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

[HyperZboy]

Just give me my FairPlay encrypted music back Apple and save the $350 million that's only going to lawyers.

I see no legal reason why Apple couldn't just release a simple tool to decrypt FairPlay music today since the landscape has changed.

I have about 9 songs that won't play on my iPhone or current new Mac that I have no way to authorize.

 

[groovyd]

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.

Have you ever considered for a second 'apple lovers' and 'fanboys' might themselves share in the success of the same? That 'they want your money' is really the same as 'we want your money' and any attack against 'them' is an attack against 'us'? Public companies are bigger then the people that run them and most of these 'fanboys' are implicit in their success. There is a vested interest in seeing Apple win these cases. Someone clever like yourself should recognize simple facts like this.

 

[IJ Reilly]

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.

Now you are inviting me to be cynical, and I accept. The answer of course is because that would take effort. Not only do the articles not mention the court documents, they show no indication of having been read, let alone, understood.

 

[jkruehne]

I am not so deep in the story, but what if i would have bought a zune (iPodkiller) at that time and later on would like to play my "zune tracks" onto an iPod - does that work?

and btw: wasn't there a problem with post zune and pre zune bought tracks (or any of their music services...??? wasn't there incompatibility right from the same company (MS)? ?? ??

and what was with those "Music load" service (at least in germany?) - if you wanted to enter that "service" from a MAC they said ".. wrong browser, wrong system-- need to be MS...)

as long as those files could be converted into MP3 they could be played on an iPod, right?
- so where is the problem???

Haha, my BMW engine (i don't have one, but as an example) doesn't fit into my porsche (i don't have one either, but as an example) …

lawyers issues just to get rich ;-)

 

[IJ Reilly]

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.

All of these companies were building Mac clones under license from Apple. Psystar was trying to do something completely different, to build a Mac clone business without Apple's permission. Their lawyers concocted the silly theory that Apple was competing unfairly in a market defined entirely by their own product.

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 ?

Not guilty, on all counts.

Companies can be required to license certain core technologies to all takers on a fair and reasonable basis (FRAND/RAND). That's one way they can be required to share their IP (with antitrust implications if they do not). The other can occur when a company obtains market power in a defined market and uses their exclusive power in that market to deny competitors fair access to the market. (In every case when I refer to a defined market, this is not the market for a company's own products, it must be something broader.)

For example, Microsoft was accused of hiding Windows APIs, giving them exclusive advantages over developers of competing software. Because of their overwhelming market share in a variety of definable markets, under an antitrust action they can be prevented from using undocumented APIs to protect and expand their market share by creating barriers to competition.

So yes, being "too successful" can create burdens. Companies that achieve overwhelming shares of a market have to be careful that they aren't defending that success by constructing barriers that prevent anybody else from competing freely and fairly on that turf.

 

[s2mikey]

Have you ever considered for a second 'apple lovers' and 'fanboys' might themselves share in the success of the same? That 'they want your money' is really the same as 'we want your money' and any attack against 'them' is an attack against 'us'? Public companies are bigger then the people that run them and most of these 'fanboys' are implicit in their success. There is a vested interest in seeing Apple win these cases. Someone clever like yourself should recognize simple facts like this.

Oh cmon, just because someone owns a few shares of Apple in their lame company mutual fund doesn't mean this is a good thing. Apple doing what they did was abhorrent. If Microsoft would have done that....oh boy.... They'd have arrested the entire Gates family.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Oh cmon, just because someone owns a few shares of Apple in their lame company mutual fund doesn't mean this is a good thing. Apple doing what they did was abhorrent. If Microsoft would have done that....oh boy.... They'd have arrested the entire Gates family.

Speaking as someone who owns a lot more AAPL than a few shares in a mutual fund, I recognize the risks inherent in their success and hope they deal with them wisely. I was distressed when Apple decided to go full court press with the suit over ebooks, for example, and I understand the case against them here as not being trivial or stupid. As for Microsoft, it took the DOJ years to build their antitrust case (when the violations were damned bloody obvious and much worse than anything Apple has ever done), and even then it took Microsoft's arrogant and ham-handed behavior in court to finally hang them out to dry. Ironically, in the end, for political reasons the government got almost nothing as a remedy.

