Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs' Testimony Expected to Play Major Role in iPod Antitrust Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe I'm daft, but this seems self-contradictory...? IMHO this is ALL about Apple taking the lead - had they not, this suit would likely never have been filed.
I guess fundamentally though my biggest "I don't get it" is how anyone believes this to be monopolistic behavior - especially in the context of the time. Sony PlayStations do not play Xbox games, Cisco routers do not run Juniper's OS, and Zunes couldn't play AAC. Get over yourselves.....
I would really love to hear how antitrust laws would mean that Apple would have to support competing DRM formats.
Microsoft has never been forced to support running Mac apps on Windows. Intel has never been forced to allow running of PowerPC binaries on their processors. Why would Apple have to support whatever random DRM that a competitor comes up with?
Remember, RealNetworks actively broke Apple's DRM scheme (which in the US is actually a crime under the DMCA) so that they could keep the music files wrapped in DRM. Apple made changes to FairPlay to counter what RealNetworks did -- mainly because RealNetworks had discovered a flaw in FairPlay that had to be fixed. Again, if anyone can sell content in FairPlay without licensing from Apple, the DRM scheme is probably not secure enough. Apple had an obligation to fix FairPlay and they did so. RealNetworks did not have a legal right to reverse engineer FairPlay or to use FairPlay DRM on their tracks.
Also -- requiring iTunes (the app) to sync music over to an iPod is not at all the same as requiring content to only come from the iTunes Music Store. Apple never placed any requirement that content could only come from the iTMS. In fact, the iPod launched before there even was an iTMS. Apple provided multiple ways of getting content onto the iPod that didn't involve the iTMS -- ripping Audio CDs, unprotected WAV, MP3 and (later) AAC files. If RealNetworks simply gave their users a way to put the music they bought into iTunes without DRM, this wouldn't have been an issue.
According to the lawsuit, if Microsoft figured out how to make Xbox games work on the Playstation, Sony would have to have accept it and support it forever on the hardware Sony makes. Next up: The jailbreak community seeks class status.
It isn't contradictory. The suit accuses Apple of monopoly maintenance, meaning, using their market power to hold onto their market share. The difference between Apple and your other examples is none of them hold a large enough share in their respective markets to be accused of exercising market power.
The principal accusation from my reading of the complaint is that Apple used the tie between FairPlay and the iPod to lock iTMS buyers into the iPod, to the disadvantage of other makers of digital audio players, and that they could only do this because of their overwhelming market share. Apple will have to answer to why they did not license FairPlay.
----------
This is a bit of a red herring. The main question is going to be why Apple did not license FairPlay to other sellers of digital downloads or to other manufacturers of digital players. If it was at the behest of the music industry, they will have to supply evidence to support that claim. But even in their response, Apple did not seem to make that claim.
Your problem is you apparently have not read or refuse to actually READ the law. Don't waste my time when you have not even read the tying clause and refuse to admit it even exists. There is nothing in the section on restricting trade that says you need to have monopoly power in order for anti-competitive practices to be illegal. Any ATTEMPT to purposely restrict trade (particularly to collude with a group of conspirators) for the benefit of said group (whether it works or not) is ILLEGAL. HP does not have to have a monopoly on paper for it to be illegal for them to REQUIRE you to use ONLY their paper.
Apple has manipulated the system in such a way that it gets 100% of all hardware sales for the OS X operating system and iOS. This has made them the RICHEST TECH COMPANY ON EARTH and yet people like you think they have no market power at all. Incredible. Just freaking unbelievable, really.
Now whether the U.S. Government chooses to enforce their own laws or not is another matter. We have a government full of Pro-Business lackeys that are bought and paid for (OWNED) by the industry. They put these jokers on the Supreme Court even (why we ended up with that total BS ruling about unlimited funding for corporations which they "call" living beings and it's a LOAD OF HORSE MANURE! IMO, they betrayed the very Constitution and government they swore to uphold and should be tried for TREASON. A business is NOT a person. It has people that own it. That does not make the corporation itself a person with the rights of an individual. They are either purposely defrauding the American people or the dumbest craps on earth and I somehow doubt the latter. They are bought and paid for by the big corporations and they REFUSE to uphold Antitrust Law anymore. They allow mergers of epic proportions and have banks that are "too big to fail" and that's just FRACKING RIDICULOUS. They learned NOTHING from history and the recession we went through that almost caused another depression is a direct result of that betrayal.
