“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?
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.