Filed under: iPod Family, iTS
Apple to face iPod/iTunes antitrust suit
That's right, folks. Thomas Slattery is suing
Apple because the iPod won't play music files from other online music stores, and because you have to use iTunes to
sync your music to your iPod. A judge in California ruled that Apple must face some of Slattery's charges (though it did
dismiss a few other claims including 'unjust enrichment with prejudice,' which doesn't sound good).Now, I'm no lawyer, but I hope that this lawsuit doesn't have any legs because one of the biggest strengths of the iPod/iTunes combo is the level of integration between the two.
[via Paul Thurrot's Internet Nexus]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
chip said 8:00AM on 2-10-2006
i kind of suspected something like this would happen but i thought it would be more about jobs being on both sides of the table with the recent pixar buy out - he has substantial power over the content and the player (and itunes to connect the two).
byt way-- ahhh, those nanos are everywhere. i have a 60 gig 5th gen ipod but i think the nano is too sexy to resist, especially since they introduced the 1 gig version (only 129 with edu discount :)) -- must hide credit card....
Reply
daniel said 8:04AM on 2-10-2006
This is ok: the biggest strengths of the iPod/iTunes combo is the level of integration between the two.
This is not ok: the biggest strengths of the iPod/iTunes combo is the level of integration between the two, BUT EXCLUDING OTHER FORMATS OR BRANDS.
They are not trying to split iPos/iTunes, just making it open to other brands or shops.
Reply
Buthidae said 8:19AM on 2-10-2006
I knew lawyers were destined to screw up iPod/iTunes! :-P
I'm holding off upgrading my 40GB photo until the fabled iPod video comes out, be it 1 month or 10 months away. In the meantime, I may accidently grab a nano or a bargain basement 1GB shuffle. They'll be giving those things away in boxes of Wheeties soon! :-D
Steve, you be good with the RDF!
Reply
Clair said 8:20AM on 2-10-2006
iPod: Apple's product which will play more than iTMS purchased music
iTMS: Apple's store
I don't see a legal issue. IMO, frivilous.
Reply
Shig the Unmentionable said 8:29AM on 2-10-2006
In this case, Apple may actually benefit from the hacker community. There are programs out there like EphPod that do, indeed, allow you to install music on your iPod without iTunes. So the first point is just plain wrong.
As for not playing content from other online stores... It's a bit sticky, but I imagine Aplpe could argue that nobody complains that their CD player won't play 8-track tapes. Granted, there's probably no technical reason the iPod couldn't play WMA files, but requiring Apple to pay licensing fees to Microsoft might count as an undue burden.
Reply
matthew said 8:39AM on 2-10-2006
you can use music from wippit.com easymusic.com and allofmp3.com. its only those which want their own DRMs which wont adapt to support the iPod so I dont see how it got this far.
Reply
MikeV said 8:58AM on 2-10-2006
All it would take is for the iPod to pick up WMA/PlaysForSure support, and just about every other music service/subscription would work with the iPod. However, of course, Apple realizes that with the requirement of using iTunes to put your music on your iPod, and the lack of WMA support in both iTunes (aside from iTunes converting a WMA to MP3 or AAC) and the iPod, your only easy choice to buy music is from the iTunes Music Store, which in turn feeds Apple again.
Do I mind that the iPod doesn't work with most of the other music services out there? Nope, since most of them don't have Mac support. But I have no doubt that there are PLENTY of other people out there that would love for the iPod to work with Napster, Rhapsody, or any of the other music subscription services available.
Reply
John P. said 9:29AM on 2-10-2006
I'm a bit clueless as to why this thing has merit at all.
An iPod is not required for survival/life.
An iPod is an OPTIONAL device.
An iPod accepts standard mp3's, which anyone can create
An iPod benefits from the integration of iTunes because it at least is guaranteed to work.
In the USA, we have a right to free speech, but no one ever said we had a right to buy music from all stores and play that music on any player out there, be it a Rio, an iPod, or etc... Otherwise congress would be legislating technology.
Reply
delerious said 9:36AM on 2-10-2006
Ya know.... this guy filing the suit probably didn't even try burning a CD then ripping it into WMP to get some WMA's. I say, idiots in this world. If your mp3 player supports Plays for Sure then it's hellasure not iTunes compatible. That's competition.
Always read the packaging labels before you buy, look for the requirements.
Greedy A' holes... filing law suits.
Reply
Mac Diva said 10:11AM on 2-10-2006
Mike V.'s claims have a certain shallow appeal, but they lack substance.
Considering the market share of iTMS for digital music sells, about 80 percent, the demographic share of people who want to use the store for non-Apple MP3 players is not "Plenty." Instead, they are a disgruntled minority who CHOSE to buy a music player that does not work with iTMS.
The claim "your only easy choice to buy music is from the iTunes Music Store, which in turn feeds Apple again," is so false, one wonders why anyone is foolish enough to make it. The overwhelming majority of music on iPods is from users' own CD collections. The average American user buys very few iTMS downloads. The purchasing demographic skews toward the young, with the older users leaning toward importing their CDs instead of buying digital downloads. Recently, young teens captured the top sells at iTMS by purchasing songs from a Disney TV special, demonstrating just how influential they are there.
Like many Internet forum users, Mike V. seems to rely on rumor. But, there are facts about what actually occurs regarding digital music sells from reliable sources such as the Pew Internet & American Life Project, Nielsen and Arbitron. Furthermore, major mainstream media report on this issue often. There is no excuse for not having actual facts at hand.