Apple obtained that market share by being the first reputable company to successfully SELL digital music (instead of just letting people steal it ala Napster). A monopoly or near monopoly is not against the law so long as the company did not use that position to restrict trade for potential competitors (i.e. they naturally became a monopoly due to consumer preference). Thus, the only way Apple could be sued is if they purposely did things to stop anyone else from being able to sell their own digital music player. So the question becomes whether Fairplay was designed to thwart competitors or was it something the music industry demanded. If they demanded it, did Apple have a compelling reason to not license the technology or was it simply not licensed in order to prop up iTunes. The problem is tying in such a way to use one product to prop up another one that doesn't allow any competition to participate in that market. If HP required the use of their paper and only their paper, they would be tying in such a way to thwart competition.
Having a total monopoly on paper or printers is IRRELEVANT since the consumer is being thwarted any opportunity to choose what paper they wish to use with that theoretical HP printer. They are tying together two separate products and demanding the consumer buy a 2nd product in order to use the 1st product to the detriment of all other competitors for that 2nd product. THAT is exactly what Apple did with iTunes (i.e. none of their music or movie products would play on competing devices and they made sure they could never be played on them by not licensing Fairplay and that is still true today with movies). This may not put competing devices out of business for either field, but it screws over the consumer royally as they are essentially forced to buy a product they may not want (i.e. overpriced HP paper instead of a brand of their choosing if they want to use an HP printer for whatever reason). This is also what Apple does by tying together OS X to Mac computers. The consumer is forced to buy computer hardware (that is more or less functionally identical to hardware sold by other companies) in order to run OS X and OS X software. This is unique to Apple. No other major company does this with consumer grade desktop hardware. If you want to run Linux on an HP, nothing will stop you. Microsoft, however, TRIED to force people to put Windows on that HP by manipulating its license agreements such that HP would be at a huge disadvantage to competitors if it offered Linux on its computers (i.e. they would lose the discount price for Windows). You, however, are telling me that it's OK for Apple to do THE EXACT SAME THING and it's purely OK simply because they have a lesser share than Windows of the OS market. Windows never had a true monopoly either. OS X and Linux existed during the same period. Their actions harmed businesses and consumers alike by trying to force people to buy Windows for their PC whether they wanted it or not. Apple tries to force you to buy a Mac to run OS X. That's OK, though because Apple is a TINY company with no market share in anything. Yes, that's why they're the #1 tech company in the world. Apple has NO significant market share. Your problem is that you narrowly define what a market share is. Apple is the ONLY one guilty of tying products like that today. Microsoft never had a product to tie other than Internet Explorer to Windows (which one could argue is a part of a modern operating system since every major operating system includes a browser these days)
Apple tied the iTunes store to their hardware music player and no one else could use the music from iTunes. No one else could sell games for the original Nintendo system without a license from Nintendo, though and if you didn't follow their strict rules, you got no license (i.e. you couldn't make certain types of games, for example like adult themed games). They were the biggest market player with the original NES at the time, way ahead of the others so they had real market power back then. But that's OK since they were from Japan? The U.S. simply does not enforce Antitrust Laws anymore. They should. It's bad for Capitalism and therefore bad for the consumer. The recession we had is a direct result of allowing banks to merge until they're "too big to fail". They keep allowing such mergers of giant airlines. The prices keep going up as competitors merge and merge and merge. The government stands up for big business and not the average citizen because they're on the take. The top 1% controls the government and your life and you might as well get used to it because it's not possible to change it anymore. Democracy is dead.
Last edited:
You are wrong on virtually every point. It seems that I am the only one here who actually does understand something about the law, and I am certainly the only one who's bothered to read the complaint against Apple. It would also help if you read and understood what I've said already, but I am sure that's way too much to ask.