 

[Mike MA]

Schultz...German ...

So he eats kraut

Creating an user account just for such rubbish? Respect

Most stupid post so far

Just another troll...

 

[ksuyen]

What's illegal is anti-competition behavior, when you use your powers to intentionally prevent others from entering the market and gain their share in their own ways. You also cannot behave in ways that cause harm to customers by increasing prices, preventing their access to competitors, colluding with other businesses intentionally to push other competitors out.

I so agree with you. Which is why I think the case has been stretched to fit that mould. It won't work.

 

[JAT]

The elephant not in the room: testimony from anyone in the music industry.

How come no one from the record labels has been asked to testify?

Because it would hurt the plaintiffs, meanwhile Apple has a massive ego and thinks it's "in the bag".

----------

Oh cmon, just because someone owns a few shares of Apple in their lame company mutual fund doesn't mean this is a good thing. Apple doing what they did was abhorrent. If Microsoft would have done that....oh boy.... They'd have arrested the entire Gates family.

We really need dictionaries and thesauruses passed out to forumites.

 

[MikhailT]

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."

What error? Nothing is easily overturned in courts.

The judge did not make any serious errors. She intentionally told Apple that they now have a very appealable claim here but she also explained to both sides why she decided to keep the case going as she thinks there are proper people who can take place of the previously dismissed plaintiffs and given both sides time to either find better plaintiffs or for Apple to dismiss them as well.

It benefits Apple more to have this case going because if they win, they don't have to go through another 10 years of lawsuit if the case was dismissed by this.

 

[tentales]

All of these companies were building Mac clones under license from Apple. Psystar was trying to do something completely different, to build a Mac clone business without Apple's permission. Their lawyers concocted the silly theory that Apple was competing unfairly in a market defined entirely by their own product.



Not guilty, on all counts.

Companies can be required to license certain core technologies to all takers on a fair and reasonable basis (FRAND/RAND). That's one way they can be required to share their IP (with antitrust implications if they do not). The other can occur when a company obtains market power in a defined market and uses their exclusive power in that market to deny competitors fair access to the market. (In every case when I refer to a defined market, this is not the market for a company's own products, it must be something broader.)

For example, Microsoft was accused of hiding Windows APIs, giving them exclusive advantages over developers of competing software. Because of their overwhelming market share in a variety of definable markets, under an antitrust action they can be prevented from using undocumented APIs to protect and expand their market share by creating barriers to competition.

So yes, being "too successful" can create burdens. Companies that achieve overwhelming shares of a market have to be careful that they aren't defending that success by constructing barriers that prevent anybody else from competing freely and fairly on that turf.

Ok so far. Just the "something broader" definition is very open to interpretation.
Apple didn't invent the "portable music player" market. Sony did with the Walkman. Apple didn't prevent competitors from creating their own portable devices. They just prevented (had to by license from the content providers) music purchased on those other devices to play on the iPod.

I see no wrong-doing here.

WMA DRM always allowed burning to CD and then those users could've ripped that CD to the iPod. Also, several DRM stripper tools exist to enable the same.
DRM strippers apply the same tactic that RealNetworks used to gain access to the iPod.

Back to your point, I don't see the "iPod market" as a good example of "something broader" in your generic description to apply to Apple being required to share their DRM with competitors.

 

[lederermc]

"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.

I too saw the phase "3rd party clients" and wondered what exactly does that mean? I had one of those older iPods and had no problem loading it with music none of which came from Apple. As long as you obtained non-DRM MP3,WAV or AAC music it did play as well as DRM'ed music from Apple.

 

[RobertMartens]

It really is the way they've written it to stoke a fire on these forums!

Well it worked, cause I'm stoked!

 

[Rossatron]

shocking, a company made a product that'd fit its own software!!!!111 where will it end? sony did the same thing with its MD players. i have one and without the awful software you couldn't do anything.

btw, is everybody an "engineer" at apple? or is it just a title you get after you leave/your first leak is published?

 

[Nosferax]

Still waiting for FLAC support...and too stubborn to keep a mirrored store of ALAC copies.

Both are lossless, so why keep the flac files once you have them converted to alac?

 

[Glideslope]

What error? Nothing is easily overturned in courts.

