Steve Jobs' Testimony Expected to Play Major Role in iPod Antitrust Lawsuit

[mikef07]

This is antitrust, not whether ads were misleading. None of your marketing conversation matters to the suit.

No kidding, but rather than post a novel I simplified it. It is an argument that is based around selling MP3s as being able to be used on any MP3 player and an MP3 player that can be used with any MP3s. Obviously it is much more complex than this because of anti trust but these are the main points of the suit. By doing what they did, did Apple violate Antitrust and anti competition laws?

A court will decide and if you don't think marketing, ads, collateral, communication, etc. matter you have no clue what you are talking about. Anything and everything will be brought out by the consumers side.
There are always two points to these types of lawsuits. What Apple did (design, manufacturing, etc) and what they said (marketing, emails, correspondence, communication,e tc). If any of these things circumvented antitrust laws they will be found guilty, if not they won't. Personally I have no clue nor opinion who is correct. I simply don't know enough details other than the surface arguments.

There is no argument as to what they did. It is done and it happened. For example their iPod could not play Real Networks music. Did that violate anti trust and anti competition laws? Maybe, maybe not. Should it have been able to? Maybe, maybe not. Making a product that only plays your type of file is not illegal, unless the things you say and do violate antitrust laws.

 

[xlii]

Now that the iPod is a dying product line this comes to court. What a joke. I doubt Apple will ever update the existing iPods. My guess is the Apple Watch will at some point retire the iPod.

 

[Gasu E.]

You aren't reading what the complaint is if you don't understand why this is a lawsuit.

Apple sold two things:

1) A MP3 Player (iPod)
2) MP3 songs

As a consumer it is my expectation that if I buy #1 (a MP3 player) that I can play any MP3 that i own. According to the consumers this was not the case.

As a consumer it is my expectation that if I buy a MP3 I can play that MP3 on any MP3 player. According to the consumers this is not the case.

What are you talking about? first, Apple never sold MP3 songs. MP3 is a standard format, and Apple has never sold anything in that format. If Apple had ever marketed that the songs they sold were "MP3", that would have been illegal at the time-- not anti-trust, but outright fraud.

Second, Apple never sold a product marketed as an MP3 player, since their preferred song format was not MP3. Apple did market that the iPod could play standard MP3 format, which it did then and does now.

 

[gnasher729]

Did Apple ever claim or imply that music not ripped from CDs or purchased via iTunes could be played on an iPod? If not than I think this lawsuit is bogus. If a lawsuit like this are successful what's to stop someone from suing Apple because they can't install apps outside of the App Store on their iOS devices (without jailbreaking)?

The iPod could always play music in many different formats, most notably mp3 and AAC format. What it couldn't do was play DRM protected music in other formats than the "FairPlay" format that Apple licensed. And it seems that Apple tried to prevent you from playing music where someone tried to turn someone else's DRM into "FairPlay" compatible DRM.

So for example Microsoft's "PlayForSure" didn't work (no wonder, because Apple would have needed to buy a license from Microsoft and wasn't interested in buying one, and Microsoft would likely not have sold one to Apple), and if a company tried to turn "PlayForSure" DRM into "FairPlay" DRM, that wouldn't work either. DRM free always worked.

 

[Daalseth]

This suit was asinine when it was filed and that the courts have let it continue this long shows how the badly American justice system is broken.
The original complaint, IIRC was about Apple having DRM that kept iTunes music from playing on other MP3 Players. The DRM was mandated by the RIAA and record companies not Apple. the suit should have been dismissed on that basis when it was filed.

This is just welfare for sleazy lawyers. None of the plaintiffs will see a dime.

 

[itr81]

Remember U2 edition iPods? Similar thing. It's not that HP or U2 were licensing iPod to Apple, Apple just made a deal with those entities and in turn they (HP, U2) got their names on the iPod.

Actually U2 licensed it's name and album to apple so they could make a special edition.

http://www.businessinsider.com/u2-apple-chuck-klosterman-2012-11

HP is the only company to ever to get a license to have a HP iPod verisons made.

http://www.storiesofapple.net/the-apple-ipod-by-hp.html

 

[Jessica Lares]

I was more bothered that the music services that came out around the same time didn't support my iPod. I would get freebies all the time, and they'd be in WMA, OGG, or whatever.

Spotify and Rdio wouldn't be as successful if all those music rental places at the time worked with the iPod. I don't think iTunes would have survived that either though.

iTunes music files are now DRM-free, and the iPod is no longer in the picture. Either are MP3 players in general unless you're like the few of us who cling onto them still.

 

[odditie]

"Image

They marketed iTunes as an iPod companion all the time."

No you said this. While true you missed half the equation.

If I said buy my snake oil and marketed it as "snake oil - tastes like snake and cures cancer" and then later said see I marketed it as "Snake oil- tastes like snake" you would absolutely have a valid reason to sue me. Whether or not you win (or consumers win) is to be seen. I am not arguing Apple was wrong, only pointing out why there was a suit.

