Apple could face law suit over iPod/iTunes "monopoly"
"Apple Computer Inc. said Friday it is facing several federal lawsuits, including one alleging the company created an illegal monopoly by tying iTunes music and video sales to its market-leading iPod portable players."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/...apple_lawsuits
The article is ambiguous as to whether this is a Sherman Anti-trust action initiated by the United States against Apple or if this suit was filed by an individual plaintiff. Probably the latter (better for Apple's chances of winning this suit).
You can sue anyone for anything:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P24cz7b36OI
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/...apple_lawsuits
The article is ambiguous as to whether this is a Sherman Anti-trust action initiated by the United States against Apple or if this suit was filed by an individual plaintiff. Probably the latter (better for Apple's chances of winning this suit).
You can sue anyone for anything:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P24cz7b36OI
Comments
"Apple Computer Inc. said Friday it is facing several federal lawsuits, including one alleging the company created an illegal monopoly by tying iTunes music and video sales to its market-leading iPod portable players."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/...apple_lawsuits
The article is ambiguous as to whether this is a Sherman Anti-trust action initiated by the United States against Apple or if this suit was filed by an individual plaintiff. Probably the latter (better for Apple's chances of winning this suit).
You can sue anyone for anything:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P24cz7b36OI
Meh.
"Apple Computer Inc. said Friday it is facing several federal lawsuits, including one alleging the company created an illegal monopoly by tying iTunes music and video sales to its market-leading iPod portable players."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/...apple_lawsuits
The article is ambiguous as to whether this is a Sherman Anti-trust action initiated by the United States against Apple or if this suit was filed by an individual plaintiff. Probably the latter (better for Apple's chances of winning this suit).
You can sue anyone for anything:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P24cz7b36OI
Wouldn't this be exceedingly easy for Apple to get around? All they have to say is that the music industry requires some form of copy protection, and if other companies would like to be able to play iTunes music on their players, all they have to do is pay a "reasonable" fee for the fair use of Apple's intelectual property (that will be large enough that no company would be willing to pay it) and that would solve it.
Or it may just be that Apple has to say, that if you want to buy cassette tapes for your CD player you can't expect that they will work (and so there is no reasonable recourse if you buy a CD player and expect to be able to play all of your old cassettes). Likewise, there is no recourse if you buy a Creative Zen and expect to be able to play iTunes music.
This whole thing is absurd. If you have a problem with companies restricting your choice, then don't buy their product. Apple does not have a monopoly on music (not even on digital music).
Sebastian
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is not applicable because Apple does not own the music and movie companies and their contents nor do they demand that these companies use iTunes Store as their primary internet distribution site .
Sebastian
Which means that whoever these people are, they are just wasting theirs and Apple's time in the name of absolutely nothing.
Sebastian
so what about adobe, MS, IE, zune, zen, and how is this hurting the consumer
if MS made IE and it's software like apple they would have a happier following, but that's where a monopoly hurts, you have no choice and have to deal with junk, talk to the cellphone companies, MS, hey monopolies control the market for their own good, customer be damned. here apple actually did something great for us consumers, and made it work, MS has 95% of browsers and didn't update them for what 5 years, i'm surprised they have not be sued for all the cost of thier security mess and virus vunerablity.....must be a MS shill
Let me get this straight , the plaintiff is suing Apple for illegally tying the iPod to the iTunes application and store . Correct me if I am wrong , but doesn't Apple have the right as a business to tie-in it's hardware and software products together?
I don't think Apple is anywhere near having a monopoly position here, as long as alternative sources like CDs exist for obtaining music. You have to define the market very narrowly -- the market for online DRM-protected music for use on portable music devices -- before you can say there's anything approaching an Apple monopoly.
That said, it really bothers me how many people are so ready to roll over and let corporations, even our beloved Apple, take so much control over everything, happily smiling away that it's "their right" to do this, that, and the other thing on so many issues.
Apple does have a right to tie its hardware and software together. But two things about that: (1) The music and video Apple is selling isn't Apple software. Apple software only comes into play for DRM, playback, transfer, etc. -- their software is not the content of what's being sold. (2) In most situations, a rival would have every right to reverse-engineer the way Apple ties their hardware and software together so that they could break in and compete. Apple plays the DRM card, and the DMCA, however, to abuse laws meant to protect the music and video content itself from illegal copying, so that they instead protect their business model for selling that content from competition.
Except for fostering the degree of innovation which limited copyright and patent protection helps promote, as a consumer it's crazy to be cheering on things which help companies limit competition and protect their business models from reasonable competition. If you want the best deals on products, you shouldn't want your government to be enforcing laws in such a way as to excessively limit competition.
I'd caution people from being such Apple fanboiz that they cheer as Apple, and other companies, strip them of the traditional fair-use rights we used to enjoy as consumers, rights that are becoming more and more endangered.
You see , while I agree with all of your post especially on the fair use system , I learned a simple truth a long time ago in regards to fair use ,almost all companies and many consumers abused the hell out of it . As for reverse engineering , while it might spur innovation , it also have a negative effect , you can only reverse engineer so much in order to break in and compete , but in the process , companies instead of creating ground breaking products becomes stagnant or worse , becomes a parasite or a me too company .
Honestly ,shetline , the bulk of the blame goes to the tech companies themselves in particular , companies like Nomad , Creative , Sony , Real , Napster and many others especially Microsoft . They have a chance to compete with Apple , but they never took the time to make their products to fully support the Macintosh platform and it's small user base. If they treat Mac users as customers instead of ignoring them , do you really think that the iPod would be this successful ?
so what about adobe, MS, IE, zune, zen, and how is this hurting the consumer
if MS made IE and it's software like apple they would have a happier following, but that's where a monopoly hurts, you have no choice and have to deal with junk, talk to the cellphone companies, MS, hey monopolies control the market for their own good, customer be damned. here apple actually did something great for us consumers, and made it work, MS has 95% of browsers and didn't update them for what 5 years, i'm surprised they have not be sued for all the cost of thier security mess and virus vunerablity.....must be a MS shill
2 Differences, and 1 correction. Firefox and other browsers did enough damage to the IE Marketshare. While most PCs still have IE installed, I believe Firefox has about 15% of the market.
First, Trying to uninstall IE I believe crippled a system. First there is Windows Update, that only works with IE, the Trident Rendering components, that I believe were only installed as part of IE, and which AIM, Outlook Express, and a couple of browsers rely on, and so on.
Second, Microsoft has an actual monopoly. Apple doesn't.
Sebastian
The real mystery is who filed this suit? Anyone able to do some sleuthing to dig up the relevant information...
Apple does not have a monopoly. There are lots of different sources, both free and paid, for digital music and there is no shortage of digital music players.
The real mystery is who filed this suit? Anyone able to do some sleuthing to dig up the relevant information...
Probably Greenpeace hoping Apple would turn a Bright Shade of Green at the thought of going to Court again
Sebastian
Wouldn't this be exceedingly easy for Apple to get around? All they have to say is that the music industry requires some form of copy protection, and if other companies would like to be able to play iTunes music on their players, all they have to do is pay a "reasonable" fee for the fair use of Apple's intelectual property (that will be large enough that no company would be willing to pay it) and that would solve it.
How would a lie solve the situation? It's basically a self-contradictory argument, if no one is willing to pay the fee, then it can hardly be considered reasonable.
This new wave of media is basically setting a bad precedent. Before the Internet, I don't remember any audio or video media that was tied to only one brand of player such that no other player was allowed to use it. We didn't see MGM release videos that only an MGM branded video player could use, the same with audio. Even MiniDisc had several licencees on the player hardware.