“An antitrust lawsuit filed against Apple on Dec. 31 charges the company with maintaining an illegal monopoly on the digital music market,” Thomas Claburn reports for InformationWeek.
“Plaintiff Stacie Somers, represented by attorneys Craig Briskin and Steven Skalet of Mehri & Skalet PLLC, Alreen Haeggquist of Haeggquist Law Group, and Helen Zeldes, alleges that Apple dominates the market for online video, online music, and digital music players and that its dominance constitutes a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The attorneys are seeking to have their lawsuit certified as a class action,” Claburn reports.
“The complaint against Apple claims that the company controls 75% of the online video market, 83% of the online music market, more than 90% of the hard-drive based music player market, and 70% of the Flash-based music player market,” Claburn reports.
“The complaint takes issue with Apple’s refusal to support [Microsoft’s] Windows Media Audio format.’Apple’s iPod is alone among mass-market Digital Music Players in not supporting the WMA format,’ it states, noting that America Online, Wal-Mart, Napster, MusicMatch, Best Buy, Yahoo Music, FYE Download Zone, and Virgin Digital all support WMA files,” Claburn reports.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: A monopoly, which this isn’t anyway, is legal. It’s monopoly abuse that’s illegal. Where’s the abuse? iPods also play MP3, WAV, AIFF, among other formats. Where’s the exclusion? What is Apple supposed to do, support every also-ran, failed format in the world?
So having a better product is illegal? Wow thats new.
MPEG-4 ACC is an industry standard, err WMA is, well, err one company’s attempt to own the distribution format.
Frivolous!
Its actually the problem of the other players not supporting AAC (which is open to them to support) not that Apple doesn’t support WMA (which isn’t that great anyway).
I thought iTunes supported non-DRM WMA files. Am I wrong about this? And isn’t it true that Microsoft does not allow DRM files to play in iTunes?
These people need to move to China or Russia for a year to how bad it could be. Then maybee they will shut the F up.
Just how stupid can these lawyers be?
…to see how….
….maybe…
Darn MDM and no editing.
Paraphrasing Jack Nicholson’s character Colonel Nathan Jessep in “A Few Good Men”: “Who the fsck is Plaintiff Stacie Somers?”
Been wonder what Zune Tang was up too…….
Apple should countersue naming Microsoft as a defendant for not allowing Windows Media to work on Macs
“The complaint against Apple claims that the company controls 75% of the online video market, 83% of the online music market, more than 90% of the hard-drive based music player market, and 70% of the Flash-based music player market…
Controlling this large amount of market share was rightfully earned. By customers liking the product and buying in droves. Nobody forced them.
“The complaint takes issue with Apple’s refusal to support [Microsoft’s] Windows Media Audio format.’Apple’s iPod is alone among mass-market Digital Music Players in not supporting the WMA format,’ it states, noting that America Online, Wal-Mart, Napster, MusicMatch, Best Buy, Yahoo Music, FYE Download Zone, and Virgin Digital all support WMA files,” Claburn reports.
Mirroring MDN comment, what about supporting MP3? Sadly this is ignored by these “going out of the music buisness companies.”
Apple has every right to refuse to support a competitors file format, and having to pay royalties/fee’s to use it.
Just becuase some companies choose a inferior format doesn’t mean Apple or us have to accept it.
Lol! Total ridiculous lawsuit. Someone always trying to make money
without researching the truth first. The lawyers always get rich on these things so obviously they take them on.
Not only do Ipods also play MP3’s but Windows machine owners can get a free copy of iTunes, install it on their Windows only machine and play music and videos meant for iPods.
As Mac Daily News says:
Where is the abuse?
Ken
…to be dismissed soon at a theater near you
Gee… I wonder who is behind that lawsuit. Could it be Microsoft? Nah, I must be dreaming.
This if course all has to do with copy protection.
Copy protection is hardware based, going with a Microsoft format will require eventual hardware requirements of Apple, and a early notice of upcoming products to comply with the new copy protection schemes.
So Apple will be telling Microsoft, a hardware competitior, about future hardware products.
No way, no how.
The highly overrated Steve Jobs has become a very big target – lawyers love it but what about investors holding AAPL? When do they begin to worry – not necessiarly about the reality but about the buzz?
Buzz drives Wall Street far more than quarterly numbers that blow away predictions and far more than the announcement of some new gadget.
As long as there are other services and devices that play WMA files, there’s no monopoly or abuse. Everyone has the right to choose the device that places the media they want to hear.
Their argument would be like trying to say that all DVD players must also support HD-DVD, Blu-Ray and mini-Discs.
Uhh… Wouldn’t Apple have to license the proprietary WMA format from somebody?
You could play WMA format if you wanted… But why?
WMA is proprietary(like a monopoly would have), Apple is using an open standard that they didn’t develop(aac). I can’t imagine Apple losing to something like this.
“The complaint takes issue with Apple’s refusal to support [Microsoft’s] Windows Media Audio format.’Apple’s iPod is alone among mass-market Digital Music Players in not supporting the WMA format,’ it states, noting that America Online, Wal-Mart, Napster, MusicMatch, Best Buy, Yahoo Music, FYE Download Zone, and Virgin Digital all support WMA files,” .
The way I read that argument is that because Apple doesn’t support one format developed by a company with a monopolistic record (suspending for a moment knowledge that Apple’s products support multiple nonproprietary formats) it is a monopoly. That logic is about as eff’d up as a football bat.
>MDN wrote: Where is the abuse?
