Steve Jobs Deposition Video Shown in Ongoing iPod Class-Action Lawsuit

[IJ Reilly]

What part of, all monopolies are not legal, did you not understand?

You don't seem to understand the complete lack of a meaningful relationship between the concepts of monopoly and legality. The way you insist on using the terms is completely irrelevant to antitrust law.

----------

Apple neither had full control of Music or Music service at that time. There has always been other means to purchase digital music other than iTunes/iPod.

Apple just had a better mouse trap so they had a bigger market share. NOT illegal.

Now if the plaintiffs can prove Apple used their market share to force the Music industry to only sell to them. THEN that would be illegal.

And this response proves my point. Full control of a market has no bearing on whether a company has or could violate antitrust laws. It simply is not a criterion.

 

[Tech198]

Apple needs the record labels...

Apple's all about, take it, or leave it... They've already been about that. Although they've dropped DRM now.

If people had issues and couldn't understand then don't buy an ipod. They knew what they were getting themselves into, after all Apple is a closed company, they can do what ever they liked.

Steve was unhappy with everything that violated Apple's stuff.....

From the ipod classic spec page:

"Audio support
AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3, and 4), Apple Lossless, WAV, and AIFF"

 

[MentalFloss]

Perhaps only few people are old enough like me and still remember the late 90's and early 2000's well enough to remember how RealNetworks' file formats were perhaps the most proprietary and well-protected formats around. They sued companies, because they created software to convert RealNetworks formats to WAV or MP3. They tried to establish their own audio player ecosystem with very heavy DRM restrictions, and only when that didn't work, they broke Apple's DRM and forced their way into the iPod. And now, Apple's attempts to keep RealNetworks out are under discussion? They should subpoena the RealNetworks executives from back then, because if they give an honest testimony, they will admit that Apple employed completely normal and reasonable business practices and didn't play as dirty as RealNetworks did.

 

[glsillygili]

Hey I bought a iPod in 2006 can I join!

 

[IJ Reilly]

If people had issues and couldn't understand then don't buy an ipod. They knew what they were getting themselves into, after all Apple is a closed company, they can do what ever they liked.

This is also not a question for antitrust law. No need to overcomplicate matters when a common sense approach provides most of what a person needs to know about the questions being raised in this case.

Let's say you bought an iPod, and let's say you then bought $300 worth of FairPlay tracks from the iTMS to play on that iPod. A couple years later your iPod breaks. You look around to replace it and find a player from another company with the features you like. It costs $200. But the true cost of that competing product to you will be $500, including repurchasing your music. So how much more than $200 would you be willing to pay for another iPod instead of the competing player? If Apple's equivalent was priced $100 more than the competition, then the economic choice would be obvious. In fact any price for the Apple product short of $500 would put you dollars ahead.

The plaintiffs allege that this shelter enabled Apple to keep iPod prices higher than they might have been otherwise, and also competitively disadvantaged other player manufacturers. The question being raised is pretty clear and intuitively obvious. Getting it really doesn't require a deep understanding the legal terms of art.

Were antitrust laws violated? That's for the courts to decide. But it's clear that the question itself isn't strange or stupid. Assuming the case doesn't fall apart due to a lack of plaintiffs with standing to sue, Apple is going to have to show how their failure to license FairPlay was for reasons other than competitive advantage.

 

[cfedu]

This is also not a question for antitrust law. No need to overcomplicate matters when a common sense approach provides most of what a person needs to know about the questions being raised in this case.

Let's say you bought an iPod, and let's say you then bought $300 worth of FairPlay tracks from the iTMS to play on that iPod. A couple years later your iPod breaks. You look around to replace it and find a player from another company with the features you like. It costs $200. But the true cost of that competing product to you will be $500, including repurchasing your music. So how much more than $200 would you be willing to pay for another iPod instead of the competing player? If Apple's equivalent was priced $100 more than the competition, then the economic choice would be obvious. In fact any price for the Apple product short of $500 would put you dollars ahead.

The plaintiffs allege that this shelter enabled Apple to keep iPod prices higher than they might have been otherwise, and also competitively disadvantaged other player manufacturers. The question being raised is pretty clear and intuitively obvious. Getting it really doesn't require a deep understanding the legal terms of art.

