Apple's iTunes DRM didn't violate antitrust laws, jury finds

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 106

    i am not surprised at this outcome. i am still, however, surprised by the initial response by the judge, "aw sh*t, all the plaintiff's dropped out after 10 years of putting the case together... hmm... no, no- we are not dropping this case, find another plaintiff- one that fits the bill entirely."

     

    what.a.jackass.

  • Reply 82 of 106
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    revenant wrote: »
    i am not surprised at this outcome. i am still, however, surprised by the initial response by the judge, "aw sh*t, all the plaintiff's dropped out after 10 years of putting the case together... hmm... no, no- we are not dropping this case, find another plaintiff- one that fits the bill entirely."

    what.a.jackass.

    Not necessarily. The judge might have recognized that the case had no merit and wanted to get a definitive verdict on the record. That is what Apple's attorneys said they wanted.
  • Reply 83 of 106
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,355member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

     

     

    Careful.

     

    That's 'holiday' results for Tim Cook and SolipsismY.


     

    That's actually what I meant to say. Holiday is indeed more accurate. But it's humorous to see that you would somehow have been offended if I had used that word. I don't even celebrate or believe in Christmas myself. 

     

    But of course, being the ultra-right wing fanatic you are, you're one of those "OMG WAR ON CHRISTMAS" people. Chill out. No one is taking Christmas away from you.  

  • Reply 84 of 106
    jmc54jmc54 Posts: 207member

    Three hours to deliberate....Probably included a lunch break!

  • Reply 85 of 106
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    bondm16 wrote: »
    Can I ask a question? If I bought an iPod is it not up to me what music I put on it and from where? 
    Exactly! And I'm about to sue Sony because they intentionally made the PlayStation unable to play my Nintendo and Xbox games! My system, my choice! How dare they restrict me to only playing games that they sell!!!
    /s
  • Reply 86 of 106
    jmc54jmc54 Posts: 207member
    jfc1138 wrote: »
    Good news, the automatic tripling of the penalty, to pushing a billion dollars, would have been noticed even on a balance sheet as enormous as Apple's.
    I wonder if there is any money to be had!
  • Reply 87 of 106
    bondm16 wrote: »
    Can I ask a question? If I bought an iPod is it not up to me what music I put on it and from where? 
    I believe you are right. You should have the right to use the hardware any way you see fit. The software that runs your iPod is a different story. You don't own the software on your iPod, you only have a license to use the software. And unfortunately for you, to use this license, you had to agree to terms of use. So go ahead and use your hardware any way you like, just realize you are going to have to find someone to write some new software.
  • Reply 88 of 106
    bobschlobbobschlob Posts: 1,074member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by diplication View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bondm16 View Post



    Can I ask a question? If I bought an iPod is it not up to me what music I put on it and from where? 


    I believe you are right. You should have the right to use the hardware any way you see fit. The software that runs your iPod is a different story. You don't own the software on your iPod, you only have a license to use the software. And unfortunately for you, to use this license, you had to agree to terms of use. So go ahead and use your hardware any way you like, just realize you are going to have to find someone to write some new software.



    "Don't own the software"; are you kidding? You don't own the music either! Hell you could be sued just for singing "Happy Birthday" under certain circumstances. Music is owned property. The conditions under which you may use said music is at the discretion of the owner / licensor.

  • Reply 89 of 106
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,526moderator
    zoetmb wrote: »

    Except the case shouldn't have even gone to the jury after it was discovered that the people suing were improper members of the Class and had actually purchased their iPods on dates outside the province of the lawsuit, making the entire thing bogus in the first place.   

    To use a football analogy, the defense was flagged for being offsides, but the play continues. It's then up to the offense to accept or decline the penalty. Apple essentially got a free swipe at this trial. Had it gone badly for them, they would have a right to appeal based upon the unconstitutionality of swapping plaintives mid trial. As it happens Apple won, and there is no appeal (no double jeapordy option) for the plaintives on whose behalf suit was brought. So, we're all done with this one.
  • Reply 90 of 106
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,526moderator
    bondm16 wrote: »
    Yawn. My device, my choice as to what music I put on it sure, and if I knew a software update would disrupt it, I would not install it. 

    Should you be allowed to play Sony Playstation titles on your XBox? Non-Gillette blades on your Gillette razor handle? Non-Keurig cups that haven't been licensed by Kebrig in your Keurig coffee maker? Should you be allowed to loD apps on your iPhone without going through the App Store? Some would say yes to all of these questions. To my mind, your answers here likely align with your views on inectisl property protection. As a patent holder I know where I fall on the issues. And I agree that Apple was correct to prevent unauthorized music on iPods.
  • Reply 91 of 106
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,526moderator
    paul94544 wrote: »
    The answer to you question is simple >Apple has almost single handedly taken out or  gutted  multi billion dollar companies : RIM, NOKIA, SONY, HP, MSFT etc. the music and movie businesses, retail record stores: its about to heavily plunder Samsung, the banking sector, wearables, TV, Thats a heck of a lot of vested interest and billions at stake. This is why the competition is doing this.

    I'd say it's more accurate to assert that those companies, for the most part, did themselves in. Apple just did its own thing, innovated, and drew customers who turn no longer patronized those other businesses that failed to meaningfully innovate.
  • Reply 92 of 106
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DewMe View Post

     

    For the life of me I cannot fathom how some people have such a vile distain for Apple. Where does this deep rooted hatred come from?


     

    I have a theory about that, RadarTheKat almost touched on it earlier... it's like pulling for your favorite sports team, which often entails dissing your team's rivals. 

