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

[IJ Reilly]

It is absolutely allowed to design its products and services how it wants. It is not allowed to market those products however it wants. Again you need to understand consumer law. Apple could not market it as a cure for cancer without repercussions. The argument will be that the iPod was not a MP3 player. It was an apple music player.

They can also market their products any way they want. Antitrust laws are not consumer laws. Again, the plaintiffs have to prove that Apple is abusing market power to artificially stifle competition. This is a very tall order. The first step is defining the market over which they allegedly exert this power. Since Apple never actually made a MP3 player, it should not be that one.

----------

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.

This isn't really a relevant argument. The word monopoly is overused and abused. Antitrust law is not concerned with "true" monopolies in the sense that you can't buy another product that does the same thing. In fact all copyrighted and patented products are legal monopolies, and products that are not monopolies can be subject to antitrust law enforcement. The key concept to understand here is market power and the abuse thereof.

 

[mikef07]

They can also market their products any way they want. Antitrust laws are not consumer laws. Again, the plaintiffs have to prove that Apple is abusing market power to artificially stifle competition. This is a very tall order. The first step is defining the market over which they allegedly exert this power. Since Apple never actually made a MP3 player, it should not be that one.

Yes you can market your product anyway you want. You can also send email any way you want. You can send correspondence any way you want. You can send communication any way you want. You can train any way you want. You can hire any way you want. Etc. Etc. Antitrust laws are based on consumers. If you have no consumers then you have no monopoly. There are antitrust laws in place. When an antitrust case is put against you the plaintiffs are going to use all of that marketing, correspondence, communication, emails, etc. against you. In the end a court will decide if antitrust laws were broken using everything listed, plus more. It has already been pointed out that an email will be used for this antitrust case. Antitrust has nothing to do with email unless of course one side uses it to prove that antitrust laws were broken. Marketing has nothing to do with antitrust, of course one side uses it to prove that antitrust laws were broken. And on and on.

If you want to look at the very basics of this lawsuit it comes down to Apple releasing an iPod that was not able to play all formats released and Apple releasing formats of music that not all players could play. That is not my opinion, those are the facts of the case. What is pertinent to the case is anything the court decides. The court has absolutely decided that this case was not frivolous. In the end I have no clue if antitrust laws were broken and anyone who says that antitrust laws were not broken also has no clue. The case if far too complex for anyone here to know one way or the other. I have seen numerous posts stating this is a frivolous lawsuit. When it came up for dismissal it would have been dismissed had it been frivolous. It was not dismissed.

I am also extremely experienced with lawsuits and you can't just say anything you want and not have a case dismissed. Once a case for dismissal comes up you (the plaintiff) have to prove that there are facts that can be tried or argued. If there were no triable facts this case would have been dismissed immediately or would have gone to summary judgement. The plaintiffs in this case have proven that there is at the very least a case.

 

[TimelessOne]

BS

It's the music labels that insisted on DRM. Apple ditched it as soon as they could.

I understand that the lawsuit is about the idea that the iPod didn't support multiple DRM formats but that was logistically impossible. Apple's deal with the labels allowed iTunes sales only as long as FairPlay wasn't hacked. Apple had to work non-stop to stay ahead of attempts to crack it.

There is no way that Apple could open up their hardware to multiple companies using multiple formats and expect to maintain the same level of security. (Security that was, remember, required by the music labels in exchange for the iTunes music store to exist.)

These people wanted a miracle and are crying because Apple couldn't pull it off. It wasn't possible.

EDIT: A great Gruber article from 2006 saying just about the same thing. His argument is a little different but the conclusion is the same:

http://daringfireball.net/2006/06/drm_interoperability

limiting fair play was fine. The solution would of been a way for others to use Fair play to work with Apple's devices and opened up the standard. Apple refused to allow Fair play to become an open standard.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

How is this so different from Sony with minidiscs? Sony took an already viable music container (magnetic media) and put it in a format that only worked with Sony devices or those licensed to use it. Some people, including myself, would not buy an iPod or use iTunes because it was too proprietary - those other MP3 manufacturers thrived off of that weakness, now they want to turn around and sue over its strengths.

Lots of companies made mini discs or pre-recorded mini-disc. Lots of companies used plays for sure DRM. You did not have to buy music from Sony or Microsoft, respectively, in these cases. Yes, there may have been licensing for the discs and / or DRM. But Apple's system was completely closed. You couldn't even re-download a track you had purchased. It was bad and I never bought a single song from them until they switched to MP3. I did get some free songs and they haunt me to this day.

I don't necessarily think this is lawsuit worthy if folks had access to the facts at the time of purchase, but then I don't know the law. If it was illegal then I won't feel the least bit sorry for Apple having to open the wallet since it was certainly unethical and anti-consumer.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe I am missing what this lawsuit is about, but i dont see how it has any basis at all - Does a company really have to ensure that their device works with all services and formats - and is there really a law against blocking services?