The abuse stems from the fact that you have to buy an iPod if you want to take your iTMS-bought purchases with you. That’s the lock.
The unreasonable say you can burn the songs to CD and re-rip them into a format of your choice. However, that jailbreak method doesn’t make sense if you’ve bought hundreds – or worse, thousands – of tracks from iTMS.
Ummmmm, go to Amazon and buy your music there. Then sync it to your iPod.
Buy your CDs where ever and RIP it to iTunes and sync.
Don’t like Apple’s products, who held a gun to your head and made you buy them?
After being treated like a third class citizen for years by Microsoft, all i can say is, suck it WMP fans.
It takes a lot of money to launch a case like this. Who’s paying, I wonder?
God Bless America. The only place where buckets of time and money are spent in pointless pursuits while people sit and watch their neighbors freeze, sweat, or starve to death.
I would like to sue MicroSoft, because they have 91.79% of the OS market and I want to use it on my hairdryer. Those bastards…
@Steve516
Amen.
Stacie, Microsoft’s wonderous Zune plays WMA files. You don’t have to be locked into Apple’s awful proprietary scheme which dominates digital content. How anyone could let just one company rule the distribution and playback of media with their cold iron claws is beyond me, but hey, I rock a Zune. I’m one of the lucky ones who got out. I could sell you my Ditty. It plays WMA files too.
These are truly dark ages we live in and I salute Stacie’s fight to free all consumers from Apple’s ruthless tyranny. Finally out of the perhaps 100,000,000 maligned I-Pod sufferers one has the courage to take a stand. Keep up the good work and let’s hope Microsoft’s magnificent WMA format gets the chance it deserves.
Your potential. Our passion.™
“It takes a lot of money to launch a case like this. Who’s paying, I wonder?”
You can almost be certain it is not Stacie Somers. Of course win or lose the lawyers stand to make scads of money on this. Hmmm, wonder if Stacie is a lawyer?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Ken
These people have it all backwards. iTunes does not exist as a method to drive iPod sales. iTunes is there so that people who purchased iPods have an online source for their music. If you want to buy music for your sandisk online, go to any other number of compatible services.
It’s like going to a Ford dealership wanting to buy parts for your Yugo. If you don’t want to go to a dealership, go to an auto parts store. That would be the equivalent of buying mp3s from an online source or ripping your own CDs.
@Bob
My wife almost choked on her licorice she laughed so hard when I read that to her.
iTunes will convert non-DRM WMA files to the open AAC format right within the application. So that pretty much blows most of their argument out of the water right there.
>GranitW wrote : WMA is proprietary(like a monopoly would have), Apple is using an open standard that they didn’t develop(aac).
Going by your poor logic, the developer must not use his or her format in order to avoid becoming a monopoly. That action would require them to sit and twiddle their thumbs until someone developed a format to their liking. Do you really want to continue arguing for this? It’s stupid!
—–
—–
Apple’s Power via Monopoly
I suspect the reason content companies are targeting Apple is because of the bargaining power they’ve gained. Apple has been absolutely dominant on the consumer side of the content business. There’s no arguing that away.
The problems arise in the form of Apple being in a position to dictate terms to the content sellers. The content sellers have weak negotiating power and don’t get the prices they’re after (might be good for consumers) or the packaging and bundling they’re after.
And there lies the problems… Apple has an unfair advantage by controlling the distribution side of the content business.
one thought: if there are so many options supporting WMA, why not use those and leave Apple’s customers to their own choice? Looks like this woman was naughty and Santa didn’t deliver so she’s taking matters into her own hands.
I am going to sue Apple for refusing to support my own audio format. Chrissy’s Really Ossem Codec is superior in every way to AAC, and used on 100 percent of the computers in the Yak Herders & Public Works division of the nation of Burkina Faso, yet Apple stubbornly refuses to allow CROC files to be played on thje iPod.
Steve, you’ll be hearing from my people.
“Apple, however, deliberately designed the iPod’s software so that it would only play a single protected digital format, Apple’s FairPlay-modified AAC format,”
Unlike Microsoft, who generously includes support for Apple’s protected AAC files on its own line of Zune music pl–
Oh, wait a minute…
Remember the days when accusing Apple of a monopoly was the one of the most far fetched ideas ever?
How far we’ve come in 10 years.
Trace this lawsuit back to the stink and you’ll find M$ money… Guaranteed!
@And Then There’s This
“The highly overrated Steve Jobs . . .”
My 5700 shares of AAPL have increased 130%+ in value in the past twelve months thanks to Steve Jobs and his leadership of Apple, Inc. What have YOU (and the WinTrolls who live under the bridge with you) done that is even remotely comparable in that interval?
Yes, there is a “Steve” that is highly overrated, but his last name is BALLMER, you moron.
I accuse MacroSloth not supporting MP4 as everyone else does.
They have EMBEDDED the encoding under the WMV file format yet tweak things further such that ONLY Winblows Midia Glayer can only play it back.
FLIP 4 MAC is owned by MacroSloth…
The US Government should realize that EVERY thing good on the MAC has eventually or will be eventually be CONSUMED by MS hence a possible death to Mac development one day.
Toast – went to Roxio – and Roxio now owned by MS.
FireFox – Mozilla engine – code found to contain some lines of Explore – now owned by MS.
Flip4Mac – developed a bridge for WMA/WMV on Mac – now owned by MS.
There are other examples.
Slowly MS is eating away at Apple development and partners… WHO is the monopoly here.
Specially WHEN you consider Quicktime, iTunes, iPod, iTouch and iPhone work on BOTH platforms.
