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

[Glideslope]

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.

I have no problem with the process recommencing from the beginning with new plaintiffs. The Judge used too much personal discretion.

It should have been thrown out, and retried with new plaintiffs. On the other hand, perhaps both sides can now work out a settlement. Let's have all 8 million submit the documentation for each FairPlay rejection?

Yes, I like that. Class Actions are out of control. They are a pustule on the ass of the legal system (what is left of it.)

Memorize this persons quote. It's the way the world works.

"Business language: "share" means "mine". It's the Law of the Jungle. It's based on the idea that it's a competition to the death in the Roman arena. If you want "share" above all only if it gives you dominance of competitors, and the big shall crush the small. Successful companies are successful because a nice slice of the population like it. Why? It tells them a story. Of course, there's competition in the market."

 

[yellowtruck]

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.

Most likely reply but not to actually post: "....oh." (as in, embarrassingly just realized that upon your highlighting the overlooked fact)

 

[Traverse]

This is going to be a drawn out case. There's a fine line between being competitive and a free market.

 

[booksbooks]

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


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 ?


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.

The difference between you and me: I sit in the boardroom, you sit in the cafeteria.

----------

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.

Of course I recognize that, but equating "fanboys" and "Apple Lovers" to people who are also investors or whom really understand and care about the economics of their business is fallacious.

Anyway... just get back on topic...

 

[tentales]

The difference between you and me: I sit in the boardroom, you sit in the cafeteria.

Hubris goeth before the fall.
When you cannot argue the point you resort to belittling. Very mature.

 

[booksbooks]

Hubris goeth before the fall.
When you cannot argue the point you resort to belittling. Very mature.

The person is a cog on the wheel. There is no Hubris. At the end of the day I'm neutral on this lawsuit but expect anything and everything in business, even from a fruity brand.