Just for arguments sake, lets say Apple did advertise iTunes as a music purchasing option.

Even if they did...

1. When you sign up for iTunes to purchase music you agree to the terms of service. The terms of service would explain the limitations of the files you are purchasing

2. The files you are purchasing are still allowed to be burned onto a CD or played on your computer.

They still have not sold you anything that was still not usable by the customer.

On the flip side, I don't see why Apple is required to support file formats created by other companies, just like gaming machines don't share support of games. If they were selling it as an MP3 player (not digital music) and didn't support generic MP3 files, that would be reasonable to fight against.

 

[gnasher729]

Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. If that's the case, sue the seller of the non-standard DRM files for pretending they were normal MP3s!

I don't know if you could even do this, because DRM means by definition that there will be restrictions and you are not supposed to be able to make copies.

----------

These are all the same reasons Apple would not support Blu-ray discs. Apple wants to limit your access to content. They want to funnel you into the content that they will sell you.

Apple doesn't do what is best for its customers; it does what is best for itself.

Actually, I've seen the licensing terms for Blu-ray that you needed to meet to make a video card supporting Blu-ray playback, and I can very much understand why Apple never wanted anything to do with it.

iPod could play MP3 without issue and that's what I fed it at first. It could play unencrypted AAC too, that wasn't Apple proprietary, and it was available for others to use. iTunes could rip CDs with ease too. AAC is an ISO standard (MP3 is also an ISO standard), but you need to pay for a license to legally play MP3 or AAC format. I don't think any of those license fees go to Apple, and you don't need to go through Apple to pay those fees.

You need to pay a license fee to the patent holders if you create an MP3 or AAC player, or a device that converts music to MP3 or AAC, but the cost is quite low. If you use an Apple device, Apple paid that fee so you don't have to. If you use a Microsoft device, Microsoft paid that fee. Both Microsoft and Apple are also part of the patent holders, so they get a little bit of that money. And then there is Google who sued Microsoft for beeeelions over these licenses but lost.

 

[mikef07]

What are you talking about? first, Apple never sold MP3 songs. MP3 is a standard format, and Apple has never sold anything in that format. If Apple had ever marketed that the songs they sold were "MP3", that would have been illegal at the time-- not anti-trust, but outright fraud.

Second, Apple never sold a product marketed as an MP3 player, since their preferred song format was not MP3. Apple did market that the iPod could play standard MP3 format, which it did then and does now.

I have no absolute certainty what they did. That is what the suit says. If you have issue with that take it up with them Read the suit. It says Apple sold iPods that did not work with certain types of music. It said they sold songs that wouldn't work with certain types of players. That is the gist of the suit. You arguing something does not violate anti trust laws is laughable. You don't have a clue, neither do I. I simply pointed out why the suit happened.

 

[ani4ani]

How are these dirty tricks?

There is an subtle issue; even though iTunes music at the time utilised DRM, included in the fee [Apple charged the full fee] was a full music license fee for the use that track; however, Apple prevented users for exploiting all the rights they derived and paid for by limiting said music to only been able to be played on one device / platform.

 

[JAT]

No kidding, but rather than post a novel I simplified it. It is an argument that is based around selling MP3s as being able to be used on any MP3 player and an MP3 player that can be used with any MP3s. Obviously it is much more complex than this because of anti trust but these are the main points of the suit. By doing what they did, did Apple violate Antitrust and anti competition laws?

A court will decide and if you don't think marketing, ads, collateral, communication, etc. matter you have no clue what you are talking about. Anything and everything will be brought out by the consumers side.
There are always two points to these types of lawsuits. What Apple did (design, manufacturing, etc) and what they said (marketing, emails, correspondence, communication,e tc). If any of these things circumvented antitrust laws they will be found guilty, if not they won't. Personally I have no clue nor opinion who is correct. I simply don't know enough details other than the surface arguments.

There is no argument as to what they did. It is done and it happened. For example their iPod could not play Real Networks music. Did that violate anti trust and anti competition laws? Maybe, maybe not. Should it have been able to? Maybe, maybe not. Making a product that only plays your type of file is not illegal, unless the things you say and do violate antitrust laws.

For someone who has "no clue nor opinion", you sure like telling others that their opinions are wrong. Even when agreeing with them. Paradox.

 

[mikef07]

Just for arguments sake, lets say Apple did advertise iTunes as a music purchasing option.

Even if they did...

1. When you sign up for iTunes to purchase music you agree to the terms of service. The terms of service would explain the limitations of the files you are purchasing

2. The files you are purchasing are still allowed to be burned onto a CD or played on your computer.

They still have not sold you anything that was still not usable by the customer.