Apple has played pretty fair if you ask me.
92% market share on a Windows OS is not a monopoly
BUT 90% of a Media device is?
—
Zune Tang gave me a interesting idea just days ago…
indirectly of coarse… if iTunes did sell WMV and WMA files as yet another offering – say for all those other media players… why would this be BAD?
I think it would be a GREAT move for APPLE!
BRILLIANT indeed. Apple DOES NOT need it’s PLAYER to accept the media format… but to offer the files it’s good business… business that could RAISE iTUNES to 100% market share!!!
WMV & WMA – go figure… crappy formats but if iTUNES did wish to sell them it wouldn’t be hard at all.
Careful what you wish for Craig Briskin, Steven Skalet, Alreen Haeggquist, and Helen Zeldes THIS could be settled and APPLE still would GAIN market worth.
Duh!
Huh?!
all files sold on itunes work on mac and pc
100%
are we really going to open this door?
IF WE DO
MICROCRAP SHOULD BE FORCED OUT OF BUSINESS
KILL KILL KILL
you fsck with apple to long, now we are going to kick your ass
SUCK IT HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
@Steve516: But America is the most charitable country on earth. And that’s why we all have buckets of money to spend.
@And Then There’s This: Congratulations, you managed to type in 58 words that make absolutely no sense whatsoever, in English or any other language.
Steve Jobs is universally acknowledged to be the most valuable CEO on Planet Earth. If he were to be suddenly unavailable to Apple through sickness or accident, the company would immediately lose at least 25% of its value, and probably more. For reference, that would mean the evaporation of about $50 BILLION in stockholder value. That is roughly equal to the entire market value of Dell.
So, dude, I don’t know what solar system you inhabit, but I’d say it was probably impossible to overstate or over-rate the importance of Steve Jobs.
And while buzz has an effect on the day-to-day price of a stock, long term growth — say, the kind that Apple has consistently experienced since the return of Jobs — only happens when you are building long-term value. As an Apple stockholder since 2001 (paid $9 a share), I am very, very pleased with Steve’s leadership and the diversification of Apple’s product portfolio.
You and Laura Whats-her-name, who put a sell on Apple at $111, ought to get together. You are obviously both clueless.
@MPC Guy is obviously “limited” in his knowledge of things technical.
I don’t have an iPod, and I’m sitting in a bar “taking my iTunes purchases with me”.
If you’d like me to spell out for you how I’m doing it, I can, but I’d prefer it if you’d engage your brain for a minute and take a few guesses.
(hell, my 11 year old nephew figured it out)
@ Military Police
I haven’t received my buckets yet. How do I get those?
Just a bunch of lawyers looking for a buck!
Apple didn’t create the mp3 format?!
Why don’t the lawyers go after real monopolies like Oil Companies, Banks, Rupert Murdoch …
… or are they too CHICKENS#!T ?
This lawsuit is BS, big time. Apple stockholders have nothing to fear. Why doesn’t someone sue Microsoft for not coming out with a Mac version of Microsoft Access ? Isn’t that the same type of situation ? If that were the case, Apple could sue every manufacturer of software that hasn’t been made theirs Mac compatible !
This has the smell of Microsoft all over it. The judge should dismiss this suit and imprison the lawyers for creating frivolous lawsuits that delay people with legitimate lawsuits from being heard in court, while a judge wastes his valuable time with this crap.
Apple HAS the market share they have because the public has given it to them. Apple does NOT control the market. They influence only, as an entity with the level of market share has earned. There is a big difference between being popular and a monopolistic robber-baron. I hope Apple does pay these guys to go away; I hope they bury all the attorneys that thought up this frivolous lawsuit.
Adobe has done so but learned quickly.
But what has Microsoft done for Mac.
Office still works, an older version of Windows Media Player is available, but Explorer was vapourized.
Microsoft CHOOSE to stop Mac development.
They gave then took away.
Any software company can do it… but that should be noted as illegal. If a company can prove they are loosing money on a particular platform then perhaps it is ok… but to cancel development for strategic reasons should be further investigated.
Maybe this is why FireFox is owned by MS then.
But to gain some customers in software, and have them locked into using the applications – specially software that is purchased… like Adobe Premiere or AfterEffects then to stop the development leaves a lot of customers hanging dry… forcing them to flee to a different OS… that is MONOPOLISTIC practices… this is where MS is involved too and indirectly and directly.
RON
My first thought when I read about all these lawsuits:
“Are these people for real?”
@Tremor
I am going have to sue you for disclosing information for my new Patented and Trademarked product the Football Bat™.
Now that the existence of my product is out.
I will describe it in detail, it is a wide bat (something like in cricket) but curved to better control a football shaped projectile. It is used in football like this, a member of the defensive team waits in the end zone for a field goal kick, if the ball travels through the uprights the batter tries to return the ball through the uprights, if (s)he is successful the field goal doesn’t count if the ball is hit and does not return through the uprights the kicking team gets an extra point.
iTunes music market share is about the same as Gillette’s share of the men’s razor market. Gillette’s near monopoly is a result of making great products and is legal because it does not abuse its market power. Consumers have a choice and they choose Gillette as they choose iTunes. Nothing illegal about that.
They should sue Napster also as it doesn’t work with the iPod.
LOL!
Apple getting sued for not supporting WMA?!?! I LOVE IT!!!