Were antitrust laws violated? That's for the courts to decide. But it's clear that the question itself isn't strange or stupid. Assuming the case doesn't fall apart due to a lack of plaintiffs with standing to sue, Apple is going to have to show how their failure to license FairPlay was for reasons other than competitive advantage.

Or if the person is not a complete retard, they could take their 300 songs, burns them to a virtual disc and then rip the songs, all this for free. They can still save the $100 on the competing mp3 player and keep all there songs.

There are many reasons why Apple should be sued, but this is not one of them IMO. If the Plaintiffs lawyers make an analogy like yours, Apple's rebuttal will be pretty simply. They might even do a demonstration in court of have easy it is to legally remove the DRM. A simply burn to CD than rip will be pretty powerful demonstration in court. This with the fact that the plaintiffs are liars and don't even have qualifying iPods, I hope Apple sues them for all costs.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Or if the person is not a complete retard, they could take their 300 songs, burns them to a virtual disc and then rip the songs, all this for free. They can still save the $100 on the competing mp3 player and keep all there songs.

There are many reasons why Apple should be sued, but this is not one of them IMO. If the Plaintiffs lawyers make an analogy like yours, Apple's rebuttal will be pretty simply. They might even do a demonstration in court of have easy it is to legally remove the DRM. A simply burn to CD than rip will be pretty powerful demonstration in court. This with the fact that the plaintiffs are liars and don't even have qualifying iPods, I hope Apple sues them for all costs.

Wow, nice choice of language. Anyway... let's for a moment assume that burning tracks to a CD and re-ripping them doesn't degrade the sound quality (though it does). Remember, Apple's defense is that their exclusive control of FairPlay was vitally important to their relationship with the music industry, and that the iTMS could not have even been created without it. So you really think Apple will show how to defeat DRM in court? Fat bloody chance.

 

[cfedu]

Wow, nice choice of language. Anyway... let's for a moment assume that burning tracks to a CD and re-ripping them doesn't degrade the sound quality (though it does). Remember, Apple's defense is that their exclusive control of FairPlay was vitally important to their relationship with the music industry, and that the iTMS could not have even been created without it. So you really think Apple will show how to defeat DRM in court? Fat bloody chance.

Choice of language is based on filing a law suit about how you were wronged and don't even have a qualifying device. That is like suing for injuries from a car accident that you did not even have.

If that is what the content providers wanted of apple than why not. Those were the terms an conditions that apple had and that iTunes users had.

Sue for the iMessage bug or that devices download updates that you have no intention of installing yet take up room. Sue for apple breaking third party lightning cables not working, there are lots f things to sue Apple for.

Since Apple had to conform to the Content providers restrictions, legal or not it will be hard to prove any wrong doing by Apple. Apple revolutionized digital music, and had to compromise with the labels at one time in order to get their content. Lots of msuic services have left customers high and dry with there DRM music collection, like Walmart and Microsoft.

 

[Keirasplace]

Or if the person is not a complete retard, they could take their 300 songs, burns them to a virtual disc and then rip the songs, all this for free. They can still save the $100 on the competing mp3 player and keep all there songs.

There are many reasons why Apple should be sued, but this is not one of them IMO. If the Plaintiffs lawyers make an analogy like yours, Apple's rebuttal will be pretty simply. They might even do a demonstration in court of have easy it is to legally remove the DRM. A simply burn to CD than rip will be pretty powerful demonstration in court. This with the fact that the plaintiffs are liars and don't even have qualifying iPods, I hope Apple sues them for all costs.

While its simple, your not getting the exact same thing you paid for by doing that. You have decode mp3 to aiff (thats what burning means) --- Encode into mp3 (or aac) again. If the quality of the original file's audio (say 320 mbs) is high enough though, the difference would be very small (probably only audible only on a good system).

 

[CFreymarc]

After the 9th article about this, I would love to see the Jobs video.

It is common practice for American civil courts to release all data to the public once a trail has concluded. I'm expecting a link to Steve's video disposition after the trail is done and the sentence read.

----------

Isn't DRM circumvention illegal and RealNetworks should really be the ones under scrutiny here?