I believe the court will look at those facts, consider that all digital music sellers use DRM, and rule in Apple Computer's favor if this case is ever heard.
Reply
GrimReaper said 10:19AM on 2-10-2006
I really don't mean this personally to anyone particular, but WOW I really can't believe the way USA is going. People are suing companies on such frivolous terms and then they are crying about Americas economy going into ruins. Obviously this isn't a major factor but its the small things which add up and turn into the situation which people are facing today.
Reply
Darren said 11:25AM on 2-10-2006
God I'm sick of these people and their stupid lawsuits. I'm sueing Dell because I can't get Tiger to run on it. I'm suing Apple because I can't run Windows on it. I'm suing Apple because the ipod should have a built in fm transmitter so I don't have to use those headphones so i won't lose my hearing. Oh ya. I'm sueing every cell phone carrier and maker because cell phones cause brain cancer or maybe they don't, but the news says they might so I want to get my money now. Oh I like to go swimming so the ipod should be waterproof so I'm going to sue for that too. My alarm clock woke me up in the middle of a great dream last night. I'm going to sue those bastards too. Reading about all of these stupid lawsuits that happen in TUAW has caused my brain to hurt so TUAW expect to hear from my lawyers as well.
I can't believe that that judges allow this type of crap to waste taxpayers money.
Reply
Chase said 11:33AM on 2-10-2006
I thought the idea of a monopoly was that a company with tremendous power, buys out or shuts down other competitors, forcing people to use their product, and then jacking up the price because they have a "monopoly".
I thought that the free market was supposed to allow the company with the best product to rule, but only to the point just before they determine the absolute market value of a product, because they own all the product.
The company shouldn't be at fault because they create a tremendous product that everyone wants, AND that the competition cannot create a competitive product. No body would want to create anything good if they knew it would just be forcibly altered by the govt. I wouldn't.
Apple created two excellent things, the iTMS and the iPod. Both are well integrated. It isn't fair that a company does this should be forced to succumb to the wishes of people that would prefer a mediocre product, simply because they want something that isn't Apple branded.
Reply
Jules Galagarza said 11:41AM on 2-10-2006
Just another example of someone taking advantage of the technology ignorant judicial system to rake in on the monetary benefit of such a claim. If the judge presiding in this hearing was savvy of such technology most if not all of the claims would have been dimissed. And before anyone chimes in that this lawsuit is not about money think again. For this is an opportunity for competing mp3 players to overtake the iPod. As with anything unsubstantiated and foolish in the end it is about money.
I'll go for the third verdict "Are you shitten' me?".
Reply
Geoff said 11:59AM on 2-10-2006
I don't get this at all. Don't like the retrictions of an iPod? Buy a Creative player. It's not that difficult to do. It's called shopping. If I like everything about a car stereo except it won't tune down to 87.7 (which some don't), I'm not going to sue them. I'll just buy another brand. Done and done.
Reply
Greg said 1:20PM on 2-10-2006
You have got it all wrong... He's not suing because he can't play music from other stores on his iPod, he's suing because he can't play his iTMS bought song on anything BUT iTunes and an iPod...
or at least that's what he was claiming last year...
Reply
The Jeremy said 1:57PM on 2-10-2006
Apple could kill this lawsuit if they started licensing access to the iTunes Music Store to the other MP3 players. Such an action would not hurt them one bit because people new to MP3 players do not buy iPods because of the iTunes Store. Thus it won't impact sales of the iPods by opening up the iTunes Store and its FairPlay DRM. In fact, what it would cause would be the total collapse of the iTunes Store competitors because then there would not be any incentive for people to use them (i.e. if they bought a Creative Zen or something). If Apple did this, they could stave off the other monopoly charges for probably half a decade more. And I totally support this. I wish they'd be penny-wise and not pound foolish.
Of course, we don't know the terms of the RIAA agreement with Apple. Perhaps the agreement states that Apple is not supposed to open up access to non-Apple products through iTunes. Perhaps the music industry did not want Apple creating an all-encompassing online store and perhaps they did not believe Apple would have become a fraction of the success they have achieved when the original contract was signed. So it could all actually be the machinations of the RIAA that backfired on them.
Reply
Marscus Mouse said 3:32PM on 2-10-2006
Im in!! I cant get my microwave to play music purchased from ANY online music seller. Im in the money Im in the money im in the money
What does this mean then for any product that does not work on someone elses product ie playstation versus Xbox or Xbox v playstation, wow gameboy cartridges in my VCR, aesome the possibilities are endless. Look out printer manufatures, you will have to start offering ways for that $99 printer to hook up to my waffle iron and be able to print menu's
Reply
Mac Diva said 6:35PM on 2-10-2006
LOL! The point of having iTMS is to promote the iPod, Jerry. The store was intended to be a loss leader, if necessary. Your proposal would undermine the reason for Apple opening iTMS in the first place. Profit from even a very successful iTMS would be just a drop in the bucket compared to profit from selling iPods.
(I am curious about stars. Are they given for making comments that make no sense?)
Reply
Andy said 6:56PM on 2-10-2006
Um...
This is really old news. The suit was first filed in January of *last* year, and the article cited is from September of last year which is when Judge War actually gave the green-light.. Searching through FindLaw, Google, Google News, it doesn't look like there's been any further progress on this.
What's really and truly sad about this is that it seems that every blog in the world has picked up on this as news today.
Reply