No, but if a company is found to have market power over a defined market, then they have to be careful that they are not abusing that power by creating artificial barriers to competition in that market.

 

[Small White Car]

limiting fair play was fine. The solution would of been a way for others to use Fair play to work with Apple's devices and opened up the standard. Apple refused to allow Fair play to become an open standard.

The problem people are complaining about is that Apple had too much control over the music-selling industry.

Your solution is to make it so that every music store has to pay a license fee to Apple and follow the rules Apple sets up?

In what way is "give Apple even more money and control" an answer to their complaint?

Or are you saying the opposite? That Apple should just give up control and give everyone Fairplay and wash their hands of it? That would take about 45 seconds until it was completely and totally hacked open. So bye bye music labels, then.

I'm not sure which way you meant it, but neither way is a solution.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Yes you can market your product anyway you want. You can also send email any way you want. You can send correspondence any way you want. You can send communication any way you want. You can train any way you want. You can hire any way you want. Etc. Etc. Antitrust laws are based on consumers. If you have no consumers then you have no monopoly.

Antitrust laws about protecting competition and are brought by companies that allege that they have been prevented from competing by other companies. The interests of consumers may well be invoked by the plaintiffs in an antitrust case, but their interests are not actually what is at issue or on trial.

 

[mikef07]

Antitrust laws about protecting competition and are brought by companies that allege that they have been prevented from competing by other companies. The interests of consumers may well be invoked by the plaintiffs in an antitrust case, but their interests are not actually what is at issue or at trial.

Uh except the planitiffs are the consumers in this case. Go read the actual first post. You just said "..are brought by companies that allege they have been prevented from competing..." This was not brought on by a company alleging they have been prevented from competing (using your words). No offense but this is a class action (as noted by the first post which was brought on by consumers. (or the class which in this case is consumers.).

"In the suit, consumers claim Apple violated antitrust law by deliberately limiting interoperability with competitors, while exclusively promoting its products and services. "


This is all about the consumers.

https://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/09/ipod-lawsuit-against-apple-given-class-action-status/


Furthermore this absolutely states that it was filed by a consumer, for many consumers as noted in the link - "The lawsuit was granted class-action status by the courts last year and includes millions of customers who purchased any of a broad number of iPod music players."


In other words everything you wrote that I just quoted is wrong as far as this case goes. Not necessarily wrong in other instances, but in this case it is. Make no mistake this is not a case of a company suing Apple for creating a monopoly, nor is it a government case where they are trying to break up a monopoly.

 

[jinnj]

My first RCA MP3 player would not play regular MP3s. It had an APP that shifted the bits around in the file to make it work!

 

[IJ Reilly]

Uh except the planitiffs are the consumers in this case. Go read the actual first post. You just said "..are brought by companies that allege they have been prevented from competing..." This was not brought on by a company alleging they have been prevented from competing (using your words). No offense but this is a class action (as noted by the first post which was brought on by consumers. (or the class which in this case is consumers.).

"In the suit, consumers claim Apple violated antitrust law by deliberately limiting interoperability with competitors, while exclusively promoting its products and services. "


This is all about the consumers.

https://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/09/ipod-lawsuit-against-apple-given-class-action-status/


Furthermore this absolutely states that it was filed by a consumer, for many consumers as noted in the link - "The lawsuit was granted class-action status by the courts last year and includes millions of customers who purchased any of a broad number of iPod music players."


In other words everything you wrote that I just quoted is wrong as far as this case goes. Not necessarily wrong in other instances, but in this case it is.

Then good luck to them, they will need it. Try a reading of the Sherman and Clayton acts before you tell me I am wrong.

 

[mikef07]

Then good luck to them, they will need it. Try a reading of the Sherman and Clayton acts before you tell me I am wrong.

It isn't me saying you are wrong. It is you saying you are wrong. You just claimed that only a company could bring this lawsuit forward. Did a company bring this suit forward? I'll answer for you. NO they did not. A company did not file this so you are wrong. I can read 2,000,000 things and that wouldn't change anything.

In the end the class (consumers) is going to try to prove they were harmed by Apple violating antitrust laws. They will use a number of different ways to prove Apple violated antitrust laws. If the courts deem that Apple did violate Antitrust laws then the court will say the class has been harmed. If the class has been harmed they will receive some type of financial compensation.

So why does marketing and the like matter? Because you know as well as I do that the consumer side is going to come in to try and prove that what Apple did was misleading, among many other things they will allege.

 

[TimelessOne]

The problem people are complaining about is that Apple had too much control over the music-selling industry.

Your solution is to make it so that every music store has to pay a license fee to Apple and follow the rules Apple sets up?