You hit a legal gray zone. Many security compromise technologies are protected under First Amendement with few exceptions.

 

[GrabASnookie]

Keurig 2.0 Take Note

Keurig made it harder for other vendors to make K-Cups unless they pay the tax. Old K-Cups are useless in the new machine unless you cut out the top of a new k_Cup and place it over the old k-cup so that the sensor thinks you are using the Licensed product.
If apple loses, well then the courts need to look at the rest of the market, including k-cups.

 

[cfedu]

While its simple, your not getting the exact same thing you paid for by doing that. You have decode mp3 to aiff (thats what burning means) --- Encode into mp3 (or aac) again. If the quality of the original file's audio (say 320 mbs) is high enough though, the difference would be very small (probably only audible only on a good system).

Anyone who cared or was able to hear the difference in quality would not have purchased DRM'ed music from itunes in the first place. Only trolls that make lawsuits that lie about purchase dates, lie about who purchased devices, would care about sound quality! I bet in a blind test of the original music to the music with the DRM removed they would not be able to tell the difference.

Even if all this is true, how much more did an iPod cost? a few bucks at most, and if you resold that item at a later date you would get that money back. I bet the non iPod versions lost almost all of the value right away, in the long run you might have saves money getting iPods.

200$ non ipod a year later would be worth 50$
250$ iPod would would keep it's value better after a year, maybe 175$

The 6 year old iPod classic has gone up in value, If these stupid plaintiffs had keep there iPods they would have been able to sell them for a profit.

This case is a complete farce to me and I am far from an Apple apologist. I've already ditched my iPhone and my Macs might be next if I don't see more value soon. The 2014 Mac mini and 1GB of ram is the iPhone is making think of rotten Apples, this suit just makes me shake my head!

----------

Keurig made it harder for other vendors to make K-Cups unless they pay the tax. Old K-Cups are useless in the new machine unless you cut out the top of a new k_Cup and place it over the old k-cup so that the sensor thinks you are using the Licensed product.
If apple loses, well then the courts need to look at the rest of the market, including k-cups.

That would be similar to the apple situation if the companies selling Keurig their coffee (coffee beans) put on sales restrictions of the k-cups. I highly doubt that Keurig how a contractual obligations to do what they did.

 

[AppleFan1984]

Realnetworks removed _their own_ DRM from the music you bought from Realnetworks....

This is the part I don't understand:

Real + music publishers = no DRM
Zune + music publishers = no DRM
Rio + music publishers = no DRM
Sony + music publishers = no DRM
Apple + music publishers = DRM required

Why did the music labels require different terms from Apple than they did from everyone else?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Choice of language is based on filing a law suit about how you were wronged and don't even have a qualifying device. That is like suing for injuries from a car accident that you did not even have.

If that is what the content providers wanted of apple than why not. Those were the terms an conditions that apple had and that iTunes users had.

Sue for the iMessage bug or that devices download updates that you have no intention of installing yet take up room. Sue for apple breaking third party lightning cables not working, there are lots f things to sue Apple for.

Since Apple had to conform to the Content providers restrictions, legal or not it will be hard to prove any wrong doing by Apple. Apple revolutionized digital music, and had to compromise with the labels at one time in order to get their content. Lots of msuic services have left customers high and dry with there DRM music collection, like Walmart and Microsoft.

No excuse for the choice of words. It is obnoxious to imply that people who aren't as technical as you are mentally defective.

Anyway... the point remains that Apple will have to demonstrate in court that the choice to not license FairPlay was because the music industry insisted on it. This is Apple's argument, but they will have to do more than simply assert it.

If the lawsuit turns out to have no named plaintiffs with standing, then it will be a colossal error on the part of the attorneys -- but that will not answer any questions about the merits of their legal argument.

----------

Keurig made it harder for other vendors to make K-Cups unless they pay the tax. Old K-Cups are useless in the new machine unless you cut out the top of a new k_Cup and place it over the old k-cup so that the sensor thinks you are using the Licensed product.
If apple loses, well then the courts need to look at the rest of the market, including k-cups.

No, they won't. Each of these instances is considered on the facts.