Thats pretty funny. You were the one that said any type of antitrust suit always involves businesses. This one doesn't
You were the one said that only marketing isn't involved in any capacity. I can tell you from first hand trial experience that everything is involved. Marketing, emails, what was said, design, what was done, communication, collateral, and on an on.
This is a lawsuit that involves multiple violations (according to the plaintiffs). The plaintiffs will use everything they can to prove that violations occurred and that they were harmed. They will take multiple angles (such as antitrust) to try and prove that at least one violation occurred because then they can show that consumers (they) were harmed.
The crux of this lawsuit if people are wondering is:
1) Apple sold MP3 players.
2) People bought music for their MP3 player
3) Apple sold music to people
All of this is fine and legal.
Apple then decided to make changes after people had already bought music from places other than Apple and wanted to continue to do so. People also bought music from Apple.
Because of these changes they either could not put their music on Apple products nor could they take their music to another device (Understand that does not mean their were not workarounds that people came out with). Because of this Apple violated antitrust law because to keep their music, people had to stay with the iPod, and buy higher-priced ones rather than cheaper, alternative music players. At least according to the plaintiffs.
These lawyers will say that Jobs was going to try to make a competitors device not work so they could keep the digital music business.
Whether it works or not I have no idea, but this is the crux of the lawsuit. Microsoft making Xbox games only work on xbox is fine. However if Microsoft led you to believe that you could use PS4 games on your Xbox and you actually did so, but then changed it so that after you bought it you could not anymore then that would be an issue. Furthermore if Microsoft released a PS4 compatible system and then sold you a bunch of games for that system and then decided to keep their prices astronomically high for their own PS4 system (thus making Sony's PS4 irrelevant) knowing you could only play games on it going forward that would be an issue.
In the end 2 things plaintiffs are trying to prove
1) Apple tried to break other companies' MP3 player so to speak because Music that worked today on company Y's mp3 player won't work tomorrow after the changes Apple made.
2) Apple charged artificially high prices on iPods because they knew the consumer was stuck with having to buy an iPod to keep listening to music they already purchased.
Last edited:
My limewire service always worked well with my iPod
Not sure what the problem is?
lol dang, haven't used Limewire since I owned a PC...
----
I am now a law student and admittedly know hardly anything on this class action suit (or the law in general), however the main arguments appear to go against all legal reasoning I've learned throughout this semester...
From the OP:
I don't understand how Apple can be sued for protective measures within their own product. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to look up more info on the lawsuit or applicable laws
lol dang, haven't used Limewire since I owned a PC...
----
I am now a law student and admittedly know hardly anything on this class action suit (or the law in general), however the main arguments appear to go against all legal reasoning I've learned throughout this semester...
From the OP:
I don't understand how Apple can be sued for protective measures within their own product. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to look up more info on the lawsuit or applicable laws
SO in your opinion a company can sell you something that you feel you can use your media on (based on marketing, what you are told, brochures, etc.) and then change it after you buy it so that half your media does not work anymore?
Are you also Ok with them selling you a bunch of media and then making changes to that media so that when you decide you need to upgrade your hardware you are stuck with paying artificially high prices for only their hardware otherwise that media won't work?
What if Microsoft sold you a bunch of different suites (Windows at $100, Office at $249, Lets say they owned Photoshop and sold it at $500, and some other software you found useful for another $200). Then after you bought it they said as of next month it will only work with a Microsoft computer, but instead of $1000 (assume that is how much your computer was) you have to spend $4000 on the Microsoft computer. Would you be OK with that?
Would you be Ok with your car manufacturer calling you tonight and telling you as of tomorrow your car will only work with a new smart key that they are willing to sell you for $1000?
Last edited:
Ha-ha. Sure. What I said is that antitrust suits have to involve unfair competition accusations, which this one most certainly does. I suppose you can interpret that any way you like if you aren't interested in understanding what it actually means.
Marketing is not involved. Not at all. In fact, you could prove it yourself by simply searching the complaint for that term, or anything close to it. I will save you the trouble that no doubt you will not take by telling you that it isn't there. You are welcome to try to prove me wrong by citing language in the actual complaint. Good luck with that.