In what way is "give Apple even more money and control" an answer to their complaint?

Or are you saying the opposite? That Apple should just give up control and give everyone Fairplay and wash their hands of it? That would take about 45 seconds until it was completely and totally hacked open. So bye bye music labels, then.

I'm not sure which way you meant it, but neither way is a solution.

I think you are confusion open standards. there are a lot of security on the web that is used every day that is an open standard. Heck Mac rumors password hashing is an open standard.
Open standard means that is easy to be used by everyone but does not mean that it security is lessen or bad.

Apple could of open source the DRM. Again does not reduce its security.
This was about Apple wanting to break control. Apple was abusing its power for years. My bet is on Apple losing big time.

 

[blahblah100]

2004? How many different MP3 players were there? I would of thought maybe 2-3?

Out of curiosity, are you one of those people who believe Apple invented the MP3 player?

 

[IJ Reilly]

It isn't me saying you are wrong. It is you saying you are wrong. You just claimed that only a company could bring this lawsuit forward. Did a company bring this suit forward? I'll answer for you. NO they did not. A company did not file this so you are wrong. I can read 2,000,000 things and that wouldn't change anything.

In the end the class (consumers) is going to try to prove they were harmed by Apple violating antitrust laws. They will use a number of different ways to prove Apple violated antitrust laws. If the courts deem that Apple did violate Antitrust laws then the court will say the class has been harmed. If the class has been harmed they will receive some type of financial compensation.

So why does marketing and the like matter? Because you know as well as I do that the consumer side is going to come in to try and prove that what Apple did was misleading, among many other things they will allege.

Yes, it's a class action suit brought by a law firm. According to Apple's response to the complaint, the plaintiffs cite violations of California consumer protection laws. The response specifically argues:

the Complaint does not state a claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

And then further argues:

The activities of Apple alleged in the Complaint do not give rise to antitrust liability because they did not result in adverse effects on competition or, if there were any such effects (which Apple denies), they were outweighed by the pro-competitive benefits of the activities.

Defendant Apple has at all times and in all relevant manners acted reasonably, as necessary to serve legitimate business purposes, in furtherance of trade, in good faith, and with the purpose and effect of promoting, encouraging, or increasing competition. Apple has not acted with the purpose or intent to suppress or restrain competition.

So again, even though California consumer laws are also involved, the primary issue in antitrust law is still competition and the restraint thereof, not consumers.

Anyone who is truly interested in this should probably read at least the first two pages of the complaint:

https://ipodlawsuit.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=qMNcRfCv0FE=&tabid=67&mid=415

 

[mikef07]

Yes, it's a class action suit brought by a law firm. According to Apple's response to the complaint, the plaintiffs cite violations of California consumer protection laws. The response specifically argues:



And then further argues:





So again, even though California consumer laws are also involved, the primary issue in antitrust law is still competition and the restraint thereof, not consumers.

Anyone who is truly interested in this should probably read at least the first two pages of the complaint:

https://ipodlawsuit.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=qMNcRfCv0FE=&tabid=67&mid=415

Uh none of us really needed this to realize what Apple's response was. Plaintiffs (class, consumers) say they were harmed and Apple broke antitrust laws. Of course Apple's response will be they did not break Antitrust laws. If it is proved that they did, plaintiffs win. If not then Apple wins (assuming there is nothing further brought forward to prove Apple harmed the class). Not sure what you are trying to argue here. This is a consumer lawsuit. Period. End of story.

 

[Karma*Police]

What a waste of taxpayer dollars to clog up the courts with such nonsensical lawsuits.

 

[Porco]

If Apple loses they should pay in the form of firewire 400-power chargers, as they would be really useful for all the people this still matters to.

 

[InsoftUK]

I bought one Saturday, Nov. 29, 2014. Although I am slowly shifting towards digital media, I still like to own physical albums for the artists I really like. I don't fully trust our digital overlords to make our cloud purchases permanent over the course of our lifetimes, so I prefer something tangible if the media is really important to me.

You don't buy CD's anymore? That's fine. However, your experience does not entitle you to speak for everyone (unless you are a TV talk show pundit).

Don't you know that when you buy digital content online you can make a CD of it with album cover and list if the tracks on it with iTunes, so don't know why you fear digital online content as you can use it on any device or media

It seems that so many people overlook the fact that they can and are entitled to a CD copy, UK law states you are entitled to make one personal backup copy of any ditial media, that include games like PS3 XBox etc.

That brings up the possible lawsuit of Sony and Microsoft by preventing our right to make a personal copie.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Uh none of us really needed this to realize what Apple's response was. Plaintiffs (class, consumers) say they were harmed and Apple broke antitrust laws. Of course Apple's response will be they did not break Antitrust laws. If it is proved that they did, plaintiffs win. If not then Apple wins (assuming there is nothing further brought forward to prove Apple harmed the class). Not sure what you are trying to argue here. This is a consumer lawsuit. Period. End of story.