 

[cfedu]

No excuse for the choice of words. It is obnoxious to imply that people who aren't as technical as you are mentally defective.

My choice of words to call someone retarded because they decides to sue Apple for millions of dollars because they can't rip a CD and it turns out lied about even owning a qualified iPod. My level of mental competence is not on trial and nor are the plaintiffs. The layers they hired may not have had technical skills either, but should have had basic cognitive ability of doing a simple google search to investigate if there is a technical way around apples DRM. The lawyers could also have had the common sense to ask for proof of purchase of the devices before making a statement of claim against apple as well.

Maybe it would be more appropriate to call both the lawyers and plaintiffs ****ing ********** retarded.

 

[uburoibob]

The apple store is clearly in violation of antitrust laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.

That case has nothing to do with this one. All materials were and are freely available from other sources and had multiple ways they could be acquired and played.

There was no material that was made exclusively for the iPod (if there was, it was a promotional piece, only).

If anything, this class action suit should be going after any record labels who restricted their material to ONLY the iPod.

 

[macUser2007]

...
If anything, this class action suit should be going after any record labels who restricted their material to ONLY the iPod.

This is a rather nonsensical argument. Entering into a contract to violate applicable law is hardly a valid excuse why one violated the law.

Apple wanted to make money, so they tried to eliminate their competitors by any means necessary.

Apple was likely fully aware of what they were doing, but made a decision that the potential penalties are outweighed by the benefits of maintaining an effective monopoly for as long as possible.

Which is going to probably happen here: Apple will eventually pay some amount in penalties, or in settlement, but such amount will be a fraction of the profits and markets share value gained by violating the law. The plaintiffs's attorneys will get their fees, the consumers will get some symbolic coupon for 50 cents and we'll all move on.

Apple has done this before and will likely do it again, if it can. So will other companies, until management starts paying the price personally, which is unlikely to happen any time soon.

 

[garya73]

This is a rather nonsensical argument. Entering into a contract to violate applicable law is hardly a valid excuse why one violated the law.

Apple wanted to make money, so they tried to eliminate their competitors by any means necessary.

Apple was likely fully aware of what they were doing, but made a decision that the potential penalties are outweighed by the benefits of maintaining an effective monopoly for as long as possible.

Which is going to probably happen here: Apple will eventually pay some amount in penalties, or in settlement, but such amount will be a fraction of the profits and markets share value gained by violating the law. The plaintiffs's attorneys will get their fees, the consumers will get some symbolic coupon for 50 cents and we'll all move on.

Apple has done this before and will likely do it again, if it can. So will other companies, until management starts paying the price personally, which is unlikely to happen any time soon.

Exactly. Apple used its closed ecosystem and clout to effectively destroy all of its competition. Although the iPod is now a largely irrelevant device, this case should still continue. If anything, to affirm certain precedents or set others. The punishment Apple will pay, if any, will be microscopic compared to the money they have made from iPod sales and from sales via the iTunes store.

The legal system makes it too easy for companies (and individuals) to just pay a penalty and admit no guilt, rather than have a case fairly heard in court.

Keurig is attempting to re-close its ecosystem after it was opened due to patent expirations. But based on my own online investigations, it seems that people aren't buying the new machines, and if they are, they are highly unhappy that you can't use non-Keurig cups in them. There have even been suggestions of mass returns of the 2.0 machines, so Keurig sees that the money they lose in returned machines and unhappy customers is not worth it. Keurig sees that the money is in the product, not the delivery system (similar to gaming consoles).

 

[SirCheese]

You don't seem to understand the complete lack of a meaningful relationship between the concepts of monopoly and legality. The way you insist on using the terms is completely irrelevant to antitrust law.

----------



And this response proves my point. Full control of a market has no bearing on whether a company has or could violate antitrust laws. It simply is not a criterion.

Whatever, my point still stands, not all monopolies are legal.

----------

Exactly. Apple used its closed ecosystem and clout to effectively destroy all of its competition. Although the iPod is now a largely irrelevant device, this case should still continue. If anything, to affirm certain precedents or set others. The punishment Apple will pay, if any, will be microscopic compared to the money they have made from iPod sales and from sales via the iTunes store.

