Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
69,509
40,644



Some of the last known video of Steve Jobs, from the deposition tape that was played in court last Friday, may be made public as a group of lawyers representing CNN, Bloomberg, and the Associated Press filed a motion earlier this week to have it released (via CNET).

Up until now, both Apple and the plaintiffs in the case have asked the court to consider the video "regular testimony," which would prevent it from being shown outside the court walls. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has not yet sealed the evidence, however, leaving open the possibility of the video being made publicly available. Representing all three media outlets, attorney Thomas Burke cited public interest as a major argument for releasing the video.
"Given the substantial public interest in the rare posthumous appearance of Steve Jobs in this trial, there simply is no interest that justifies restricting the public's access to his video deposition," attorney Thomas Burke wrote in the filing Monday.
steve-jobs-iphone.jpg
Burke sent an official email request to broadcast the video on Sunday, to which Apple's lead attorney, Bill Isaacson replied, "Apple does not consent to your request. We are preparing a substantive response to your points and will get that to you tonight hopefully."

Jobs' deposition video is acting as evidence in the ongoing lawsuit dating back to 2005 that sees Apple facing accusations of attempting to enforce a monopoly over the iPod and iTunes by shutting out competing services.

In the video, Jobs echoed much of the same sentiment Apple has expressed in the case so far, stating that "We had pretty much black and white contracts with the labels," and that preventing the iPod from playing music from competing music services was "collateral damage."

Apple has yet to comment on the attempt to make the video public since Isaacson's initial response. According to the plaintiff's lawyers in the iPod case, whether or not the deposition video is released to the public is entirely up to Apple.

Article Link: Major News Outlets Seek Permission to Share Steve Jobs' iPod Lawsuit Deposition Video
 
I think it is up to them...

"Apple has yet to comment on the attempt to make the video public since Isaacson's initial response. According to the plaintiff's lawyers in the iPod case, whether or not the deposition video is released to the public is entirely up to Apple."

But I am still in agreement with a big fat no.
 
Public interest is a reason to release evidence? That sounds a bit strange to me.
 
This seems more like a Steve Jobs fetishism from the media than a genuine concern about public interest.
 
Either way its going to leak in time. Might as well do it in a controlled manner.
 
More misuse of the phrase 'public interest'.

Just because the public would find it interesting, doesn't make it 'in the public interest'.
 
Steve Jobs video

I dont care about that video or Steve but I like Apple product specialy on sale for cheap money :D
 
"Given the substantial public interest in the rare posthumous appearance of Steve Jobs in this trial"

Seriously? That's the criteria for what the news thinks should be released?

This is no longer about "news" it is about entertainment.

Hey news people, why don't you go do some investigative reporting or something of value that honors the tradition of your profession?
 
They want to televise a sick man's deposition to possibly alienate and ridicule.

Shame on them. This is not in the public interest.
 
Last edited:
I wonder which one is the last video of him. Anyway, if he was not in a good shape, the video should not be released.
 
The media had to be recalling the video deposition of Bill Gates in U.S. v. Microsoft, much of which was shown publicly during that trial. It was seen as being quite revealing at the time, showing Gates as smug, evasive, and not remembering much of anything. Presumably the difference, in terms of the release of testimony, is this is a private lawsuit. I can't imagine why the judge would honor this request.
 
Media just trying to get ratings and clicks..

I hope Apple realizes this and tells the media no.
 
Genuine question from someone who isn't a lawyer:

If a trial/evidence hasn't been specifically sealed, isn't that evidence supposed to be part of the public record by law? There's been a lot of discussion in the news lately about grand jury proceedings vs. trial proceedings and a lot said about how an actual trial would allow evidence to be entered into the public record as part of that process.

Or does that only apply to criminal trials and the rules about sealed/non-sealed cases and/or exhibits are different for civil trials?

I don't have an opinion either way in this specific instance (this particular document), but I'm a little confused as to why this isn't up to the judge/court. How is a party in a trial (who would be, by definition, biased) able to control what does and doesn't enter the public record?
 
fire up a youtube video of a jobs interview. viola! steve jobs on your screen!

if there are no videos of steve jobs doing or saying something you haven't seen before, well, you're a weirdo.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.