MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
53,559
15,267



jobs_pose-250x354.jpg
The Steve Jobs deposition video that played a key role in the iPod antitrust trial Apple faced in court last week will not see a public release, ruled by District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

In a filing released today (via AppleInsider), the judge denied a request issued by several major news outlets last week, including CNN, Bloomberg, and the Associated Press. The news agencies had filed a motion to have the deposition video, which was filmed just six months before Steve Jobs' death, released to the public.

Citing past precedent of a decision made by the Eighth Circuit court in a case involving a video deposition of former President Bill Clinton, the court decided the Jobs video was not a judicial record and should be treated as any live testimony.
Here, the Court agrees with the Eighth Circuit and concludes that the Jobs Deposition is not a judicial record. It was not admitted into evidence as an exhibit. Instead, the Jobs Deposition was merely presented in lieu of live testimony due to the witness's unavailability, and was and should be treated in the same manner as any other live testimony offered at trial. As is typical of all live testimony, it is properly made available to the public through its initial courtroom presentation and, subsequently, via the official court transcript, the latter of which is the judicial record of such testimony.
Part of the reason the court decided not to publicly release the video was due to Apple's strong objection to the motion. Had there been no objection, Judge Rogers' filing says the ruling "might be different."

In the video in question, Steve Jobs explained that Apple's airtight Digital Rights Management (DRM) policies were the result of "black and white" contracts with record labels. Preventing the iPod from playing music from competing services was merely "collateral damage," he said.

Jobs was said to be evasive in his testimony, answering questions with "I don't remember," "I don't know," or "I don't recall" more than 74 times. He also had a "snarky" attitude, according to CNN, asking "Do they still exist?" when questioned about RealNetworks.

Apple's iPod trial ended yesterday, with a ruling in its favor. After deliberating for just three hours, the jury decided that Apple had not harmed consumers with anticompetitive practices. Had Apple lost the case, it could have been on the hook for up to $1 billion in damages.

Article Link: Judge Rules Steve Jobs Deposition Video Will Not See Public Release
 

Patriot24

macrumors 68030
Dec 29, 2010
2,811
794
California
I think this makes sense. There was nothing to be gained by releasing the video given that the transcript is available.
 

sshambles

macrumors 6502a
Oct 19, 2005
740
1,071
Australia
Glad they heeded Apple's request.

The presentation video of Steve and the Cupertino council members is worth watching - for those who want a video to watch.
 

Jsameds

Suspended
Apr 22, 2008
3,525
7,986
It's ultimately the right thing to do but I can't deny there's a part of me that wants to watch it.
 

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,108
This is the movie Sorkin should be making. The way they recreate actors deceased in the middle of making a flick, they can recreate Steve. Forget that other actor, what's his name?
 

CFreymarc

Suspended
Sep 4, 2009
3,969
1,149
I am not surprised at all. Even before the Bill Clinton video testimony, there has been many video testimonies, many interviewing the target of a violent felon, whom a judge denied to go public.

Yes, I would have loved to see it myself. Was there any public observers in the courtroom?
 

BigPrince

macrumors 68020
Dec 27, 2006
2,054
106
I agree this is the ideal outcome.

Any details as to how Apple argued this particular motion?
 

CFreymarc

Suspended
Sep 4, 2009
3,969
1,149
I agree this is the ideal outcome.

Any details as to how Apple argued this particular motion?

The article is pretty self explanatory. The video recording was never submitted as an exhibit and thus still a personal work of the estate of the deceased. It can also be viewed as a personal, proprietary, unpublished work not for public exhibit.

----------

This was the right decision.

Agree, imagine how much the ReMix crowd would be on this video piece setting it to hip hop beats.
 

BigPrince

macrumors 68020
Dec 27, 2006
2,054
106
The article is pretty self explanatory. The video recording was never submitted as an exhibit and thus still a personal work of the estate of the deceased. It can also be viewed as a personal, proprietary, unpublished work not for public exhibit.

That to me seems like the standard argument....the article implied "strong objection"....I took that to mean more then just the obvious.

