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
68,713
39,655



jobs_pose-250x354.jpg
Apple is in court this week dealing with an ongoing class-action lawsuit that accuses the company of purposefully crippling competing music services and inflating prices by locking iPods and iTunes music to its own ecosystem.

Evidence from Steve Jobs, in the form of a series of emails, has played a large role in the case so far, and today, the former Apple CEO was featured in the trial again, when a deposition videotaped in 2011 was shown in court. CNET has been attending the trial since it started earlier this week, and has relayed what Jobs had to say.

In the deposition, taped six months before his death, Steve Jobs echoed much of what Eddy Cue said earlier in the week, suggesting Apple's contracts with record companies forced it to maintain airtight Digital Rights Management (DRM) policies that locked out music from other sources.
"We had pretty much black and white contracts with the labels," Jobs said in the deposition. Those contracts stipulated that if people violated Apple's FairPlay digital rights management system, a technology that would detect other music stores' song files and prevent users from loading them onto the iPod, "... that would be in clear violation of the licenses we had from the labels and they could cease giving us music at any time."
Jobs went on to say that Apple was "very concerned" with RealNetwork's efforts to bypass Apple's DRM. In 2004, the competing music store reverse engineered the FairPlay DRM, gaining access to the iPod. Apple was unhappy with the move, painting RealNetworks as a hacker and later updating iTunes to once again prevent RealNetworks music from playing on the iPod.

According to Jobs, preventing the iPod from playing music from competing services was "collateral damage" caused by record companies confusing demands asking Apple to both open its platform to competitors and prevent hacking via DRM.

During the case, the plaintiffs have argued that Apple had an obligation to allow third-party companies to load music onto the iPod, and that its move to block competitors created a monopoly. Apple, meanwhile, has argued that pressure from record companies and a desire to protect customers from malicious content kept it from making iTunes and the iPod more accessible to third-party companies.

Apple has also suggested that it did not have a monopoly in the market at the time as there were several other MP3 players available, including Microsoft's Zune. As noted by CNET, Jobs' deposition may somewhat undermine that argument, however, as he told the court "We were the only big company involved in this stuff at this time, the one with the deepest pockets."

The iPod antitrust lawsuit, which seeks $350 million in damages, is expected to last for several more days, though Apple is currently attempting to get the case dismissed entirely, as one plaintiff has been removed from the lawsuit and another's iPod purchase dates are in question. The plaintiff's lawyers are fighting Apple's dismissal request and have asked the judge to add a new plaintiff -- a Michigan man who bought an iPod touch in 2008.

Article Link: Steve Jobs Deposition Video Shown in Ongoing iPod Class-Action Lawsuit
 
its always kind of confounded me why this was a big issue? it was pretty clear at the time that it was the label's insistence that resulted in having DRM, there would have been no way of getting them onboard otherwise... I think its pretty obvious Jobs was against cumbersome and limiting copy-protection mechanisms and his testimony would somewhat back that up. And it wasnt like it was a huge deal to get around if you were in the least bit tech-saavy. lastly, i seem to recall that at the time period, everybody's players were pretty much locked down to their own content stores.

----------

This might all fall apart, the plaintiffs might not have, you know, actually bought iPods in the right time period to be valid plaintiffs...

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30343686

eeeeexactly. this whole thing kinda stinks to me as a shameless moneygrab really.
 
After the 9th article about this, I would love to see the Jobs video.
 
I think its pretty obvious Jobs was against cumbersome and limiting copy-protection mechanisms and his testimony would somewhat back that up.
Exactly, to me the biggest argument against these bottom feeders suit is that Apple was very vocal about how much they did not want DRM and as soon as the record companies agreed, they dumped it.

And it wasn't like it was a huge deal to get around if you were in the least bit tech-saavy. lastly,
The simplest way was to rip music directly from CD. That's how I filled my first iPod.

i seem to recall that at the time period, everybody's players were pretty much locked down to their own content stores.
Very True. Apple should ask if a Zune would play music from the iTunes Store or RealNetworks.

This suit should have been thrown out at the first hearing. It was pointless then and is only more so now. All it's doing is to reinforce the idea that lawyers are a bunch of ethically vacuous weasels.
 
Drm

Lets all start complaining that we can't install games bought from origin through steam
 
Not to the lawyers

Exactly! It is too bad there wasn't a way for Apple to go directly after the lawyers here.

My big fear is that the lawyers here are trying to set up a situation where they can go after Apple App Store.