No, not end of story. It may be a "consumer lawsuit" to the extent that it's a class action filed on behalf of consumers, but the complaints under law are all about competition and alleged restraint of trade. This is all according to the complaint, not Apple's response (which I cited not because I have a legal opinion about it but because the language is clear about the issues at stake). Again, if you are really interested, it will take some reading, but it's all there.

 

[Swift]

What are they on about?

Remember the iTunes Music Store? What made the big labels decide to allow Apple to sell copyrighted material -- a large chunk of the whole music business, in fact -- as soon as they announced it? I know it was the copy protection.

It can't be simply the file formats -- pretty sure the iPod played mp3s from the beginning, and there were converters each way -- so it must have been the crypto format.

Remember the essay on the front page of apple.com about copy protection? Jobs didn't want it, but no iTunes Music Store without it. First one, then the others is the way they went at it.

And I always thought that Jobs' argument against a common decryption standard to be correct. The labels wanted it, not Apple, or any company. When a crack appears, the only way to run a store is to fix it immediately, or the labels would force you to shut down until you can fix it. If you want something like a super-privacy panel from the UN, staffed by Playboy models and eminent jurists, that fixes the encryption and makes it work perfectly between platforms? Good luck with that.

If Jobs had really wanted a total lockdown, they would have had to lead him kicking and swinging out of the court, with the labels refusing to keep the copy protection that Steve was begging for. That's obviously not what happened, in fact, quite the reverse. If Apple or any other company lets its store got hacked, they have to fix it. Now. Or pay damages and stop selling to consumers until it's not "stealing" music.

Nowadays, only the movies are encrypted.

 

[nsayer]

The problem the plaintiffs are going to run into is that the lack of interoperability was demanded by the music companies in the form of DRM. DRM, by its very nature, is designed to prevent interoperability. The plaintiffs are going after the wrong defendants.

 

[Glideslope]

If Apple loses they should pay in the form of firewire 400-power chargers, as they would be really useful for all the people this still matters to.

Yup. That just about sums it up.

 

[InsoftUK]

Remember the iTunes Music Store? What made the big labels decide to allow Apple to sell copyrighted material -- a large chunk of the whole music business, in fact -- as soon as they announced it? I know it was the copy protection.

It can't be simply the file formats -- pretty sure the iPod played mp3s from the beginning, and there were converters each way -- so it must have been the crypto format.

Remember the essay on the front page of apple.com about copy protection? Jobs didn't want it, but no iTunes Music Store without it. First one, then the others is the way they went at it.

And I always thought that Jobs' argument against a common decryption standard to be correct. The labels wanted it, not Apple, or any company. When a crack appears, the only way to run a store is to fix it immediately, or the labels would force you to shut down until you can fix it. If you want something like a super-privacy panel from the UN, staffed by Playboy models and eminent jurists, that fixes the encryption and makes it work perfectly between platforms? Good luck with that.

If Jobs had really wanted a total lockdown, they would have had to lead him kicking and swinging out of the court, with the labels refusing to keep the copy protection that Steve was begging for. That's obviously not what happened, in fact, quite the reverse. If Apple or any other company lets its store got hacked, they have to fix it. Now. Or pay damages and stop selling to consumers until it's not "stealing" music.

Nowadays, only the movies are encrypted.

Nice point, but the government are run by the apes these days.
All I can say it is a Mad World these days, it's a Mad House

 

[nsayer]

I think you are confusion open standards. there are a lot of security on the web that is used every day that is an open standard. Heck Mac rumors password hashing is an open standard.
Open standard means that is easy to be used by everyone but does not mean that it security is lessen or bad.

Apple could of open source the DRM. Again does not reduce its security.
This was about Apple wanting to break control. Apple was abusing its power for years. My bet is on Apple losing big time.

There cannot be an "open" DRM system. You can't equate the existence of open security and cryptography standards because in all of those cases, the openness does not include the keys.

DRM is not in any way a reasonable analog to the problems involved in cryptography. In DRM, you include the key along with the cipher text in a box wrapped in tissue paper stenciled "Don't open this box if you're not authorized." It's a complete farce.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The problem the plaintiffs are going to run into is that the lack of interoperability was demanded by the music companies in the form of DRM. DRM, by its very nature, is designed to prevent interoperability. The plaintiffs are going after the wrong defendants.

The complaint acknowledges that DRM was demanded by the music industry but does not make clear (from my reading) whether they believe Apple alone or together with the music industry refused to license FairPlay to other music sellers and music player manufacturers. This could be an important point as the complaint argues that Apple used this linking of FairPlay to the iPod for the purpose of monopoly maintenance in both the digital player and music distribution markets.