Apple hit with antitrust lawsuit

The mp3 player compatibility list you provided is only for iTunes running on MacOSX. If you run iTunes on Windows, it will only connect to an iPod.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93377

This is obviously a stupid lawsuit, especially with the labels dropping DRM everywhere, but people need to stop linking to that Apple page listing non-iPod compatible players. Oh great, iTunes 4 will work with my Nomad IIc... yessss!

It would be fantastic if iTunes added support for MSC-based players at least. That would make working with a flash-based secondary player much easier. I ended up dumping my Samsung 1GB player for a 2G Shuffle for just that reason.

I think that this will be settled out of court. Something to the tune of Apple kicking the guy in the balls only once. Yup, square in the 'nads... Sounds fair to me. Oh yeah, two words guys 'Disk Mode'.

Dave, thanks for linking to the Justia.com's docket information for the case. We've flagged the case as featured, and all of the original document filings for the case are available.

Cheers,
Dan Vu Quoc & Justia

Dollar to doughnut says the complaints gets amended to a bundling issue. In the Microsoft decisions, both the trial judge and the appeals court cited bundling as Microsoft's real crime.

Apple will either argue that (1) iTunes and iPod is not a tying arrangement, or (2) rule of reason.

To argue that a tying arrangement does not exist, Apple must show you can use different music file management software other than iTunes with your iPod, or you can use a different MP3 player with iTunes.

In rule of reason, Apple's lawyers will argue that Apple has a good reason for what they did even though their action violated the Sherman Act. Many organizing bodies such as the NCAA and the Boy Scout successfully argue rule of reason for rules that restrict conduct.

A couple of points that must be clarified. One, since the Kodak case (1994), the Supreme Court no longer considers market power or market dominance as the sole or even the major criteria to determine antitrust violations. In the Microsoft case, both the government and Microsoft ceded the point that Microsoft did not accrue illegal profits (i.e., monopoly rents). Thus, Apple's market share of the electronic music market is irrelevant.

Microsoft tried to argue that Windows did not perform as well minus Internet Explorer. The government showed that Windows performed just fine without Internet Explorer. Hence, bundling or tying became the crux of the rulings.

Two, Microsoft's discounts to manufacturers represent a perfectly acceptable business practice. These discounts fall under the category of slotting allowances. FTC (not sure about DoJ) has investigated numerous complaints about slotting allowances including Anheiser (sp)-Busch's payment to retailers for shelf space and Intel's use of co-op advertising with hardware manufacturers such as Dell and H-P. Microsoft's discount program and payment system may not be fair to some, but it is 100 percent legal.

Finally, all contracts (and I mean every single written and verbal contract) is a violation of Sherman Act I. However, the courts recognize contract serve a necessary function. When you bought the Xbox 360, the PS 3, the Wii, you accepted the manufacturer terms, which includes the provision that you can only use software written for that specific machine. You have no case for bundling or restraint of trade because you want to use software written for a Wii box on a PS 3.

Apple's barring of running of Macintosh on a non-Apple Intel-based machine, however, MAY (MAY!) run afoul of restraint of trade. To prove that issue, Dell or H-P or some other non-Apple Intel-based manufacturer must prove economic harm (i.e., loss of sales) because of Apple's EULA.

It pains me to write that paragraph. It pains me even more that to run the best OS (Macintosh) I am forced by Apple to run it on the best table top (the MacBook) instead of the best lap top (ThinkPad).

I bet Apple settles the case by giving every iPod owner $10 credits good only for iTunes.

This concludes a quick and dirty summary of antitrust case law. Please, resume your bitching about lawyers.

"hit with a class action lawsuit"... I imagine Steve Jobs standing there, and a little flea hitting his shirt and falling to the floor. Steve won't even notice as this lawsuit simply goes away after the lawyers drain the plaintiffs for all that they are worth.

This lawsuit has no chance... there is way too much competition in the marketplace to declare Apple a monopoly (a prerequisite of monopolist anti-trust practices) and all Apple would have to do is point to the record company contracts that forced them to wrap their music in DRM and lock down their players.

