“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