The judge did not make any serious errors. She intentionally told Apple that they now have a very appealable claim here but she also explained to both sides why she decided to keep the case going as she thinks there are proper people who can take place of the previously dismissed plaintiffs and given both sides time to either find better plaintiffs or for Apple to dismiss them as well.

It benefits Apple more to have this case going because if they win, they don't have to go through another 10 years of lawsuit if the case was dismissed by this.

I understand what she "explained" to both parties. Her decision to continue was flawed. You don't add plaintiffs mid trial. Apple could easily go another 10 years in court. How about the "Highly Skilled" Class Action Lawyers?

I'm just going to make some popcorn and sit back and laugh.

 

[gnasher729]

And you miss the point completely.

They did not have to support anything. The deliberately prevented it from being done, not the same as supporting.

Three points: 1. The whole thing has nothing whatsoever to do with the case in question. It's totally irrelevant. It doesn't prove or disprove anything that Apple is accused of doing. 2. They deliberately prevented iTunes from adding music to non-Apple players, or at least that's what claimed. However, this doesn't mean that nobody could write software that runs on a Mac or on Windows and downloads music in your iTunes library to any player. 3. On a Mac, it takes exactly two lines of code to read the contents of the iTunes Library file, which allows any program to access any data that iTunes knows. You get all the information about all the music files, playlists, play counts, ratings, and so on and so on. The music itself except for DRM'd files is stored in ordinary files that you can read again with a single line of code.

----------

All of these companies were building Mac clones under license from Apple. Psystar was trying to do something completely different, to build a Mac clone business without Apple's permission. Their lawyers concocted the silly theory that Apple was competing unfairly in a market defined entirely by their own product.

Unfortunately, their lawyers got stiffed because Psystar never paid their bill (They then found a pro-bono lawyer who tried to make a name for himself).

The common sense argument: If it was legal, then Dell and HP would have done it. I think Psystar was convicted to pay $2,500 per computer sold for DMCA infringement, which explains why Dell and HP didn't do it.

----------

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?

As a third party, there is absolutely no need to use iTunes. You can very easily access all the information stored in iTunes, and use it to download any music file or any playlist in iTunes onto any player.

 

[Tech198]

I'm surprised there anyone left..


i guess having a closed door, then opening it bit by bit, like Apple is doing with security.

However, my approach would have been more direct and forceful.

 

[tbrinkma]

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?

Yes. Microsoft never got in trouble for only allowing Internet Explorer to work with Windows. The most obvious reason is that IE was available for Macs back then, but they never *would* have gotten in trouble for doing so.

Microsoft got in trouble for requiring that OEMs *NOT* include competitors' browsers as a condition of being able to get Windows licenses for the systems they were selling. That is an example of illegally leveraging a monopoly in one area to secure a monopoly in another.

----------

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 ?

You should read up on the anti-trust case against Microsoft. The information is all publicly available, so there really isn't an excuse to be ignorant on the topic.

I'll give you a hint though. It had *nothing* to do with IE's availability, and had everything to do with restricting the availability of Windows licenses to OEMs if those OEMs included a competitor's browser on the systems they were selling.

----------

This all certainly doesn't seem to matter as much now, but,

What if this was said from the very start the player was being introduced? "iPod, the greatest music device known to man... BUT, you can only buy music from apple and iTunes."

Now THAT would have laid a goose egg.

Sure. It also would have been *false*. It is, was, and always has been possible to load up an iPod with music from a variety of sources other than the iTunes music store.

----------

The "supported formats" were proprietary to apple.

Really? WAV and MP3 were "proprietary to apple"?

----------

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.

The music industry was perfectly happy at the time to provide music to a wide variety of stores, *PROVIDED that said music was wrapped in some form of DRM*. iTunes had FairPlay. The various Microsoft-friendly stores had 'Plays for Sure' (and then were hung out to dry with the release of the Zune). Real had their own DRM.

----------

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

If your music 'vanished' when you reset your iPod to factory settings, it's because you deleted it from your computer after putting it on your iPod.

If I were to copy XBox games onto my Playstation HDD, should I expect them to remain there after I reset the Playstation to factory settings (including a format of the HDD?

 

[ravenstar]

I understand what she "explained" to both parties. Her decision to continue was flawed. You don't add plaintiffs mid trial.

