“Apple Computer Inc. said Friday it is facing [a lawsuit] alleging the company created an illegal monopoly by tying iTunes music and video sales to its market-leading iPod portable players,” Betsy Schiffman reports for The Associated Press.
“The case, filed July 21, is over Apple’s use of a copy-protection system that generally prevents iTunes music and video from playing on rival players. Likewise, songs purchased elsewhere aren’t easily playable on iPods,” Schiffman reports.
Schiffman reports, “The plaintiff is seeking unspecified damages and other relief. The court denied Apple’s motion to dismiss the complaint on Dec. 20.”
Full article here.
From Apple’s 10-K for Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2006:
Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Plaintiff filed this purported class action on July 21, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power. The complaint alleges violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§1 and 2), California Business & Professions Code §16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On November 3, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was heard on November 20, 2006. On December 20, 2006, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
A similar lawsuit also detailed in Apple’s 10-K:
Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. (formerly Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc.)
The original Plaintiff (Slattery) filed this purported class action on January 3, 2005 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§1 and 2), California Business and Professions Code §16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California Business and Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law monopolization. Plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 10, 2005. On September 9, 2005, the Court denied the motion in part and granted it in part. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2005 and the Company filed an answer on October 18, 2005. On May 8, 2006, the Court heard Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute two new plaintiffs for Slattery. In August 2006, the court dismissed Slattery without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two new plaintiffs (Charoensak and Rosen). On November 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The hearing on class certification is set for April 16, 2007.
Related articles:
Judge allows antitrust suit against Apple for iPod+iTunes illegal ‘tying’ to proceed – February 06, 2006
Antitrust suit filed against Apple, alleges iPod and iTunes Music Store illegally ‘tied’ together – January 05, 2005
Fatty Arbuckle:
Whether Zune Tang is a troll or an Apple devotee, he’s at best boring and at worst painfully monotonous and excruciatingly repetitive. The fact you enjoy his threads only proves to me that you are as immature and dimwitted as Zune Tang.
I thought Zune Tang’s first 10 satirical posts were hilarious.
But I think it’s time to move on. No offense Zune, seriously. I just don’t want you to turn into the Stones, touring awful new albums when everyone just wants to hear Satisfaction.
m
So, then… Following this logic, if Nintendo should succeed with the Wii they need to do one of 2 things:
1) Make sure the Wii will play PS3 games and XBOX games
2) Make sure the Wii discs will play on all systems
You see? There is NOTHING illegal about what is going on with Apple’s music system. They sell the songs in AAC format (playable on iPod only).
EVERY OTHER FARKING COMPANY sells their music in either MP3 formats or WMA formats. MP3s will play on every, single player, whereas WMAs will play on every player BUT the iPod.
What’s the problem?
I can buy Grand Theft Auto for PS2 or Xbox or both, but I cannot use the same disc. Yup. Gotta buy it TWICE.
Therefore, I can buy “Dick in a box” as an AAC for the iPod, or as a WMA for another player, such as Zune or Zen, or both. Yup. Gotta buy it TWICE.
Fuck off, stupid people who think this is a court case.
Can one file a class-action lawsuit against people? If so, I’d like it to be
“Smart consumers” vs. “Charoensak & Tucker”
– No difference between what Apple does with its music and what Nintendo does with its games. Nintendo supplies development tools for the Nintendo products only. They don’t care if the developer ever makes an Xbox game, nor is it Nintendo’s responsibility to make sure that happens. And just like that, it’s Apple’s responsibility to make sure all songs are encoded in protected AAC. It’s other companies’ responsibilities for making sure their versions of the songs are in a format that will work with their player.
I don’t see any difference and I should be able to sue these 2 assholes for artifically dropping the stock – probably for the sole purpose of buying more once they do so.
There are so many examples of this kind of monopoly if that’s what you want to call it. Apple doesn’t discriminate unlike the other online stores. Apple offers there music and videos to both PC’s and Mac’s. You can convert an ACC file to mp3 and then use there music so I don’t think once this goes to court this guy will be able to win.
And we all think about it. Apple actually sells mp3 files. Buy an album, burn it, rip the audio cd in to the “standard” mp3 format and now it plays on every player.
So what’s the problem here. The fact that Apple is still around, even if it supposed to be dead? To some people I think, yes. And Apple only has 63% marketshare world wide, so they’re not in the same league as Microsoft.