The legal system makes it too easy for companies (and individuals) to just pay a penalty and admit no guilt, rather than have a case fairly heard in court.

Keurig is attempting to re-close its ecosystem after it was opened due to patent expirations. But based on my own online investigations, it seems that people aren't buying the new machines, and if they are, they are highly unhappy that you can't use non-Keurig cups in them. There have even been suggestions of mass returns of the 2.0 machines, so Keurig sees that the money they lose in returned machines and unhappy customers is not worth it. Keurig sees that the money is in the product, not the delivery system (similar to gaming consoles).

I was talking with someone the other day about the Keurig, they made a HUGE mistake by adding the DRM, this IMO, is going to be a huge hit on their business.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Whatever, my point still stands, not all monopolies are legal.

Not really, since they are unrelated concepts.

----------

My choice of words to call someone retarded because they decides to sue Apple for millions of dollars because they can't rip a CD and it turns out lied about even owning a qualified iPod. My level of mental competence is not on trial and nor are the plaintiffs. The layers they hired may not have had technical skills either, but should have had basic cognitive ability of doing a simple google search to investigate if there is a technical way around apples DRM. The lawyers could also have had the common sense to ask for proof of purchase of the devices before making a statement of claim against apple as well.

Maybe it would be more appropriate to call both the lawyers and plaintiffs ****ing ********** retarded.

You need to talk to SirCheese. You both seem to think that a point is legitimate and correct, so long as it's expressed with feeling.

 

[SirCheese]

Not really, since they are unrelated concepts.

----------



You need to talk to SirCheese. You both seem to think that a point is legitimate and correct, so long as it's expressed with feeling.

You are incorrect.

This couldn't be any simpler...

"In many jurisdictions, competition laws restrict monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly of a market is often not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions when business is dominant. A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group. Patents, copyright, and trademarks are sometimes used as examples of government granted monopolies. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly."


You can continue to believe you are correct, I have nothing more to say on it.

 

[Tech198]

We are dealing with something from 2004 here..

"Real claimed earlier this week that its engineers achieved the technology through analysing publicly-available information. "

It's public.


Apple is Apple after all

 

[MH01]

My PS4 games aren't playing on my Xbox One console. Let's sue Microsoft.

I did not realise they used the exact same format

At least read what the issue is.

Silly comparison .

----------

You are incorrect.

This couldn't be any simpler...

"In many jurisdictions, competition laws restrict monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly of a market is often not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions when business is dominant. A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group. Patents, copyright, and trademarks are sometimes used as examples of government granted monopolies. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly."


You can continue to believe you are correct, I have nothing more to say on it.

U.S. government has to be careful or Apple will buy them out

 

[WrQth]

What is the issue here?

Some one is upset because he couldn't include music from others sources than itunes in his iPod?

Thats a disadvantage to the device not an advantage. That is like saying my Galaxy S will only work with Samsung memory cards. Then don't buy that phone, buy Nexus, it will work with anything.

Then again, Microsoft got sued because they included their own browser for being a monopoly. Microsoft could have rebutted and said, just buy a Mac or run Linux. Not sure how that was monopolistic

Microsoft was not fined because they included IE with Windows it was because they purposely caused user installed browsers to be unstable or not work at all along with forcing IE to be the default without an option to change or uninstall.

 

[cfedu]

You need to talk to SirCheese. You both seem to think that a point is legitimate and correct, so long as it's expressed with feeling.

Not really, any lawyer will you that you are correct that a monopoly and being illegal are unrelated. You can't have an illegal monopoly but you can have a monopoly that has engaged in illegal activity. A company that has engaged in illegal activity is not called an illegal company. Apple has engaged in illegal activity but no one is calling it an illegal company.

Non of this has to do with personal opinion whereas my stand is a personal opinion. I believe that a lawyer who makes a statement of claim against one of the biggest companies in the world should vet their plaintiffs better, at the very least make sure the plaintiff is legitimate. If this law suit is thrown out over not having a legitimate plaintiffs, those lawyers are going to be the laughing stock of the legal community. I'm sure lawyers will be thinking the exact same way and call them retarded. They might not write it or say it out loud but they will be thinking about there mental capability!