In the music game, Apple is a messenger... and you should never shoot the messenger :-)

couldn't agree more with Ozmotear...

I don't own an ipod, and i don't want to get one, at least not yet. May consider an iphone, if someone comes up with a third party numeric keyboard app for texting.

I tried buying songs from itunes, kmart, some store from microsoft... and none would play on my mp3 player.

Yes, you can burn the AAC's to disc and then rip them back into mp3 to play on any device, but that workaround it too tedious to rely on for every downloaded song.

WHY can't itunes just offer mp3 downloads instead of their proprietary AAC format?

For non-ipod owners like me, this has been a source of frustration.

On the other hand, i kind of like having the original music cds...

no case here


the competition exists and IT CAN sell

and apple did not try to forbid a company to sell a new player, or to promote a new format or a new player.

(for exemple, apple never forbid divx.com to have access to os X documentation)

(apple did not forbid Creative to do players working with mac or buy them to dismount them)

the day where _no_ player can be sold because the ONLY online shop is itunes, yes, the state will force apple to change but it's far far far the case

Amazon mp3 is an huge block on the apple's road.

Windows media audio is a gigantic other one.

and itunes sells drm-free (working everywhere)

and ipod can read mp3 and mp4 files (there are shops selling mp3, mp4/aac is open to all industrials wanting to work with mpeg/dolby. it's a very different business than old WMA and Microsoft one. microsoft was forced to adapt with VC1 and industrial standardisation)


it's all fine.

There /is/ some grounds for complaint, inasmuch as the iPod and iTMS have come to dominate everything, and other providers would dearly like to get their stuff onto the iPod. And the incompatible DRM methods /is/ kind of a pain in the ass.

I believe Microsoft was willing to license the WMA DRM to Apple for something like $900k (which isn't too bad, considering). But as I understand it, the license would have covered only adding support for WMA DRM to the iPod, not to iTunes itself. So the iPod would be able to play music from Windows 'PlaysForSure' music stores, but iTMS would have been excluded from using that. (I gather the DRM could have been licensed for Windows iTMS, but not for the Mac one, which would not have helped the situation much.)

This really doesn't make sense for Apple. One of the strengths of the iPod is that it draws customers to their store. If you could use things from all the other stores on the iPod but Microsoft was not willing to license the DRM for use on iTMS itself, then Apple would probably quickly find their store the last-place contender. Why buy your music THERE when you can buy it from the other guys and still have it work on iPod /and/ everything else?

Of course, Apple's ideal -- at least according to Jobs' open letter -- would be to sell everything without DRM. Then anyone's store could sell things that would work on anyone's stuff, and life would be good.

I am suing Skippy Peanut Butter because when refrigerated it only spreads properly on toasted or intrinsically firm bread.

I want cold peanut butter on soft room temperature potato bread and I can't have it. There is just no way. Make the sandwich with warm peanut butter and put it in the fridge and the bread gets soggy. Toasting the bread costs money, and what, now I need to buy a toaster?

No, Skippy, your peanut butter isn't spreadable enough. I can't have it exactly how I want it, and I don't want anything else, I can't return the jar of PB for a full refund, I was duped. I saw those people in the commercial! That peanut butter looked about 38 degrees and that bread looked about 72. I suppose you'll want to sell me a special knife?

Also - your brand tastes wrong with pineapple jam. I know its odd, but its what I want, and I can't have it properly with your peanut butter. No Skippy, you are forcing the market to behave to your standards, making us all buy toasters and strawberry jam, making us use electricity, and the other thing.

Your product is also making me gain weight, and raise my cholesterol. It was wrong of you to make such a delicious product, make it impossible to work with, and now it is killing me? Skippy - are you going to buy me new pants? That little guy on the jar is skinny! False advertising! Corruption! Monopolism!

Ok my fingers are tired, I'm going to go make a sandwich.

Dave S