Microsoft did everything it could to push it’s proprietary formats and block all competition throughout the late 90’s and early 00’s…. now Apple has turned the tables… I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
F them and anyone else stupid enough to file a law suit supporting any of their formats. If anyone should be filing tech lawsuits, it’s the thousands of interactive developers who have lost hundreds to thousands of hours dealing with substandard Microsoft browsers and applications. MS would have ruled the audio/video market had it not been for the DOJ, Apple and others.
Anyone up for class-action lawsuit against MS for a decade of wasted hours troubleshooting and creating coding hacks?!?!?!
So, not supporting one—outta the many—formats is now what is considered a monopoly?? NICE!
@BDecker
“Just how stupid can these lawyers be?”
There’s nothing stupid about happily accepting someone’s money – The lawyers get paid, whether their plaintiff wins or not.
Picture this:
A plaintiff is at the head of the cow, pulling on the horns.
A defendant is at the rear of the cow, pulling on the tail.
A lawyer is sitting on a stool beside the cow, milking it.
I am on a Mac…
and get several messages saying that my browser (SAFARI) is unable to download from the Futureshop online music shop.
There are many online stores that JUST do not let me download because of my browser… I do not know even if the songs there PLAY on my iPOD… so I prefer to shop at iTUNES.
THIS is a BROWSER issue… am I suppose to use FIREFOX?
But why… and if I ever do finally use FireFox and successfully acquire a purchase… what FILE type is it… will it also BE unfriendly to my iPOD?
I do not care – MS has made me feel like a second class citizen on the net WHERE Apple stuff simply works. ALWAYS.
It’s not the media device… it’s the propitiatory slanted perspective of business Microsoft CHOOSE to deal with ALL there software and partnerships.
THEY ARE so in the WRONG.
Marsha
PS – NOTE to Stacie – Use iTUNES on your PC to convert your purchased CDs into WAV files they should play on your device. If not another media converter should help you. This is not Apple’s problem it’s yours. Oh and a Zune device won’t help you anymore RIAA says you are a criminal for coping any thing your purchased… so downloading a PURCHASED music file to your COMPUTER should NOT even be allowed to copy AGAIN to your media player.
Yet another reason to push for a “loser pays legal costs” system. If enough of these “quick bucks’ chasers have to fork over a few hundred thousand or more for submitting a merit-less case like this, they’d be more reticent about such actions in the future.
@chrissy-one
I have tried your media codac – yeah – it sucked big… Apple was very wise not to license it from you.
@ Barbara
I’ll be suing you as well, for slander. Or is it libel? What the hell, we can do both. ;P
” America Online, Wal-Mart, Napster, MusicMatch, Best Buy, Yahoo Music, FYE Download Zone, and Virgin Digital all support WMA file”
WTF. Not one of these support Apple Macintosh of iPod!!!!!
Not one of these supports the number one “mp3” players on the market!!!!!
WTF am I missing here. I hate no talent, pig lawyers.
Maybe this is why FireFox is owned by MS then,
Microsoft doesn’t own Firefox! So let’s nip that stupid notion right in the bud.
Firefox is owned by Mozilla Foundation, which is a non-profit organization.
Hey Marsha, what you said at the end;
“… RIAA says you are a criminal for coping any thing you purchased… so downloading a purchased music file to your computer then copying it again to to your media player”,
could in fact be illegal in the eyes of the RIAA.
Very interesting point.
All downloads – even browsing is file transfer.
A temporary cache of the information.
To see a page – I am coping files to my computer to display them. Streaming is not in full – just tiny portions of the complete file… but pictures, music, movies that are not streamed are complete downloads sitting in cache.
This is ONE COPY.
If I download a song from a online vender – purchased of coarse, then transfer the file to my music device I have made a second copy… I just broke the law three times.
BUT by using iTunes download and DRM music files… one can only have 3 copies of the purchase. One on your Computer, a second on your iPod and the third as a CD backup (though it is not a audio cd or mp3 version that works on any hardware except back to the computer into my iTunes account). A true backup.
Apple is BRILLIANT – they though of all this years ago. It’s fair.
We should be happy with that.
Wondering where the RIAA sits on this idea?
OMG! Ford won’t allow GM parts in their cars! Somebody get me a lawyer!
Are you sure?
Please provide proof that MS has no interest or did not settle with FireFox by buying them out. According to several people I know – there was CODE MS was unhappy with that FireFox had inside.
The result was a buyout.
This is so lame. You don’t like the features of a product BUY ANOTHER brand that does. Companies have the right to do whatever they want and you have the right not to buy their products. Apple popularity doesn’t mean it is a monopoly, they are far from being the only portable media player on the market. Don’t like it voice your opinion by spending your dollars somewhere else that is how capitalism is suppose to work.
Why don’t these whiners sue Dell because they can’t run OS X on a Dell. Shouldn’t Dell be forced to make their computers run anything some whiner wants. Get your thumb out of your mouth and start living in the real world.
“Plaintiff Stacie Somers, … alleges that Apple dominates the market for online video, online music, and digital music players…”
And with the exception of music players, each of these markets is just a sub-market of a much larger marketplace that Apple does not dominate.
Besides… if Apple truly dominated these markets in the fashion these “people” allege, there would only be one video/audio file format available for use on Apple’s players. Whatever one Apple choose.
What these situations tell me is that there are some very frightened (and very greedy) people out there. Someone’s behind this… besides just the lawyers.
If it is just a consumer like this “plaintiff Stacie Somers”, why doesn’t she just buy one of the many other players (or from one of the many other services) that do support WMA… like the many mentioned in the complaint itself.
How clueless can people be?