----------
Since you are a law student you might take an interest in reading the complaint.
https://ipodlawsuit.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=qMNcRfCv0FE=&tabid=67&mid=415
From my reading, the toughest question Apple will have to answer is why they did not license FairPlay.
I suggest you learn what a complaint is. A complaint is going to list what violations occurred, who was damaged, and monetary compensation the plaintiff is looking for. Once the trial starts testimony will reference hundreds of things not necessarily listed in a complaint. Wow you truly don't understand this stuff. How do you think consumers assumed any and all music would work on their iPod?
I suggest you read points 7 and 8 where they discuss antitrust AND consumer law. Consumer law has an extensive amount of laws pertaining to marketing. I don't expect you to understand this since you have already made multiple mistakes.
Point 12 literally says marketed. This probably has nothing to do with marketing though
Point 28 discussed marketing. For no marketing being involved there sure are a lot of marketing references and inferences
Last edited:
Huh? Cisco doesn't hold a large enough share in their market to exercise market power? Better check that one.... (BTW, I intentionally included that example in opposition to the very point you attempted to make.)
I'm not going to insult you or write you a riot act. There are others here that seem to want to do that. I don't know your background nor what you know or don't - which is conversely true as well.
I'm pretty sure that unabashedly making companion products (like iPod/iTunes/iTMS, or Mac/OSX, or Barbie/Dreamhouse) and restricting others from trying to do the same within that "ecosystem" is not illegal.
What (I believe) is illegal is forcing people to use that ecosystem to the exclusion of others (which, BTW, Apple did not do - you could still ALSO use RealPlayer, Sony Connect, Napster-acquired DRM-free MP3's, blah blah blah) or preventing people from leaving the ecosystem (again, Apple did not do this either - you could always burn your music to CD and move it anywhere else you liked, as you still can today).
This is why I don't get it - and still don't even after such lengthy explanations/refutations as MagnusVonMagnum's and mikef07's - Apple did not create nor become a trust - they did, however, create the most successful solution to a problem many consumers wanted solved. Just because ten guys couldn't figure out how to move their own music around doesn't mean Apple (or Mattel, or Cisco, or or or) should have to bend over to the sum of hundreds of millions of dollars.
At least, that's how my logic goes. Clearly, logic and the encoding of the law are only, at best, distant cousins....
I understand what a complaint is. As I have said at least five time already, I expect the trial to reveal any number of facts that we do not know presently, the most germane (IMO) being why Apple did not license FairPlay. Make that at least six times now.
I also know that California consumer law is cited (specifically, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, aka "lemon law"). This was discussed in this thread about eight pages back. This appears to be the hook for consumers to claim damages in an antitrust action (damaged by unfair competition), when under federal law this is not the case.
Your word search came up with the word marketed and marketing exactly once each, neither of them in the context that you insist is central to this case. Because it is not.
----------
Then I guess I fell into your little trap. It turns out Cisco has been sued for antitrust law violations. I must give up my real job and do this one more carefully. Oh, and your point was?
Apple is not a "trust." Nobody suggests that they are. Trusts are just one type of anticompetitive activity made illegal by antitrust laws, confusing as that may be.
Ah yes, Multiven. I believe that was settled - so we'll never know whether Cisco actually "did it" (behaved monopolistically) or not... at least not from that one. Is there another?
My point was simply that your conclusion (that none of the examples I gave represented market power) was incorrect. That's all - nothing more. Probably ought to go ahead and keep your real job after all....
My point was, in fact, similar to you pointing out that I misused the term "trust." Thanks for correcting that... (seriously)
You are truly gifted in the art of debate.
I actually won a debate with that single question placing the opponent in a fit of rage. That was a fun night and I sent my opponent a drink in a nearby bar that night. He sent it back.
I see you as more the Chrome Helmet type instead of the Gold.
Pretty sure Apple never claimed you'd be able to use Harmony on their stuff. Real made that claim - not Apple.
Pretty sure all Apple said was buy an iPod, get iTunes free, buy music from the iTunes store or load in your other DRM-free music (such as importing CDs), play the music you bought on the iTunes store or that you loaded into iTunes on the iPod.