On the flip side, I don't see why Apple is required to support file formats created by other companies, just like gaming machines don't share support of games. If they were selling it as an MP3 player (not digital music) and didn't support generic MP3 files, that would be reasonable to fight against.

Well written and I am not saying you are wrong. I don't know. I simply stated he the suit said. Did them doing and saying all of this violate antitrust laws? A court has to decide. Antitrust law is extremely complex and difficult. I simply do not know, but when I read the first couple pages of this thread people were in disbelief how there could be a suit. I wasn't in disbelief at all. I will likely follow the case as I find it interesting.

 

[gnasher729]

This is more like having a gas nozzel that will only fit you Civic, so you can only get gas from flying J stations and no where else.

I think that would be unfair to the consumers whether you owned a Civic or not.

I've heard this argument before, and it is wrong. Doing that would be perfectly legal. It would also be absolutely stupid, because nobody would be buying the bloody car. And therefore it wouldn't matter if you considered it unfair to consumers, because not a single consumer would buy that kind of car and be affected by it. Just because something is so stupid that you can't imagine anyone doing it doesn't make it illegal.

 

[mikef07]

For someone who has "no clue nor opinion", you sure like telling others that their opinions are wrong. Even when agreeing with them. Paradox.

The difference is I don't have an opinion on which side is right. Many here have an opinion that a suit can't occur (or isn't valid) based on the numerous posts. Their opinion is WRONG as shown by the court allowing a lawsuit. You can have the opinion that the sun won't come up today. That opinion will also be wrong.

You will notice that not once did I say someone was wrong that it did not violate antitrust laws because of reasons X and Y. I simply said their opinion is wrong on the fact (yes fact) that there can't be a suit brough forward. People will and should have opinions about whether or not the actual antitrust laws were violated and I do enjoy reading some of those because they are much more well versed in the technology than I am.

 

[FieldingMellish]

Apple furnished a better mousetrap in the iPod. The market responded.

 

[AlecZ]

only supported music purchased on iTunes and songs downloaded from CDs

Is this supposed to be a bad thing? It's a music player, and it plays regular audio formats, including iTunes Store MP3 and AAC. What's so anticompetitive about it?

Also being disputed is Apple's FairPlay system of encoding purchased music, which limited music playback to the iPod and not competing MP3 players.

This part would make sense, but competing MP3 players could possibly play FairPlay-encrypted files. It's their fault for not supporting it. RealPlayer, for example, supports it.

 

[mdlooker]

I remember getting my daughter a zune player. I asked why don't you want an iPod baby...she replied, "Dad you don't know about this Zune!"

 

[Drexus]

There's so much wrong with this whole argument — I don't know where to start. Why would Apple broker a licensing deal with the record labels and leave it open ended for anyone else with unknown security and licensing policies (not in Apple's control) to have access to a unique platform specifically bound to said licence agreements? To allow any other service free range of the platform would make Apple liable for loss of licensing integrity.

Heck, that would suggest Napster (of the period) could have legally offered a tool to interface with the iPod while Apple suffers the result of their platform being pillaged. While you're at it, why not sue Apple for not allowing audio cassettes to play on an iPod?

If you present this sort of reasoning against the Highway Traffic Act, you'll be quickly invited to build your own roads. Otherwise go-carts and hand made scooters would fill the streets — killing the drivers by the hour — expecting someone else to clean up the mess.

 

[mabhatter]

My limewire service always worked well with my iPod
Not sure what the problem is?

Bingo! Other DRM schemes did not work with iPod. Selling music as MP3, like Emusic has worked just fine for most of a decade.

Apple using DRM was a contractual obligation to sell the player without continuing to be sued (and people tried to sue Apple for user piracy) and an obligation of the iTunes store contracts with music labels.

It's no different than complaining that Wii or XBox require ALL their sales through the mothership... Which has been more than legal for decades.

 

[coolfactor]

Seeing this article posted made me ask what year it was... doesn't this belong in 2005? Why are they chasing this now? Because Apple has grown so big?

 

[bdkennedy1]

It's only a monopoly when there's no choice. There were plenty on MP3 players out there that could be loaded with whatever music anyone wanted.

 

[guerro]

Does this mean that MS will now be required to offer Halo on PS4?

 

[theSeb]

Isn't RealNetworks the same company that made RealPlayer?

In that case, they only have themselves to blame for making rubbish bloatware out of what was originally a good idea.

 

[gnasher729]

Testimony from a dead person?

That's what I don't quite get - how does this work with testimony from a dead person? For example, Steve Jobs might at some point have said "X sounds like a good idea", where x is something anti-competitive, and next day Apple's lawyers told him "We can't do this because we will get sued" and Jobs might have said "If you say so, we drop this idea". If his statement where he says X is recorded, a living person could appear in court and say: "Yes, I said that, but then my lawyers changed my mind by saying exactly what the people suing Apple said". Since he is dead, he can't quite do this.