MW: dark. It’s dark out there – It’s raining water and all the snow is gone. And my ankle is totally f****d up.
can I change my screenname to asswipe?
I think the lawsuit is good. I don’t like that the downloads from iTunes are in the AAC format and can only play on iPODS. If I didn’t have an iPOD and I downloaded all my music I’d be pissed to have to burn it all on a disc and waste more time and a CD on that.
Everyone here seems to be upset because they’re going after Apple, but what they did is really bullshit. When Apple announced the iPOD and iTunes they said it was going to be a system free of locks and restrictions and the music will be available for everyone. They lied with that one.
Apple should free up the music and just make it a mp3 file. Then it can play anywhere and on anything. Same with the Zune. These dumb ass restrictions hinder more than they help and they lead to stupid shit like these lawsuits.
It’s funny you chose to compare the game systems. It’s not exactly the same thing because all those systems are similarly priced and no one absolutely dominates the market like Apple does with the iPOD. Which system someone chooses is based on personal tastes. The same can be said with the iPOD and such, but the fact that iTunes has the biggest library and the iPOD dominates the market, it eliminates a lot of options because of the convenience and compatibility. But, if someone decides they don’t like the iPOD anymore, they’re f’d when it comes to putting their music on another player. And to the comment that iTunes plays on MAc and Win, yeah, that’s true, but you know you’re making a general statement there. The point of the lawsuit is the fact that music wil not play on any other music devices.
before anyone says I’m a jerk or work for Microsoft, I own an iPOD mini, new shuffle, and a MacBook. So hush. I’m just smart enough to be able to see things kind of objectively – not strok Apple’s dick at every opportunity and automatically dismiss anything that says something bad about our beloved Apples.
AAC IS NOT A PROPRIETARY APPLE FORMAT! It’s an open standard, if fact the Zune plays AAC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune
The issue is the Fair Play DRM prevents the iTunes Store purchased songs from playing on other players. However, major labels demand DRM if you want to sell their music. Whose DRM are they supposed to use? Microsoft’s? Not to mention that the music from all other download stores that use various forms of Microsoft DRM won’t play on a Mac or iPod. Oh, and nothing is stopping anyone from loading up an iPod with music without purchasing a single song from iTunes by ripping from CD.
AAC IS NOT A PROPRIETARY APPLE FORMAT! It’s an open standard, if fact the Zune plays AAC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune
The issue is the Fair Play DRM prevents the iTunes Store purchased songs from playing on other players. However, major labels demand DRM if you want to sell their music. Whose DRM are they supposed to use? Microsoft’s? Not to mention that the music from all other download stores that use various forms of Microsoft DRM won’t play on a Mac or iPod. Oh, and nothing is stopping anyone from loading up an iPod with music without purchasing a single song from iTunes by ripping from CD.
AAC IS NOT A PROPRIETARY APPLE FORMAT! It’s an open standard, if fact the Zune plays AAC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune
The issue is the Fair Play DRM prevents the iTunes Store purchased songs from playing on other players. However, major labels demand DRM if you want to sell their music. Whose DRM are they supposed to use? Microsoft’s? Not to mention that the music from all other download stores that use various forms of Microsoft DRM won’t play on a Mac or iPod. Oh, and nothing is stopping anyone from loading up an iPod with music without purchasing a single song from iTunes by ripping from CD.
I meant to say “in fact the Zune plays AAC” (how about an edit button, MDN?). Anyway, here’s an opinion piece that expresses my point in depth:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/6565C879-3C4C-4014-95F0-EF1DF464D378.html
I meant to say “in fact the Zune plays AAC” (how about an edit button, MDN?). Anyway, here’s an opinion piece that expresses my point in depth:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/6565C879-3C4C-4014-95F0-EF1DF464D378.html
I meant to say “in fact the Zune plays AAC” (how about an edit button, MDN?). Anyway, here’s an opinion piece that expresses my point in depth:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/6565C879-3C4C-4014-95F0-EF1DF464D378.html
“The issue is the Fair Play DRM prevents the iTunes Store purchased songs from playing on other players. However, major labels demand DRM if you want to sell their music. Whose DRM are they supposed to use? Microsoft’s? Not to mention that the music from all other download stores that use various forms of Microsoft DRM won’t play on a Mac or iPod. Oh, and nothing is stopping anyone from loading up an iPod with music without purchasing a single song from iTunes by ripping from CD.”