Can you point to any communication Apple ever put out that said you could load and successfully play other DRM'ed music into iTunes and/or your iPod, or that moving your purchased music out of iTunes would be a convenient, hassle-free experience?...
Legally, yes. Morally, no. Morals are not binding law.
Now you're assuming my answer to the first answer is yes, so you're wrong before I even begin. In theory: no, they shouldn't have the ability to charge artificially high prices for their hardware such that you can continue using media you've previously paid for. However, if you bought the first generation iPod, which I think is when this class action suit began, would you not buy another one? Chances are, in respect to engineering and hardware, you'd buy another Apple product. Apple knew what they were doing, both conceptually and in marketing, and it worked. Why be punished? Not saying that they're tactics were moral, simply arguing they were logical and anticipatory.
Haha. First of all, I'm not dumb enough to fork over that amount of cash at the start if it (the software company) had the ability to increase its costs at the hypothetical rates you propose. That being said, if someone pays $100 for software that Microsoft reserves the right to subsequently charge $1,000 for, their (the customer's) loss. Read the terms of the agreement. Don't want to? Don't think that's reasonable? Don't buy software. It's a contract whether you like it or not. Good luck in court.
This is the worst of your hypotheticals; they, the car manufacturer, does not have the ability to do so. Both hypothetically, literally, and legally. Good luck finding where the car that I purchased in 2008 is located, and good luck getting into it and changing out the starter, without permission and with the car being fully paid off, such that I need a new smart key that they will only provide. Hah! First of all, not feasible for the car dealer nor the car manufacturer. Nor would that be upheld in court. The car is fully paid off, and is no longer the property of the car manufacturer nor dealer in any respects, so long as I do not try to claim any defects in the car, which I actually currently have the ability to do given that brake lines in Subaru Outback's after a given year have a recall on the unreasonable deterioration of brake lines.
Your hypotheticals are simply unrealistic, nonetheless, I do appreciate your counterarguments.
----------
Its pointless to continue since you obviously don't understand the legal system well enough. If it's in a complaint it is relevant to the case. the word marketing is in the complaint. marketing is relevant. Consumer laws are in the case therefore any and all consumer laws are relevant to the case. No where in the complaint did I see a bunch of discussion about emails, yet we know that there are specific emails that are relevant to the case. The plaintiff attorney is going to use an and all applicable consumer and antitrust law to prove damages to their clients. That includes, marketing, emails, collateral, designs, engineering reports, etc. If you don't see that then you simply are blind to the facts. Using your words what is central to the case is any and all ways consumers may have been harmed by Apple. Even if Apple proves they did not break antitrust laws, but did break consumer laws (as stated in the complaint) they lose this case.
----------
SMH.
1) You putting holes in a bunch of hypotheticals is pointless since you can do that with any hypotheticals. The point of hypotheticals is to look at it as written and say if you are Ok with it. I personally would not be OK with the things I wrote. Ironic that you assumed that I assumed your answer would be No. I did not assume anything which is why I asked. Had I assumed I would have written "You know you would not be Ok with..."
2) I would love an explanation how I could possibly be wrong (as you wrote)when I asked you a question. I asked if you would be Ok with 3 different scenarios. Explain how I could be wrong?
3) Your responses are full of holes that I can pick through, but again that would be pointless. You posting things that may or may not be against the law. For example you stated that "Would I buy another iPod even though the class action had begun?". That is irrelevant.
I can tell you from personal experience that I have personal knowledge of a case where consumers continue to do something even though the company doing so is violating the law. The fact that consumers keep doing it does not mean that it is OK, nor does it mean they are not damaged.
In the future if someone asks a hypothetical of something along the lines of "What would you do if you won the CA lotto?" my suggestion is you not give them 100 reasons why you are against the lotto, how you could not arrange transportation to CA to purchase tickets, how you refuse to do business with a specific store, etc, and just answer the question asked.
I would also suggest you read one of the newest headlines on this very site:
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/12/03/apple-deleted-ipod-content/
You are OK with a company deleting something you may own?