So if Microsoft were fast enough and smart to own this industry, would they support AAC or Apple Lossless? I don’t be thinking so…
Apple have the monopoly because people DON’T LIKE wma – and/or they don’t care about the format, they just want an all in one solution which Apple provide…
I would maybe buy from some of these other providers, but I don’t want wma. It’s a shitty format – Plus why should Apple let other users have access to their monopoly market. If they did, they wouldn’t have as big monopoly anymore. These people are just jealous.
This stupid lawsuit is just a negative PR (FUD) stunt. Follow the money trail and odds are that you’ll find Gates and Ballmer involved.
@ ChrissyOne
Maybe try selling Thomas Kinkaid artwork?
Now isn’t that “The Pot Calling The Kettle Black”!
How much longer before there are so many lawsuits that the world comes to a grinding halt because nobody can get any work done.
DO NOT BE PARANOID
G4Duelie is right…
FIREFOX is supported on Windows but not part of the Microsoft software line. I believe this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireFox
Mozilla Firefox is a web browser project descended from the Mozilla application suite, managed by the Mozilla Corporation. Firefox had 16.01% of the recorded market share in Web browsers as of November 2007,[1][2] making it the second-most-popular browser in current use worldwide.
What lead you to believe FireFox was owned by Microsoft?
ATTENTION — G4DUELIE
FIREFOX:
The Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation that coordinates and integrates the development of Internet-related applications such as the Mozilla Firefox web browser and the Mozilla Thunderbird email client by the growing global community of open-source developers, only some of whom are employed by the corporation itself. The corporation also distributes and promotes these products. Unlike the non-profit Mozilla Foundation, the Mozilla Corporation is a taxable entity. In contrast to most commercial organizations, the Mozilla Corporation is not motivated by a desire for profit, reinvesting all profits back into the Mozilla projects. The Mozilla Corporation aims to work towards the Mozilla Foundation’s public benefit goals of “preserving choice and innovation on the Internet.”
As explained in a MozillaZine article: “The Mozilla Foundation will ultimately control the activities of the Mozilla Corporation and will retain its 100 percent ownership of the new subsidiary. Any profits made by the Mozilla Corporation will be invested back into the Mozilla project. There will be no shareholders, no stock options will be issued and no dividends will be paid. The Mozilla Corporation will not be floating on the stock market and it will be impossible for any company to take over or buy a stake in the subsidiary. The Mozilla Foundation will continue to own the Mozilla trademarks and other intellectual property and will license them to the Mozilla Corporation. The Foundation will also continue to govern the source code repository and control who is allowed to check in.”
THEREFORE IT IS A PROFIT ORGANIZATION.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
IT is a PRIVATE company…
“The Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation”
SUBSIDIARY – less important than but related to…
WHICH COULD BE IN SOME WAY SUPPORTED BY
MICROSOFT… but I doubt that since they have been rivals.
SO – I FOR ONE COULD BE FOOLED TOO.
WHOS TO SAY?
If you have proof that explains where this CORPORATION gets it’s funding please enlighten us.
BUT HERE IS WHERE THINGS GET INTERESTING so PLEASE PLEASE READ carefully…
—-
In March 2006,
Weblogs, Inc. founder Jason Calacanis reported a rumor on his blog that Mozilla Corporation gained $72M during the previous year, mainly thanks to the Google search box in the Firefox browser.[1] The rumor was later addressed by Christopher Blizzard, a member of the Mozilla board, who wrote on his blog that “it’s not correct, though not off by an order of magnitude”.[2]
In August 2006,
Microsoft posted a letter on Mozilla newsgroups[3] and offered to open up a new open-source facility at its headquarters in Redmond, Wash., to Mozilla software engineers. Mozilla responded by accepting the offer.[4]
On September 6, 2006
the Mozilla Corporation hired Window Snyder, former security strategist at Microsoft.[5]
On October 25, 2006 Mozilla released the latest version of Firefox 2.0 which included changes to the graphical interface, the addition of an anti-phishing filter, inline spell checking, live titles, and session restore
—
DID YOU GET THAT ONE…
“Microsoft posted a letter on Mozilla newsgroups[3] and offered to open up a new open-source facility at its headquarters in Redmond, Wash., to Mozilla software engineers. Mozilla responded by accepting the offer.
DOES YOUR BOSS OWN YOU?
TO SOME DEGREE…
THIS is FUNDING… this is another way of OWNERSHIP.
SO AGIN I AM NOT SURE EITHER…
I just did a TINY DIG… yes mainly from wikipedia – the source that is apparently not to be trusted.
BUT – Hmmmmmm – FIREFOX could very well be owned!!!!
sb
“Yet another reason to push for a “loser pays legal costs” system. If enough of these “quick bucks’ chasers have to fork over a few hundred thousand or more for submitting a merit-less case like this, they’d be more reticent about such actions in the future.”
If there were any justice in the civil court system, it would be the lawyers who would be forced to pay. I can understand (but can not agree with) people like the “plaintiff” being so foolish, but the lawyers representing them should know better.
@ Military Police
lolz. I’d love to be that bad of an artist and have my own chain of stores in the mall.
There is no Lock between iTunes Music Store and the iPod.
You can own an iPod and never buy a track from iTMS.
You can simply transfer MP3 files ripped from CDs or bought from other places.
You can also buy tracks on iTMS and never put them on an iPod.
Listen to the music on your computer, laptop, apple TV, or some mobile phones.
You can also burn your songs to a CD and listen on nearly every CD player ever sold.
Why does the media always get that point wrong?