Well said.
Okay….
I don’t think my copyof Microsoft Office should be tied to Windows when I want to transfer the software to a Mac….
Why should MS be allowed to ‘tie’ these two products and not allow users to freely choose between computing platforms w/o having to completely repurchase their software?
Now THAT example is exactly the same, especially considering the domination of MS Office….
Yup, Zune Tang is WAAY past it. It’s sad when people don’t realize they’ve jumped the shark.
Here is my take on the lawsuit…
Tying iPod + iTunes for complete interaction is a wonderful system. Apple should be allowed to use it’s own DRM, however it should open up the format for Real, MicroSoft, etc. to use on their Zunes, Skansas, DJs, Gigabeats, etc. It’s dirty pool because if a consumer decides to not purchase an iPod, they cannot use any of the media files they choose to purchase off of iTunes. It’s kind of like Microsoft forcing computer companies to only sell their operating system.
“Why should MS be allowed to ‘tie’ these two products and not allow users to freely choose between computing platforms w/o having to completely repurchase their software?”
Boot Camp. Run the software on your Mac, no problems.
“Apple should be allowed to use it’s own DRM, however it should open up the format for Real, MicroSoft, etc. to use on their Zunes, Skansas, DJs, Gigabeats, etc. It’s dirty pool because if a consumer decides to not purchase an iPod, they cannot use any of the media files they choose to purchase off of iTunes. It’s kind of like Microsoft forcing computer companies to only sell their operating system.”
But they CAN use the music files, just burn them to an audio CD and re-import them as generic MP3s. Microsoft “should” also open their DRM(s) to Mac users to give us a choice of download services (especially for those who would prefer the subscription model), but I don’t see any clamor (or lawsuits) demanding that happen. I wonder why.
“But they CAN use the music files, just burn them to an audio CD and
re-import them as generic MP3s. Microsoft “should” also open their DRM(s)
to Mac users to give us a choice of download services (especially for those
who would prefer the subscription model), but I don’t see any clamor (or
lawsuits) demanding that happen. I wonder why. “
I completely agree that MS should open up their DRMs to Mac Users…
As for the other thought, the file bit-rate off of iTunes is already so low, if you were to strip and reimport, it’d be even worse, not most people’s 1st choice to say the least.
“As for the other thought, the file bit-rate off of iTunes is already so low, if you were to strip and reimport, it’d be even worse, not most people’s 1st choice to say the least.”
I agree, but you said that you “cannot use any of the media files they choose to purchase off of iTunes” and I was just pointing out that you CAN even if the situation isn’t optimal.
I’m not picking on you Anthony, because you seem like a reasonable person, but I think the people clamoring for “fairness” from Apple would be on a far stronger footing if Microsoft were to release a new version of Windows Media Player for the Mac with support for Microsoft’s various DRM schemes, so we could at least play those files on our computers. Then if Apple were to refuse to provide WMA or Microsoft DRM support for the iPod, then I think it would be fair to demand Apple to “open up”.
I’m getting a little tired of how all the demands for “fairness” and “openness” is directed solely one way at Apple when us Mac users were completely locked out of the market for major label legal downloads by Microsoft DRM before ITMS came along.
These are classic nussiance lawsuits generated by both twits and shysters hoping to make a score amongst the demented judges on the bench. The iPod antitrust issue was already commented on by Thomas Barnett, the head of DOJ’s Antitrust division:
Barnett On Interoperability Between Antitrust and IP
Pretty clear, eh?
Oops, sorry about the spelling — it’s “nuisance”.
To amend my previous post, I just listened to this week’s Macbreak Weekly podcast:
http://www.twit.tv/mbw21
…where they were discussing Microsoft DRM vs. Apple DRM and they mentioned the fact that the MS DRM scheme would be a resource drain on the iPod’s limited brainpower(what a surprise, right?), whereas now with Fair Play the DRM management is in iTunes. So Apple would have a legit reason not to support MS DRM on the iPod. I still say any talk of “fairness” should start with a new DRM-supported version of WMP for the Mac instead of going after Apple first. Then that would open the market to Mac users to other portable players that already support MS protocols if you want one. I’m perfectly happy with my iPod and ITS, but when you talk of opening markets, remember that Windows users were begging to be a part of the same “closed ecosystem” so many of them are now complaining about when iTunes and the iPod were Mac only.