Except that this was a class action lawsuit, and the plaintiffs are representatives of the class. While not properly vetting the alleged plaintiffs before going to trial smacks of incompetence by the lawyers and doesn't bode well for the prospects of the suit, I don't see how all members of the class should be excluded just because some who claimed to be in the class really weren't. This wasn't really a case of "adding" plaintiffs, but of naming other representatives. If no others could be found, then the class would not exist and then the case could be dismissed.

 

[gnasher729]

Now you are inviting me to be cynical, and I accept. The answer of course is because that would take effort. Not only do the articles not mention the court documents, they show no indication of having been read, let alone, understood.

I love how most of Apple's answers basically say "most of what you claim is legal speculation, the rest we have no clue what you mean, so we deny everything just in case. " With the occasional "we admit that we are Apple, Inc" and "we admit that we sold several iPod models" and "we admit that people like the iTunes Store" thrown in.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Ok so far. Just the "something broader" definition is very open to interpretation.
Apple didn't invent the "portable music player" market. Sony did with the Walkman. Apple didn't prevent competitors from creating their own portable devices. They just prevented (had to by license from the content providers) music purchased on those other devices to play on the iPod.

I see no wrong-doing here.

WMA DRM always allowed burning to CD and then those users could've ripped that CD to the iPod. Also, several DRM stripper tools exist to enable the same.
DRM strippers apply the same tactic that RealNetworks used to gain access to the iPod.

Back to your point, I don't see the "iPod market" as a good example of "something broader" in your generic description to apply to Apple being required to share their DRM with competitors.

Not sure why you are referring to the "iPod market." This is not a market that can be contested under antitrust law. The complaint cites the "Portable Digital Media Player" market. I may have caused some confusion by paraphrasing this. Yes, these markets are subject to interpretation. More importantly, they are subject to definition. The court has to accept the definition of the relevant market as the case will depend entirely on whether the defendant has exercised unfair influence over that market.

What came before is not especially relevant to this case, and the standard for determining whether Apple violated antitrust laws is not that Apple "prevented" anything. The threshold of violation is that Apple created barriers to competition.

To my knowledge Apple did not attempt to use the burn-to-CD and rip argument in court, let alone suggest that FairPlay was easily stripped out. So it seems this argument would have done them no good.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The music industry was perfectly happy at the time to provide music to a wide variety of stores, *PROVIDED that said music was wrapped in some form of DRM*. iTunes had FairPlay. The various Microsoft-friendly stores had 'Plays for Sure' (and then were hung out to dry with the release of the Zune). Real had their own DRM.

Yes, I know, but none of these alternatives ever achieved the market share that Apple did with the iPod and FairPlay. Competitive questions can arise whenever a company achieves a dominant market share. They now have the power to protect (and expand) their turf in ways the smaller-share players do not, and if they do, it's at least arguably illegal. The huge unanswered questions in this case are whether any company ever asked for a Fairplay license, and whether the music industry would have allowed it if they had asked. I don't see where either side addressed this central question. But the media coverage of this case sucks eggs, so it's possible it did come up but the reporters didn't understand the relevance.

----------

I love how most of Apple's answers basically say "most of what you claim is legal speculation, the rest we have no clue what you mean, so we deny everything just in case. " With the occasional "we admit that we are Apple, Inc" and "we admit that we sold several iPod models" and "we admit that people like the iTunes Store" thrown in.

Yes, that did seem odd. I don't understand the legal strategy but suspect Apple is trying to keep the record as clean and generic as possible, assuming a need to appeal. A nuance in this case is that no competitor was named as a plaintiff, though clearly at least one of them had complaints of a similar nature and is named in plaintiff's argument. If Apple loses, the findings on the record could be used by competitors to sue separately. This is what happened to Microsoft. I'm quite sure Apple is at least as concerned with this possibility as they are with the class action itself, as the damages could easily be much larger.

 

[lederermc]

Still waiting for FLAC support...and too stubborn to keep a mirrored store of ALAC copies.

Don't hold your breath. Apple will never support flac due to the open source licensing required. There are zillions of FLAC to ALAC conversion programs that are simple to use. I use xACT and XLD (if I want to down sample). For slightly corrupted flac files I use ffmpeg which is a bit more forgiving.