Thanks for clarifying.
 

japanime

macrumors 68020
Feb 27, 2006
2,275
2,677
Japan
The fact that a corporation can squelch such a request should be of concern to those who value freedom of information. The judge admits that she might have released the video had Apple not objected.

Was the request ghoulish? Absolutely. But it is the duty of the Fourth Estate to doggedly pursue what it perceives as public information. Freedom of the press is not always a pretty thing.
 

JeffMaxinDC

macrumors newbie
Dec 17, 2014
1
0
The fact that a corporation can squelch such a request should be of concern to those who value freedom of information. The judge admits that she might have released the video had Apple not objected.

Was the request ghoulish? Absolutely. But it is the duty of the Fourth Estate to doggedly pursue what it perceives as public information. Freedom of the press is not always a pretty thing.

I have no problem with the press "doggedly pursuing" it. That's what I would expect them to do. But it's absolutely reasonable for the court to say no. That's the nature of checks and balances.

And Apple was the defendant in the case so they're the ones who had standing to request that the court not release it. That's not "squelching" it - that's making a request. The judge was the final arbiter.
 

Archer1440

Suspended
Mar 10, 2012
730
301
USA
Between their sensationalistic coverage of events like Ferguson and the Martin shooting to aiding and abetting criminals with disclosure of Sony Pictures internal documents stolen by hackers to trying to force release of this video, the 24-hour news organs are treading on the intent of the 1st amendment in their attempt to be relevant and grab as many eyeballs as possible.

Disgraceful.
 

IbisDoc

macrumors 6502a
Apr 17, 2010
516
357
LOL at a raging liberal, attention-whoring company all of a sudden arguing against freedom of information when it suits them.
 
Last edited:

budselectjr

macrumors 6502a
Oct 6, 2009
994
1,835
Minnesota
Jobs was said to be evasive in his testimony, answering questions with "I don't remember," "I don't know," or "I don't recall" more than 74 times. He also had a "snarky" attitude, according to CNN, asking "Do they still exist?" when questioned about RealNetworks.

Sounds boring yet hilarious.
 

macduke

macrumors G4
Jun 27, 2007
11,586
15,917
Central U.S.
I miss the snark—probably because he was often correct and his brand of snark cut right through the bullcrap. He was great at doing that.
 

batchtaster

macrumors 65816
Mar 3, 2008
1,031
217
The fact that a corporation can squelch such a request should be of concern to those who value freedom of information. The judge admits that she might have released the video had Apple not objected.

Was the request ghoulish? Absolutely. But it is the duty of the Fourth Estate to doggedly pursue what it perceives as public information. Freedom of the press is not always a pretty thing.

You can have the information - the article says exactly that.

As is typical of all live testimony, it is properly made available to the public through its initial courtroom presentation and, subsequently, via the official court transcript, the latter of which is the judicial record of such testimony.

But that's not what you're asking for. You want to watch the famous dead man talk. Look who is making the request - news sites desperately wanting to be the first to get it on the air in order to create a spectacle and score ratings. The filing was not from anyone acting in the interests of freedom of information, that there were things revealed that people have a right to know about - it was out of self-interest.

If information is what you genuinely want, then you will be satisfied with the court transcript.
 

Gobeatty

macrumors newbie
Sep 11, 2012
23
0
I understand people have a want to see him. They likely have varying reasons.

As for me, I just miss him.

But I don't feel entitled to see every video of Steve Jobs ever made. I hope the courts would provide the same protection for any video of him used in court and not shift the criteria for disclosure because he is Steve Jobs.

Bravo. Right decision.
 

CFreymarc

Suspended
Sep 4, 2009
3,969
1,149
That to me seems like the standard argument....the article implied "strong objection"....I took that to mean more then just the obvious.

Thanks for clarifying.

To me it's a relative term and not necessarily noting any novel calms to a court.

I can see Apple's attorneys immediately talking in a stern voice just below the level of being in disruption of the court. That could be viewed as a "strong objection."
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.