple's licence, would be withdrawn if it could be shown to be circumvented.

Save your Apple bashing for cases with merit.
Apple and SJ dragged the music executives into the digital age and DRM was their initial condition, dropped years later. Once, Apple had established the market, others joined the game late with competing models. it didn't stop anyone developing competing players with competing DRM systems. It just so happens that Apple's model was the best of breed and chosen by the majority of consumers.

Did Sony ever sue JVC for not allowing their Betamax tapes to play in their VHS recorders ? This is a lawyer's lawsuit attempting to milk a billion dollar target, nothing more.

 

[tentales]

Psystar's invasion of Apple's intellectual property was the issue that set off the legal battle,

Psystar should've learned from Power Computing, Daystar & Umax and others in the mid-90s. Even with Spindler's blessing, Apple left the Mac clone market they helped establish high and dry in '97 under Gil Amelio.

In any event the point I am making here is that no company will be obligated to license or otherwise share their intellectual property, unless the ownership of that property prevents others from competing equally in a broader market. This is what a case for antitrust law violations requires. The broader markets being cited here are digital music players and digital music downloads, not the market for Apple's own products. It does not stand to reason that if Apple is found to have exerted undue influence in these markets that somehow they could be forced to open up all of their other technology platforms to any comer.

Say what?
You must be a lawyer or you copied a paragraph from a copyright agreement.

It doesn't make sense. So you're saying that it's ok to infringe on a company's IP, if their product is too successful and ergo by that same success pushes out competitors ? Wow, that's kinda... be careful the success you wish for, eh ?

 

[MH01]

He seems to know so much because he read what the article said. It said "third-party music players" or "third-party music providers", and no where does it just say "third-party music" was what was blocked, which is what the comment you replied to was addressing.

Every iPod owner knew they could put 3rd party music on an iPod. His comment is really useless, cause if you have followed this case, its all over the news, you would realise his comment is just a diversion from the real issue .

----------

"designed to block third-party music from playing on the iPod"

That's not what he said at all, he said they were trying to block third-party clients. A very important difference, especially in this case. There was never a problem with putting third-party music on iPods as long as they were in supported formats.

Ever owned and iPod, an iPhone..... Any Apple product? We know the issue, last thing we need is people checking these articles for spelling/grammar, or lazy journalism mistakes to divert from the real problem. Sorry but I can't imagine you will find an apple owner that did not realise hat was referring to client.

----------

Most of what we are given in these articles is out of context and misleading.

Poor journalism aside, the issue is very simple to understand. Unless one has never owned an apple device or used iTunes.

 

[AFEPPL]

Sometimes I don't even know why I try anymore. But anytime something comes up like this against Apple, the defence council comes out defending them until the end.

I don't know if I can say this any more clearly: Apple doesn't care about you. They want your money. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this. They just want money. If they don't get your money, they won't survive. I think Apple's a cool company and love their products. I think people at Apple genuinely love what they do in the interest of the customer. But the bottom line is the bottom line.

We need anti-competitive laws and organizations because together they discourage and break up abusive market behaviour and monopolies. Get past oversimplifying this. Assume all of the following:

-Apple colluded with the music labels to stamp out competition as they worked together to fix/increase prices. Same thing happened in the eBook case where Apple was found guilty;
-Apple intentionally blocked competitive clients and music to reduce/eliminate competition for their own products and services in the space. They knew what they were doing, and they knew they would fall back on the excuse of doing these things for "security purposes" if ever faced with litigation.

Please... if you believe that Apple basically blocked, carte blanche, competing clients as well as music for security purposes, you'll believe anything. That's an absurd excuse. There were a lot of clients/companies that were credible in the space with no indication whatsoever of any security risk. It's just manufactured BS.

Consumers/Apple lovers simply outright reject any court ruling against the company. I've been involved in some complex litigation and respect the legal system. It has its problems. But it works. Judges are smart and incredibly logical. They don't have some emotional, illogical connection to a brand. They just care about the truth and the law. Do yourselves a favour and get some air. If Apple is found guilty here, there's a reason. This isn't some conspiracy against Apple. They've done wrong several times in the past. The eBook case is one of the them. As is the employment non-compete case they and other tech companies lost.

I'm not defending Apple, I'm not sure how you got that impression.

 

[roadbloc]

How about if Microsoft only allowed Internet Explorer to work with Windows, so if you did not like it, then don't buy Windows.
It's Microsofts product, so they can do what they like with it.....

Yes?

No. Microsoft were sued in the mid 90s for simply bundling Internet Explorer as the default browser on Windows and integrating it into the system so it couldn't be removed. You could still change default browser and still totally ignore IE, but they were sued for it anyways.

 

[Piggie]

No. Microsoft were sued in the mid 90s for simply bundling Internet Explorer as the default browser on Windows and integrating it into the system so it couldn't be removed. You could still change default browser and still totally ignore IE, but they were sued for it anyways.

Indeed, and I don't see what was wrong with that.

It's like Bloody Safari on iOS products which annoys the hell out of me ever since the iPad was 1st introduced, as I'm still, to this day waiting for them to change it, or grow large enough to, like Microsoft be forced to change it.

Actually Apple are even worse than Microsoft in this instance.

At least with Microsoft and IE being integrated, you could still use another browser and set it to default.

With Apple and iOS, Sure I can install another browser, and I believe finally Apple has let other browsers use it's, what was, secret fast code they kept to themselves to give them the speed edge.

However, even IF anyone does prefer a different browser due to some nice additional features, and I send them a link in an email to tap on, Safari will still pop up.

I hate that, and always have done. Safari is FORCED onto you every time to tap on a link.

I only hope Apple are forced, like Microsoft were to give customers the choice on the the iOS product they own.

 

[Glideslope]

This is all irrelevant. Regardless of the outcome, Apple will easily overturn this on appeal if required. The Judge committed a serious error in moving forward after the "Who purchased what when, NOT" fiasco.

It's like a pissing contest. To quote a well known racial stereotype, "Forget about it."

 

[Oletros]

No. Microsoft were sued in the mid 90s for simply bundling Internet Explorer as the default browser on Windows and integrating it into the system so it couldn't be removed. You could still change default browser and still totally ignore IE, but they were sued for it anyways.

Mmm, no, this is a great oversimplification