Beyond all of that since when does any company have an obligation to allow third parties in on their systems?
 
"We had pretty much black and white contracts with the labels," Jobs said in the deposition. Those contracts stipulated that if people violated Apple's FairPlay digital rights management system, a technology that would detect other music stores' song files and prevent users from loading them onto the iPod, "... that would be in clear violation of the licenses we had from the labels and they could cease giving us music at any time."

So it sounds like Apple wasn't allowed let other stores' music onto the iPod without violating their contracts they had with the record labels. If true... that pretty much ends the case.

Apple needed the labels' music... so they had to play by their rules.

RealNetworks found a way around those rules... and Apple had to shut them down.

I don't think Apple was acting anti-competitively... they were just honoring the record labels' contracts.

In the deposition, Mr. Jobs testified about Apple’s use of a copyright management system that prevented songs sold by competing music stores from playing on iPods.

Mr. Jobs said that back when the iTunes Store was still young, Apple had strict contracts with music companies stating that it had to protect their copyrights through a strict “digital rights” management system. Any violation of that agreement could result in the music labels withholding their songs from iTunes, he said.

Mr. Jobs emphasized that many people were trying to hack iTunes and the iPod, which would put Apple at risk of violating its contracts. So Apple had to keep working to strengthen the security of its software.

Apple has always let you buy music elsewhere on CD and rip it into iTunes... or add any MP3s you may have too. So it obviously wasn't a power play to force people into only buying songs from iTunes.

You just couldn't put DRMed music purchased elsewhere onto your iPod... as per the agreements with the record labels.

I wonder if the court will hear any testimonies from record executives? Though Apple should have all of this documented thoroughly.
 
Lawyers representing both consumers and businesses claim that the restrictions meant Apple could inflate the prices of iPod in an anti-competitive manner. They are seeking $350m in damages, which could be tripled under US competition laws. - http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30343686

WTF does this mean?

The plaintiff lawyers argument:

- Apple prevented non-Apple purchased music from loading onto the iPod because:
1) Consumers don't want MP3 players that will play all other non-Apple music
2) Consumers prefer a device that can't load non-Apple music
- THEREFORE due to 1 & 2, Apple will be able to charge more for iPod as the demand increases
- If Apple allowed non-Apple music, the iPod would have cost less because of less demand

HUH.

I had a Nomad Jukebox Zen until the iPhone 3G.

----------

So when is the lawsuit coming because Apple stops Android apps from loading into iOS? :rolleyes:
 
I'm waiting for one of the money-grubbing lawyers to ask Jobs to the witness stand. And then for him to be told that he's Dead!
 
I absolutely love that MacRumors just linked to a post written by arn over 10 years ago. There was an update on that post. It would be hysterical if they updated it again after the trial is over.
 
Once again the basic issues are being confused. The trial is not about whether Apple "had a monopoly." Monopolies are perfectly legal.
 
Lets all start complaining that we can't install games bought from origin through steam

You can install both on your Mac. Now how would you feel if only origin games were available via iTunes and apple prevented steam games from being installed on your Mac? Kinda crap eh?
 
So it sounds like Apple wasn't allowed let other stores' music onto the iPod without violating their contracts they had with the record labels. If true... that pretty much ends the case.

I don't think that it works like that.

The issue is whether or not Apple did something illegal, particularly around antitrust violations.

It doesn't matter what the contracts said, if what they did was illegal. If the contract said that Apple has to kill a puppy for every 1000 downloads, it doesn't mean that killing that puppy is legal because they were required to do so under the contract.

Now, if they are found to have done something illegal, the contract may come into play in the penalty phase.

----------

You can install both on your Mac. Now how would you feel if only origin games were available via iTunes and apple prevented steam games from being installed on your Mac? Kinda crap eh?

Meh. If I knew that the Steam game I wanted wasn't available on the Mac before I bought the game, I wouldn't care. I don't have an entitlement mentality. BTW, there are plenty of games on Steam that are not playable on Mac.
 
I don't think that it works like that.

The issue is whether or not Apple did something illegal, particularly around antitrust violations.

It doesn't matter what the contracts said, if what they did was illegal. If the contract said that Apple has to kill a puppy for every 1000 downloads, it doesn't mean that killing that puppy is legal because they were required to do so under the contract.

Now, if they are found to have done something illegal, the contract may come into play in the penalty phase.

So in order to be legal... Apple has to allow DRM files from every online music store?

And if they don't do that... it's illegal?

Can you cite the specific law Apple broke?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.