@Steven Bullmer
You have my attention. And, I looked into the quotes 3 & 4 from
http://www.news.com/Microsoft-offers-helping-hand-to-Firefox/2100-1032_3-6109455.html
“”I know for a fact that the Live team themselves spend a lot of cycles on the non-IE browsers. I don’t think there is a conspiracy theory saying we are not going to support other browsers,” Arrigo said.
The Firefox team has shot down one conspiracy theory. Last Saturday, Ramji wrote that he had posted his invitation online “in case their (Mozilla’s) spam filters are set to block @microsoft.com e-mail addresses.”
“Heh,” Beltzner replied. “No such blocking exists, I assure you.”
So – they are working together.
And I am just going to leave this with this comment,
“MONEY TALKS LIKE A PERSUASIVE TRANSLATOR” – RON
Hey MPC Guy–have you, or anyone else, used a dictionary to impart some understanding of the word “monopoly”?
I’ll be brief, but each listed definition I found from Collaborative Dictionary of English include the terms “exclusive power” “exclusive possession” “exclusive right or privilege of dealing in some article” “sole command of traffic in anything”.
I doubt anyone believes that Apple has EXCLUSIVE power or rights to online media distribution. The cited percentages (75% of music sales, etc) clearly show that there is no EXCLUSIVITY–there was no statistic with 100% of anything.
Also, you complain that Apple has such a strong presence as THE online merchant of music and video. Since when was a strong bargaining position been illegal? Aren’t we a capitalistic country?
One more thing, if Apple’s strong bargaining position or their so called “limitations” on music vendors are too authoritarian or oppressive, then the music execs should be wise enough to NOT SELL THEIR MUSIC ON iTunes?! I mean, they are CEOs of large, publicly traded businesses–they should have SOME marketing/business acumen!
Here’s an idea, if someone invents the wheel, make your own wheel or make a superior one. Copy the innovators, save money on R&D;, and then charge whatever you want to without limitations!
Don’t gripe over another’s success–make your own success and end the tyrannical “monopoly” that you and others have falsely accused.
You can read into this situation in multiple ways.
1. Maybe Apple does start doing WMV, selling it even. PlaysForSure stores are even more fucked, those who bought devices that work with it are happy or just buy iPods. Apple makes a killing and kills of pretty much all other stores, including the Zune Marketplace. Of course Microsoft would probably make more money on those tracks than Apple, knowing them. Perhaps this is just Microsoft sore that it’s not getting a bigger piece of the profits of digital music. They do strive to be a utility company after all, taking tolls of all things digital and forcing all traffic to go through them and their controls.
2. Apple does competing companies across America do. Do you think Pepsi sells Coca-Cola products? Does McDonald’s sell Whoppers or $6 Burgers? Of course they don’t! That would take away from their own business. It’s simple economics. Besides, why entrench in people’s heads that Microsoft has anything to offer and perhaps is the best and only solution? There’s enough people who think that already. I say case dismissed. Hope the judge is that smart.
>Sixvodkas wrote: MPC Guy is obviously “limited” in his knowledge of things technical.
Good lord! Must everyone who cannot hold a reasonable conversation post? If you can’t formulate an intelligent response, then don’t post. I didn’t call you anything remotely offensive – I still haven’t.
From my one post that raises a valid point, you chose to attack me personally and not the logic behind my post.
And then you compare me to your 11 year old nephew… Grow up man! You just made a fool of yourself!
BDecker:
“Just how stupid can these lawyers be?”
Stupid? Seem that this is an excellent opportunity to earn a paycheck despite the frivolous nature of the case. Lawyers know that even if the client loses they still get paid.
hum… let me get this straight… The allegation is that Apple is engaging in illegal behavior because they will not use a codec that is NOT released for Apple products. I cannot play music from Walmart, Napster or those also-rans on my Mac because MS wont open the DRM to apple products, and this is Illegal activity by Apple? This is strange. The only way Apple could comply would be to illegally “crack” the lame MS DRM. Hum…
I don’t understand how this is a monopolistic practice by Apple.
….i agree….
I am going to sue Apple because their computers won’t run the real neato Windows virus I wrote. It is a crime that OSX wont let me invade it. It’s anti-Capitalist… how am I going to get rich unless Macs run my Windows stuff?
If and when this law suit is dismissed,
The plaintiffs should reflect on the gifts of opportunity they have in being educated and living in the US. These plaintiffs can’t be morons and for that reason they should take responsibility for their life efforts. Maybe, they lack imagination. Hopefully, someone in their lives can guide them to focus their talents in areas that will benefit their communities rather than squandering their educations and citizenship on meritless lawsuits. The disgraceful waste of talent and opportunity pursuing a “meritless lawsuit” against one of the better companies in America today may ultimately be viewed as a harbinger of our failure in the evolving world economy. You don’t eat your own. Greed is not good. Good is good.
If it had been Microsoft facing this accusation under exactly the same circumstances, MDN would have been cheering them on and would have found a host of reasons why a lawsuit was legitimate.
Let’s not pull any punches. These are some of the stupidest m###########s on the planet. And as Apple supporters are already aware, some of the stupidest people in technology have a hair up their butt about Apple and expend a lot of energy lying about Apple and it’s products. And even after all the immense stupidity we have to put up with everyday, we apparently have not seen the end of the range of human stupidity.
It’s not the complainants are ignorant about technology. They are ignorant of the law, of business practice and a whole range of subjects tangentially connected to to his story. I pity anyone that stupid.