     

    Some rivalries, of course, are more heated than others.  For example, I have to discipline myself to not negatively overreact to Inkling's posts, solely because of where he/she claims to be located.  (Intense sports rivalries will do that to you.)

     

    I work with a woman with a couple of progeny that work at Microsoft in Seattle, and she has flat-out told me on more than one occasion, "I literally HATE Apple... I hate them!"  She said it very nicely, of course, but did not elaborate; I look at it as, she's pulling for her Home Team, right or wrong.

  • Reply 93 of 106
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,922member
    paul94544 wrote: »
    The answer to you question is simple >Apple has almost single handedly taken out or  gutted  multi billion dollar companies : RIM, NOKIA, SONY, HP, MSFT etc. the music and movie businesses, retail record stores: its about to heavily plunder Samsung, the banking sector, wearables, TV, Thats a heck of a lot of vested interest and billions at stake. This is why the competition is doing this.


    Apple didn't gut them. The companies themselves got lazy and complacent as Apple zoomed by.

    Happy Hannukah to those who celebrate.
  • Reply 94 of 106
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,651member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hillstones View Post


    ......................   Remember, Microsoft was also investigated/sued for their monopoly with Internet Explorer and blocking other web browsers from being installed.  This was the same thing. .................

     

    Microsoft didn't have a monopoly with IE.(at least not at the time they sued for abusing their monopoly.)  Netscape was the most popular (and best) browser at the time. (Even though the full feature version of Netscape was not free.) MS had a monopoly with Windows and leveraged that monopoly by pre-installing IE with Win95 in order to increase their share in the browser market. MS also made it almost impossible for the average consumer to remove IE, claiming that IE was an integral part of Win95. (Along with sabotaging other browsers by constantly changing their javascript(?) without informing other browsers of the changes.) It was proven in a lawsuit that Win95 operated fine without any IE codes and thus MS was ordered to sell Windows without IE preinstalled, at time of installation. MS was ordered to give consumers several choices as to which browser they wanted (along with IE) when installing Windows and IE could also be completely removed from Windows. The thing that eventually doomed Netscape was that IE was free.

     

    While there is no argument that MS had a monopoly with Windows (it was on over 90% of all computers, including no name brands and home built ones.), it's questionable whether Apple had a monopoly with their iPods. For sure the iPod was the most dominate player when compared to other named brand players. But when you factor in all the no name brand MP3 players (from China) and cell phones capable of playing MP3 music (remember Steve Jobs introducing the first Motorola ROKR), the iPod probablly didn't even have a marjority of the marketshare of all devices capable of playing MP3 music. Not to mention that all computers could play MP3 music. 

     

    So this was not the same thing. While there's no way a browser can survive without being intsalled on MS Windows, a company selling MP3 music can still survive, without having their music play on an iPod.

  • Reply 95 of 106
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    Hopefully the plaintiffs lawyers lost millions on this case
  • Reply 96 of 106
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,405member
    Quote:


     The answer to you question is simple >Apple has almost single handedly taken out or  gutted  multi billion dollar companies : RIM, NOKIA, SONY, HP, MSFT etc. the music and movie businesses, retail record stores: its about to heavily plunder Samsung, the banking sector, wearables, TV, Thats a heck of a lot of vested interest and billions at stake. This is why the competition is doing this.


     

    Apple didn't "take out" any of these companies - we, the consumers did. This is like blaming Ford for killing off the horse and buggy and putting a lot of farriers and blacksmiths out of business. Nobody was ever forced to buy an iDevice or xDevice and competitors have always been swarming around Apple with me-too facsimiles of everything Apple has created just as quickly as Apple got them out the door. It's not like governments are artificially propping up Apple like they do many other businesses like agriculture and beef. It's almost the opposite, the government has been sorely lax in the enforcement of copyrights and patents that it has granted to Apple and has allowed out of control competitors to stomp all over them. Other government agencies have constantly and inappropriately hounded Apple just like they did with MSFT in the 90s. 

     

    Any company that gets too complacent in a free market economy or does not adequately serve consumer demand, Apple included, is always at danger of being disrupted and falling fast and hard. I can understand those who are directly affected being bitter about their loss but they should be directing their grievances towards their leaders who allowed their businesses to fall over the edge and lose their competitiveness. This has always been driven by consumer demand and buying decisions. Consumers are the ones pulling the strings, not Apple. If Apple didn't make highly desirable and affordable products consumers wouldn't buy them. 

     

    I still don't understand the root cause of Apple hate.

  • Reply 97 of 106
    pscooter63 wrote: »
    I have a theory about that, RadarTheKat almost touched on it earlier... it's like pulling for your favorite sports team, which often entails dissing your team's rivals. 

    Some rivalries, of course, are more heated than others.  For example, I have to discipline myself to not negatively overreact to Inkling's posts, solely because of where he/she claims to be located.  (Intense sports rivalries will do that to you.)

    I work with a woman with a couple of progeny that work at Microsoft in Seattle, and she has flat-out told me on more than one occasion, "I literally HATE Apple... I hate them!"  She said it very nicely, of course, but did not elaborate; I look at it as, she's pulling for her Home Team, right or wrong.

    You need to get that woman fired. ????
  • Reply 98 of 106
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    I miss DRM ;)
  • Reply 99 of 106

    Awesome! I was gifted a IMVU credits code and surprisingly it worked! Got it at http://linkbitty.com/imvucredits2014

  • Reply 100 of 106
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post



    I miss DRM image



    I know right?

     

    It's like having a secret handshake. 

Sign In or Register to comment.