Last edited:
I would have to see every piece of internal communication (meaning communication to various vendors of the product), collateral, brochures, etc. Did consumers anywhere ever see something that described the iPod as - MP3 player? If they did then the average consumer might believe that any MP3 could play on it. Again I do not know. What I do know is when lawyers put together complaints they are very calculated as to what language they include in it. Therefore the only reason to put that Apple marketed iPods in a complaint is to give you the possibility of going after that. I will say this if you asked my wife, my kids, some of the other people I know if they believed any MP3 music could be played on their iPod they would answer yes. The only reason these people believe this is some form of marketing (whether it be commercials, brochures, collateral, what they were told by employees of vendors, what was written on the box, etc.)
The common understanding is and always has been that MP3 implies no DRM. It's not necessary to qualify it as "unprotected" as is sometimes done to clarify AAC support, and even then, "AAC" alone doesn't really imply protection; Apple itself includes this language in the iPod Touch supported formats, "AAC (8 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Store)".
From googling, I see that Real introduced the Helix DRM system to encumber MP3 with their own DRM circa 2003; I had never heard of it before now. If anyone was stupid enough to buy Helix'd MP3s, it was their responsibility to make sure they were buying devices that support it. Apple never claimed to support it, and I doubt you will find any vendors that began to qualify MP3 as "unprotected MP3". Today, Microsoft's Lumia 920 page says:
Audio playback file formats: 3G2, 3GP, AAC, AMR, ASF, M4A, MP3, MP4, WMA
DRM support: PlayReady
Microsoft doesn't qualify MP3 as "unprotected", and they don't even qualify "AAC" as unprotected but leave it to you to figure out that "PlayReady" isn't the same thing as iTunes DRM. It's also not the same thing as "Helix", and you would be a fool to expect the 920 to support it, just like you would be a fool to expect Apple to support it.
"Once hacked, you must accept the hack and support it forever". That's the class's argument, and it's ridiculous.
Your flat out right and you are flat out wrong.
Where you are right (at least I am giving you the benefit of the doubt):
All of the technological info you just wrote. I understand it somewhat (not completely). The average consumer understands it none. Consumer laws are to protect a reasonable consumer, not a technologically smart consumer.
Where you are wrong:
That the argument is ridiculous. If it were ridiculous the judge would have thrown it out and dismissed the case. Again, you can't just make claims in court and say laws were broken without giving specifics and examples. You then have to prove what you say is either try or at the very least has an argument that can prove it to be true. You also have to cite case law to statutes. You can't just say it is a law, but I am not sure where it says it is a law. You can say a lawsuit is ridiculous until it passes the dismissal phase. Once it has passed that, a judge (who far better understand the law than you and I ) has deemed it valid and IMO you can't really call it ridiculous anymore.
While I can appreciate what you wrote to call it ridiculous is well ridiculous.
From skimming your interminable posts, it's been apparent all along you do not understand what the case is about, not even a little bit. Your "average consumer" would have been similarly "misled" by every MP3 player that didn't claim to support Real's DRM.
Judge is as judge does. The implication of the case is as I said:
"Once hacked, you must accept the hack and support it forever". That's the class's argument, and it's ridiculous.
Except I do understand the case and you apparently don't. Again you think it is ridiculous that there is a case. A judge and I (among others) do not. Next time I am in front of a federal judge I'll have to let them know that some poster on this forum knows more about the law than they do. Furthermore the average consumer may have been misled which would give them the right to sue other companies if other companies possibly (allegedly if you will) broke consumer laws and/or antitrust law. You legal reasoning of "well other companies did it too and they are not being sued" is not a defense.
If your legal opinion of this case is that it is ""Once hacked, you must accept the hack and support it forever". " then so be it. It is not mine. I completely understand why this is a case.
My opinion is that it is alleged that Apple broke a number of antitrust and consumer laws and they are going to go through a checklist and try to prove how Apple broke each law. They will lose some assuredly, but the real question is will they win at least one argument? You seem to think it is about one thing. It is about many things. All you need is to prove one of those many things. For example had I posted yesterday that this suit is also about Apple deleting songs from people's iPods many of you would have been up in arms and said this suit is not about that. Yet we see today it is. Many of you need to learn that lawsuits evolve and go where the evidence goes. That can change as you hear testimony.
Last edited: