Apple in court over anticompetitive behaviour again

Everything Goes · 01-12-2014, 22:19

Apple are in court over anticompetitive behaviour again. This is something of a historical case and Apple will only face a paltry $350m if it loses the trial.

Proceedings will hinge around the fact early iPods only allowed owners to play MP3s and other tracks bought from the Apples store or ripped from their own CD collection.

Once again Steve Jobs gives some damming evidence from beyond the grave.

In 2003, Jobs was concerned about MusicMatch, a rival music service.

“We need to make sure that when Music Match launches their download music store they cannot use iPod,” he wrote. “Is this going to be an issue?”

Many more emails are expected to be unveiled during the trial.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12...give_evidence/

ACU · 02-12-2014, 11:30

With the amount of time that apple lawyers spend in court, I bet they have their own office in their local courthouse.

Everything Goes · 03-12-2014, 16:27

The latest from court looks at Apple blocking Real Player. Makes for interesting reading. Once again Steve Jobs comes across as a tyrant trying to keep his empire free from competition.

Quote:

Early iPod fanbois and gurls are suing the fruity firm for unfairly blocking competition in digital music by forcing users to buy solely from iTunes.

In opening statements, the iPod users’ legal beak Bonny Sweeney introduced emails between top Apple execs, including Jobs, that discussed a challenge in online music from Real Networks, as Re/code, Bloomberg and others reported.

“There was a concern by Apple that this would eat into their market share,” she asserted.

Eventually, Cupertino introduced a software update to the iPod that stopped RealPlayer music from being downloaded. The argument is that this was unfairly anticompetitive because once a person owned an iPod, they were pretty much locked into the Apple “ecosystem”, even if they wanted to buy a competing device later.

In the emails, the Applers discuss how the firm’s 70 per cent market share in 2004 was slipping. Jobs suggested that the company should release a press statement accusing Real Networks of “hacking” the iPod.

“How’s this?” Jobs wrote. “‘We are stunned that Real is adopting the tactics and ethics of a hacker and breaking into the iPod.'”

“I like likening them to hackers,” Apple marketing chief Philip Schiller responded.

Apple’s attorney William Isaacson said that the company had every right to improve iTunes to protect iPods from security threats and any other damage Real Networks software might cause.

“It posed a danger to the consumer experience and to the quality of the product,” he claimed.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12..._case_day_one/

IvanIV · 03-12-2014, 16:51

It should come as no surprise, he ruled his imperium with a steel fist. He was no Christ figure as the visuals of that film about him tried to suggest, quite the opposite

kidspud · 03-12-2014, 19:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by IvanIV

It should come as no surprise, he ruled his imperium with a steel fist. He was no Christ figure as the visuals of that film about him tried to suggest, quite the opposite

Tell us more. How well did you know him?

calico_pie · 03-12-2014, 23:07

Can someone explain to me the difference between Apple not wanting Real Networks stuff to work on the iPod and, for example, Nintendo games not working on a Playstation?

Is it because Nintendo are tyrants too?

Everything Goes · 03-12-2014, 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Can someone explain to me the difference between Apple not wanting Real Networks stuff to work on the iPod and, for example, Nintendo games not working on a Playstation?

Is it because Nintendo are tyrants too?

Still wearing Apple Blinkers I see Calico

Its not the same and you know its not the same!

A good example is how many platforms Netflix is on.

Roush · 03-12-2014, 23:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

A good example is how many platforms Netflix is on.

No it's not, and you know it!

Netflix is a subscription service, therefore it's in Netflix's commercial interests to be on as many platforms as possible.

Can I watch content purchased on Google Play Movies via Netflix? Can I watch content purchased on Amazon Instant Video via Netflix?

My name's Scott · 03-12-2014, 23:50

Is Calico messaging us from a secure unit?

calico_pie · 04-12-2014, 00:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

Still wearing Apple Blinkers I see Calico

Its not the same and you know its not the same!

A good example is how many platforms Netflix is on.

Why isn't it the same?

Company A prevents Company B's products from working on Company A's products.

Sounds pretty much the same to me.

Netflix is on many platforms, but you are mixing your metaphors. Netflix is a service that wants to be available to as many people as possible, and so is on a variety of platforms.
That is in no way comparable to the iPod / iTunes example. For your analogy to work better, the thing that would be equivalent to Netflix would be the music itself, which would seek to be on as many platforms as possible, examples of which would be iTunes or iTunes' competitors.

As someone else has already said, you can't watch Amazon Prime content on Netflix or vice versa. Tyrants!

calico_pie · 04-12-2014, 00:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by My name's Scott

Is Calico messaging us from a secure unit?

Anything constructive to add, or is that you spent?

Stiggles · 04-12-2014, 01:15

It's funny. The authorities seem to think something isn't right, yet the resident apple fans don't as always.

I wonder who knows better....

Stiggles · 04-12-2014, 01:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roush

No it's not, and you know it!

Netflix is a subscription service, therefore it's in Netflix's commercial interests to be on as many platforms as possible.

Can I watch content purchased on Google Play Movies via Netflix? Can I watch content purchased on Amazon Instant Video via Netflix?

Completely different.

Amazon, Netflix or google play do not restrict what device its played on. This is what apple were doing.

IvanIV · 04-12-2014, 05:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidspud

Tell us more. How well did you know him?

I see what he was doing.

ACU · 04-12-2014, 07:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidspud

Tell us more. How well did you know him?

What a stupid post. I dont know Geroge W Bush, however I know he isnt the sharpest knife in the draw. I didnt know mother teresa, yet I know she did a lot of good.

You dont have to know a person well, to know what they were like, especially those in the public light.

slattery69 · 04-12-2014, 09:06

I've not read a lot on this so could be wrong. But isn't the arguement that you could play real player material then apple issued a software update to stop it
This is what they are trying to say made it anti competitive so in the computer example someone gave earlier.
Sony allows Nintendo games then reverses that once people are playing them
Like I say could be total off the mark just how I read it

swordman · 04-12-2014, 09:44

I wonder if some posters have some alert system to warn them out certain threads, they seem to come out together

Where were all these defenders when MS faced the same charges time after time, seems it was perfectly fine then oddly.

Stuart_h · 04-12-2014, 09:47

There are two different situations being discussed here.

If it was a case of Apple not letting other music providers onto the iPOD then, IMHO thats a fair decision. I actually agree with kidspud and calico.

If people were buying the item on good faith in the knowledge that they could add music from other sources, and the Apple blocked this function then that is shakier ground.

Not sure which one we are talking about here though

Everything Goes · 04-12-2014, 10:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Anything constructive to add, or is that you spent?

Its more constructive than your posts

Your posts centre around defending the indefensible.

Everything Goes · 04-12-2014, 10:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roush

No it's not, and you know it!

Netflix is a subscription service, therefore it's in Netflix's commercial interests to be on as many platforms as possible.

Can I watch content purchased on Google Play Movies via Netflix? Can I watch content purchased on Amazon Instant Video via Netflix?

If you can download a film without DRM then you can watch it on any device with an appropriate media player.

Streaming and downloading are different.

grumpyoldbat · 04-12-2014, 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart_h

There are two different situations being discussed here.

If it was a case of Apple not letting other music providers onto the iPOD then, IMHO thats a fair decision. I actually agree with kidspud and calico.

If people were buying the item on good faith in the knowledge that they could add music from other sources, and the Apple blocked this function then that is shakier ground.

Not sure which one we are talking about here though

It's also really old news. Apple removed DRM and have allowed MP3s from anywhere on their devices for at least 5 years now. Why is this case coming up now? It all seems a bit closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

To my recollection at the time, a lot of the other players based their download stores around DRM protected files that required a license to be installed on a device for them to play. I had a Windows Mobile phone and a music player from Creative and that "license" system never worked very well. Half the time the device would lose the license and you'd have to reinstall stuff.

What we have now, with the ability to buy music from multiple sources like Amazon, Google, etc and use it across multiple devices is a vast improvement.

calico_pie · 04-12-2014, 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

Completely different.

Amazon, Netflix or google play do not restrict what device its played on. This is what apple were doing.

That isn't what the issue is about though - its about the ability to play content provided by one platform (Real Networks) on another (iTunes / iPod).

In that respect it is the same - you can't stream the new series of Ripper Street on Netflix because its restricted to Netflix, and you can't stream the new series of House of Cards on Amazon Prime because its restricted to Netflix.

At least with music it doesn't tend to be exclusive to one platform or the other, although that might become a trend - the new Take That album is only on Google's streaming service, but not Spotify - at least for the first few weeks. Is that anti competitive, or just an exclusivity deal?

Everything Goes · 04-12-2014, 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Why isn't it the same?

Company A prevents Company B's products from working on Company A's products.

Sounds pretty much the same to me.

Netflix is on many platforms, but you are mixing your metaphors. Netflix is a service that wants to be available to as many people as possible, and so is on a variety of platforms.
That is in no way comparable to the iPod / iTunes example. For your analogy to work better, the thing that would be equivalent to Netflix would be the music itself, which would seek to be on as many platforms as possible, examples of which would be iTunes or iTunes' competitors.

As someone else has already said, you can't watch Amazon Prime content on Netflix or vice versa. Tyrants!

See post above

calico_pie · 04-12-2014, 11:16

Glad you agree.

swordman · 04-12-2014, 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart_h

There are two different situations being discussed here.

If it was a case of Apple not letting other music providers onto the iPOD then, IMHO thats a fair decision. I actually agree with kidspud and calico.

If people were buying the item on good faith in the knowledge that they could add music from other sources, and the Apple blocked this function then that is shakier ground.

Not sure which one we are talking about here though

Not quite as simple as that, what you may thinik is ok on the face of it may still be anti-competetive. The same analogy could be applied to MS, so what if they only wanted to bundle IE with windows it was their software they should do what they like with it.

The problem is that these practices in the long run simply harm competition and ultimately consumers by cornering the market with no competition. This is why there are laws against it.

Of course such practices are never seen as anti competitive by some who are quite happy to be taken for a ride or ripped off. I have even heard that the scandalous ebook saga was not apples fault.

01-12-2014, 22:19	#1
Everything Goes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the future.... Posts: 11,259	Apple in court over anticompetitive behaviour again Apple are in court over anticompetitive behaviour again. This is something of a historical case and Apple will only face a paltry $350m if it loses the trial. Proceedings will hinge around the fact early iPods only allowed owners to play MP3s and other tracks bought from the Apples store or ripped from their own CD collection. Once again Steve Jobs gives some damming evidence from beyond the grave. In 2003, Jobs was concerned about MusicMatch, a rival music service. “We need to make sure that when Music Match launches their download music store they cannot use iPod,” he wrote. “Is this going to be an issue?” Many more emails are expected to be unveiled during the trial. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12...give_evidence/

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-12-2014, 11:30	#2
ACU Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 7,916	With the amount of time that apple lawyers spend in court, I bet they have their own office in their local courthouse.

03-12-2014, 16:27	#3
Everything Goes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the future.... Posts: 11,259	The latest from court looks at Apple blocking Real Player. Makes for interesting reading. Once again Steve Jobs comes across as a tyrant trying to keep his empire free from competition. Quote: Early iPod fanbois and gurls are suing the fruity firm for unfairly blocking competition in digital music by forcing users to buy solely from iTunes. In opening statements, the iPod users’ legal beak Bonny Sweeney introduced emails between top Apple execs, including Jobs, that discussed a challenge in online music from Real Networks, as Re/code, Bloomberg and others reported. “There was a concern by Apple that this would eat into their market share,” she asserted. Eventually, Cupertino introduced a software update to the iPod that stopped RealPlayer music from being downloaded. The argument is that this was unfairly anticompetitive because once a person owned an iPod, they were pretty much locked into the Apple “ecosystem”, even if they wanted to buy a competing device later. In the emails, the Applers discuss how the firm’s 70 per cent market share in 2004 was slipping. Jobs suggested that the company should release a press statement accusing Real Networks of “hacking” the iPod. “How’s this?” Jobs wrote. “‘We are stunned that Real is adopting the tactics and ethics of a hacker and breaking into the iPod.'” “I like likening them to hackers,” Apple marketing chief Philip Schiller responded. Apple’s attorney William Isaacson said that the company had every right to improve iTunes to protect iPods from security threats and any other damage Real Networks software might cause. “It posed a danger to the consumer experience and to the quality of the product,” he claimed. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12..._case_day_one/

03-12-2014, 16:51	#4
IvanIV Forum Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 25,199	It should come as no surprise, he ruled his imperium with a steel fist. He was no Christ figure as the visuals of that film about him tried to suggest, quite the opposite

03-12-2014, 19:45	#5
kidspud Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 11,501	Quote: Originally Posted by IvanIV It should come as no surprise, he ruled his imperium with a steel fist. He was no Christ figure as the visuals of that film about him tried to suggest, quite the opposite Tell us more. How well did you know him?

03-12-2014, 23:07	#6
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Can someone explain to me the difference between Apple not wanting Real Networks stuff to work on the iPod and, for example, Nintendo games not working on a Playstation? Is it because Nintendo are tyrants too?

03-12-2014, 23:25	#7
Everything Goes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the future.... Posts: 11,259	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie Can someone explain to me the difference between Apple not wanting Real Networks stuff to work on the iPod and, for example, Nintendo games not working on a Playstation? Is it because Nintendo are tyrants too? Still wearing Apple Blinkers I see Calico Its not the same and you know its not the same! A good example is how many platforms Netflix is on.

03-12-2014, 23:44	#8
Roush Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Hertfordshire Posts: 2,938	Quote: Originally Posted by Everything Goes A good example is how many platforms Netflix is on. No it's not, and you know it! Netflix is a subscription service, therefore it's in Netflix's commercial interests to be on as many platforms as possible. Can I watch content purchased on Google Play Movies via Netflix? Can I watch content purchased on Amazon Instant Video via Netflix?

03-12-2014, 23:50	#9
My name's Scott Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Homerton, London, E9 Posts: 1,742	Is Calico messaging us from a secure unit?

04-12-2014, 00:12	#10
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by Everything Goes Still wearing Apple Blinkers I see Calico Its not the same and you know its not the same! A good example is how many platforms Netflix is on. Why isn't it the same? Company A prevents Company B's products from working on Company A's products. Sounds pretty much the same to me. Netflix is on many platforms, but you are mixing your metaphors. Netflix is a service that wants to be available to as many people as possible, and so is on a variety of platforms. That is in no way comparable to the iPod / iTunes example. For your analogy to work better, the thing that would be equivalent to Netflix would be the music itself, which would seek to be on as many platforms as possible, examples of which would be iTunes or iTunes' competitors. As someone else has already said, you can't watch Amazon Prime content on Netflix or vice versa. Tyrants!

04-12-2014, 00:13	#11
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by My name's Scott Is Calico messaging us from a secure unit? Anything constructive to add, or is that you spent?

04-12-2014, 01:15	#12
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	It's funny. The authorities seem to think something isn't right, yet the resident apple fans don't as always. I wonder who knows better....

04-12-2014, 01:18	#13
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by Roush No it's not, and you know it! Netflix is a subscription service, therefore it's in Netflix's commercial interests to be on as many platforms as possible. Can I watch content purchased on Google Play Movies via Netflix? Can I watch content purchased on Amazon Instant Video via Netflix? Completely different. Amazon, Netflix or google play do not restrict what device its played on. This is what apple were doing.

04-12-2014, 05:21	#14
IvanIV Forum Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 25,199	Quote: Originally Posted by kidspud Tell us more. How well did you know him? I see what he was doing.

04-12-2014, 07:36	#15
ACU Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 7,916	Quote: Originally Posted by kidspud Tell us more. How well did you know him? What a stupid post. I dont know Geroge W Bush, however I know he isnt the sharpest knife in the draw. I didnt know mother teresa, yet I know she did a lot of good. You dont have to know a person well, to know what they were like, especially those in the public light.

04-12-2014, 09:06	#16
slattery69 Forum Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 204	I've not read a lot on this so could be wrong. But isn't the arguement that you could play real player material then apple issued a software update to stop it This is what they are trying to say made it anti competitive so in the computer example someone gave earlier. Sony allows Nintendo games then reverses that once people are playing them Like I say could be total off the mark just how I read it

04-12-2014, 09:44	#17
swordman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,342	I wonder if some posters have some alert system to warn them out certain threads, they seem to come out together Where were all these defenders when MS faced the same charges time after time, seems it was perfectly fine then oddly.

04-12-2014, 09:47	#18
Stuart_h Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3,474	There are two different situations being discussed here. If it was a case of Apple not letting other music providers onto the iPOD then, IMHO thats a fair decision. I actually agree with kidspud and calico. If people were buying the item on good faith in the knowledge that they could add music from other sources, and the Apple blocked this function then that is shakier ground. Not sure which one we are talking about here though

04-12-2014, 10:26	#19
Everything Goes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the future.... Posts: 11,259	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie Anything constructive to add, or is that you spent? Its more constructive than your posts Your posts centre around defending the indefensible.

04-12-2014, 10:32	#20
Everything Goes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the future.... Posts: 11,259	Quote: Originally Posted by Roush No it's not, and you know it! Netflix is a subscription service, therefore it's in Netflix's commercial interests to be on as many platforms as possible. Can I watch content purchased on Google Play Movies via Netflix? Can I watch content purchased on Amazon Instant Video via Netflix? If you can download a film without DRM then you can watch it on any device with an appropriate media player. Streaming and downloading are different.

04-12-2014, 10:33	#21
grumpyoldbat Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,636	Quote: Originally Posted by Stuart_h There are two different situations being discussed here. If it was a case of Apple not letting other music providers onto the iPOD then, IMHO thats a fair decision. I actually agree with kidspud and calico. If people were buying the item on good faith in the knowledge that they could add music from other sources, and the Apple blocked this function then that is shakier ground. Not sure which one we are talking about here though It's also really old news. Apple removed DRM and have allowed MP3s from anywhere on their devices for at least 5 years now. Why is this case coming up now? It all seems a bit closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. To my recollection at the time, a lot of the other players based their download stores around DRM protected files that required a license to be installed on a device for them to play. I had a Windows Mobile phone and a music player from Creative and that "license" system never worked very well. Half the time the device would lose the license and you'd have to reinstall stuff. What we have now, with the ability to buy music from multiple sources like Amazon, Google, etc and use it across multiple devices is a vast improvement.

DS Forums

Apple in court over anticompetitive behaviour again

04-12-2014, 10:33	#22
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by Stiggles Completely different. Amazon, Netflix or google play do not restrict what device its played on. This is what apple were doing. That isn't what the issue is about though - its about the ability to play content provided by one platform (Real Networks) on another (iTunes / iPod). In that respect it is the same - you can't stream the new series of Ripper Street on Netflix because its restricted to Netflix, and you can't stream the new series of House of Cards on Amazon Prime because its restricted to Netflix. At least with music it doesn't tend to be exclusive to one platform or the other, although that might become a trend - the new Take That album is only on Google's streaming service, but not Spotify - at least for the first few weeks. Is that anti competitive, or just an exclusivity deal?

04-12-2014, 11:16	#24
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Glad you agree.

04-12-2014, 13:40	#25
swordman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,342	Quote: Originally Posted by Stuart_h There are two different situations being discussed here. If it was a case of Apple not letting other music providers onto the iPOD then, IMHO thats a fair decision. I actually agree with kidspud and calico. If people were buying the item on good faith in the knowledge that they could add music from other sources, and the Apple blocked this function then that is shakier ground. Not sure which one we are talking about here though Not quite as simple as that, what you may thinik is ok on the face of it may still be anti-competetive. The same analogy could be applied to MS, so what if they only wanted to bundle IE with windows it was their software they should do what they like with it. The problem is that these practices in the long run simply harm competition and ultimately consumers by cornering the market with no competition. This is why there are laws against it. Of course such practices are never seen as anti competitive by some who are quite happy to be taken for a ride or ripped off. I have even heard that the scandalous ebook saga was not apples fault.