It’s official ………….. the legal system in the US of A has formally gone “batshit crazy”.
First thoughts, Hmmm. People are thinking that Apple has a monopoly on a market that was based upon open-type standards and basing their claim on a true monopolistic company who has a true proprietary format that will never conform to the rest of any standard.
If this case were to go anywhere it will set a precedent to reopen the Mac vs. Windows copyright case again. It’s plain common sense, but when it comes to legal issues, much like Retail company operations, common sense is never a factor. Nobody cares to think about what is right, but only “the bottom line”; aka looking out for number one, frack anyone else who thinks different.
Hmmm. “Apple has engaged in tying and monopolizing behavior, placing unneeded and unjustifiable technological restrictions on its most popular products in an effort to restrict consumer choice, and to restrain what little remains of its competition.” Wait a second, that sounds EXACTLY like Microsoft; for the Operating System, not this dick-less assumption of the browser tie-in.
This is not original thinking. Just another way to screw someone from the high-horse.
@ Steve516, I agree wholeheartedly. I myself am one maybe two paychecks away from being homeless. I would get angry, but I went through bankruptcy because of anxiety attacks stemming from stress. Good riddance, CompuSUCK!
@ Zune Tang, “How anyone could let just one company rule the distribution and playback of media with their cold iron claws is beyond me”. Uhh, it’s called Microsquish has already proven that they do this daily and have gotten away with it legally. & “got out”? who’s the real Kool-aid drinker here? Oh wait, whom am I talking about here.
@ DH, I have been saying that there should be a Mac version of Access and ALL Office products since OS 8!!
@ Chadwick, “Here’s an idea, if someone invents the wheel, make your own wheel or make a superior one. Copy the innovators, save money on R&D;, and then charge whatever you want to without limitations!”–how did you get Microsquish’s business model?
– – – –
MasterMacNikon
Is it just me, or is suing based upon the Sherman Antitrust Act, something the DOJ is supposed to do, not some class-action lawsuit from Stacie?
TOTAL ABSOLUTE NON-SENSE!!!!!!!
But America is the country more involved in debt in the world and lives with the money of the others.
China is buying american banks.
MasterMacNikon
what human garbage!
quote: ” I myself am one maybe two paychecks away from being homeless. I would get angry, but I went through bankruptcy because of anxiety attacks stemming from stress. Good riddance, CompuSUCK!”
pathetic, hope to see you sleeping in the streets, could not be a more deserving person
This is an odd suit. Whether they win or lose, they’re supporting a monopoly somewhere. The real difference is iTunes, not the iPods, the formats or the copy-protection. iTunes is the real winner; a free, dual-platform, intuitive, and simple jukebox, music store, iPod, radio, audiobook, and CD/DVD burning software. The absolute fact that NOBODY ELSE has the slightest semblance of this is the weakness that Apple has exploited. It’s success was WELL EARNED. iTunes has been so well dispersed and loved by people of all ages, most people forget that Windows even has a Media Player, much less do they care about being compatible. I enjoy iTunes because it excels at all of its features in stride. EVERYTHING ELSE IS A COMPROMISE. What this lady is really wanting is for Apple to re-program its amazing software to accomodate any player on the market, with any codec. That’s never going to happen. Apple would be forfeiting their entire success.
>Chadwick wrote: Hey MPC Guy–have you, or anyone else, used a dictionary to impart some understanding of the word “monopoly”?
I’ve played the game Monopoly, so I’m automatically smarter than you on matters regarding monopoly.
I’ll admit, I didn’t read your post as you started out with “I’ll be brief” but posted a long post that didn’t seem to make much sense. I could tell when you started out with sarcasm.
Posts like that are dead giveaways the poster doesn’t have anything interesting to offer.
Try again. First post was a failure.
This is an attempt to tie up Apple’s lawyers to distract them from defending against anything really threatening. I suspect a Microsoft connection to this.
There is so much wrong with this drivel, but let us clear up one issue too many posters here are getting muddled. AAC is not DRM. It is a codec and an open one. Even Zune can decode AAC. MS did not have to get agreement from Apple to do so. Apple does not own it. Microsoft’s codec is part of their WMA architecture, which also includes Microsoft’s DRM. But the MS codec part is not openly available, as is Apple’s codec.
Our broken legal system is incapable of stopping such absurd lawsuits in their tracks. In a sane world, the judge would start disbarment proceedings on the basis of mental incompetence when presented with such breathtaking nonsense by these shysters.
I can’t believe the extent Steve Balmer will go to to promote Zune. Imagine what he paid his sister-in-law to launch this suit.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
“Our broken legal system is incapable of stopping such absurd lawsuits in their tracks.”
Spot on.
WMA is shit anyway.
Apple isn’t holding a gun to anyone’s head to buy the iPod. People just buy it because it’s cool and it works. Oh yeah, and they didn’t make a version in turd brown.
Don’t know what’s worse these days…Anti Trust Laywers or Zune Tang.
Mac users had (and have) a legit beef, because of Windoze Media and it’s non-support of Mac users.
Any PeeCee weenie that wants to can install QuickTime for Windoze and have the same access as any Mac user.
As to LINUX users, who really cares?
“The abuse stems from the fact that you have to buy an iPod if you want to take your iTMS-bought purchases with you. That’s the lock.”
so I can’t actually convert my iTunes content to any other format, and use that in whatever non-iPod that I might happen to have?
Sure, it’s a bit inconvenient; that doesn’t make your argument valid.
Sorry.
“The unreasonable say you can burn the songs to CD and re-rip them into a format of your choice. However, that jailbreak method doesn’t make sense if you’ve bought hundreds – or worse, thousands – of tracks from iTMS.”
1) It’s not like the process of conversion was a big, dark secret.
2) Automator.
3) You should have thought of that before you spent perfectly good money on that Zune.
Congrats steveH for the intelligent and respectful reply. Even though we disagree, it’s nice to know there are others on this board who don’t have to resort to name-calling or insult when counter-arguing another’s posts.
—
You wrote:
>>>1) It’s not like the process of conversion was a big, dark secret.
Not a secret, but with the success of iTMS (which Apple earned), an imbalance of power was created that allows Apple to demand unreasonable terms from record companies. To control consumer choice, its DRM requires the use of an iPod or iPhone. The alternate choices are the extreme hassle burn-to-CD-then-rip jailbreak method or trash iTMS purchases. Of course, this limits consumer choice to Apple media players.
>>>2) Automator.
How does Automator jailbreak Apple’s DRM’d iTMS songs?
>>>3) You should have thought of that before you spent perfectly good money on that Zune.
I’ve owned maybe 7 iPods now plus an iPhone. I’m not planning on ditching my Apple products until they break or something much better comes along. If that product comes from Apple, great. If it comes from Microsoft, just as great. The Zunes do look pretty good in their second iteration… not good enough for me to sell what I’ve got and spend for yet another player, but still pretty good.
—–
—–
Apple is by far the leader in content online distribution. They make huge sums of money by selling songs online and selling the hardware the songs play on.
Here’s the problem:
– They use this leverage to limit consumer choice. Want to buy something other than an iPod, kiss your iTMS purchases goodbye, or spend a ridiculous amount of time and money jailbreaking your purchases so you can regain some fair use of them.
– They use this leverage to bully content producers into selling to Apple on its own terms (pricing, packaging, distribution). You don’t have to be a monopoly to engage in monopolistic practices. Microsoft is a great example, in that there are alternatives to everything it makes, from operating systems to office suites. However, it used/uses its market dominance in a way that damages competition and limits fair trade.
Apple engages in such anti-competitive and choice-limiting tactics.
—-
Anyway… thanks for the input steveH. Have a great day!
No, MS wouldn’t be behind this. There’s no way they’d want to establish any precedents on monopoly like this.
A suit like this is only expensive if you count the lawyer time. But lawyers like this are BEHIND the case. They need a plantiff, but they’re doing it on contingency hoping for a jackpot payday. Other than that their only costs are paper and the PR firm to make sure everyone hears about it (in order to try to pressure Apple to settle….)
mpc guy _you concluded, ‘Apple engages in such anti-competitive and choice-limiting tactics.’ I say what business out there would try and be all things to all people. Maybe, you feel what consumers need is a corporate benefactor ..someone who’ll be there to fund the consumers every turn and whim with support for all formats and/or all DRM and for each player on the market ..those that were and those that will be ..and all desired bitrates …etcetera upon etcetera. What provider has ever been all things to all people, ever. People make choices ..every day. I own music on vinyl, cassette, cd, digital and each one came with its own limitations and each required a choice …and if I’m not mistaken the DRM from online services was required of the seller by the RIAA. Every company, public or private wants to be successful and Apple is successful on their own merits but leveraging their success to limit consumer choice is a fantasy. Their products are attractive to consumers and the consumer makes a choice to use them. You know, this is really, really simple. If the consumer wants to use different players then the consumer makes a choice not to purchase digital music with DRM ..buy a cd ..rip nonDRM music with whatever import software you choose. You already know your iPod supports several formats. You also said, ‘Here’s the problem: ..” well, here’s what I say, ‘there is no problem except the one you’ve made up in your head.”
>anti-matter wrote: Maybe, you feel what consumers need is a corporate benefactor…there is no problem except the one you’ve made up in your head.”
I’ll admit… couldn’t make sense of your post… so I quoted the first and last parts of it.
You accuse me of making up things in my head in your last sentence, but make up something you think I would say in your first. You literally made it up, as I said no such thing.
How should one respond to someone who just makes things up?
Where to begin?
Sue Microsuck for not developing Vista for the Mac!
Beat the Lawyers with ipod filled pillow cases full of I Tunes songs.
Tower records has thankfully gone away for charging damn near $20.00 for a CD when the consumer only wanted one song.
Apple is popular because they make what we want to buy and do it well.
Jealousy and envy make people like Stacie do funny things!
Happy New Year to all Apple Fanboys, APPL investors, and
those of us that are FORCED to use ipods, iphones, etc. and the
damn fine Itunes, with the most amazing collection of music available.
@ free,
Good to see that you attempted to grow part of a braincell. What was your old nick? @84? Karma?
Contact me when you get out of your parents house. You sound like you need a lesson of living in the real world.
And I am serious, contact me.
I believe the mention of Automator was simply to say you can quickly set up something in automator that will burn a playlist to CD, then reimport as MP3 or AAC or whatever and then eject it wait for a new CD and then go to the next playlist. Heck, it can probably even create Smart playlists for you.
this lawsuit is ridiculous – the only winner will be the lawyers. that and tech people who can point and laugh. BTW, why didn’t anyone sue MS when Zune didn’t support MS own PlaysforSure Format. that sounds more legitimate.
oh and if you don’t want iTunes go to Amazon or Napster (now DRM-free mp3) or other non-DRM download sites. or download drm-free from iTunes. I get songs from Amazon – if I can save 10 cents a song – why not – I am not an audiophile.