Apple again asks for dismissal of iTunes antitrust suit
Apple has again requested that a federal judge dismiss an antitrust lawsuit that accuses the company of unfairly limiting consumer choice by linking iPod music to its iTunes music store.
The class action lawsuit, which alleges that Apple violated federal antitrust laws and California's unfair competition law, was originally filed in January 2005. Later that year, Apple filed a motion to dismiss the case, but the request was denied.
In a recent development to the case, a judge approved last month limited questioning of Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs regarding a 2004 iTunes update from Apple that disabled a RealNetworks technology, dubbed Harmony, which enabled music purchased from Real's online music store to be transferred to an iPod.
At the time, Apple accused RealNetworks of resorting to "the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod." Later that year, Apple quietly released an iPod firmware update that disabled the workaround.
Speaking on behalf of Apple, attorney Robert Mittelstaedt defended on Monday the iPod maker's actions, asserting that the decision to block RealNetworks was intended to improve downloading quality for iTunes customers, Bloomberg reports. Mittelstaedt asked the judge to dismiss the suit, arguing against the claim that Apple's actions were anticompetitive.
?Apple?s view is that iPods work better when consumers use the iTunes jukebox rather than third party software that can cause corruption or other problems,? Mittelstaedt said at a hearing. According to the report, Apple cited 58 "consumer downloading complaints" as the rationale behind the iPod firmware update that 'broke' Harmony.
U.S. District Judge Ware asked whether Apple had conducted "scientific tests" to confirm that other companies' downloads were indeed the cause of the complaints. Mittelstaedt acknowledged that Apple had not performed such tests.
"Bonny Sweeney, a lawyer representing iTunes customers who sued, said the plaintiffs could not locate any legacy software that would allow them to conduct accurate tests," the report read. Ware responded that, given the lack of tests, the trial may come down to a "battle of experts."
Sweeney also revealed that Jobs had met with plaintiff attorneys for questioning on April 12, but declined to provide further details.
Ware will decide by May whether to approve Apple's request to dismiss the case.
Apple is also defending itself in other cases where it has been accused of creating an unfair monopoly with the iPod and iTunes. In 2008, another class action lawsuit was filed against Apple accusing the company of leveraging its FairPlay digital rights management (DRM) technology to lock out competitors.
In 2009, Apple removed DRM from iTunes music purchases, though iTunes movie and television show purchases and rentals still use FairPlay DRM.
The class action lawsuit, which alleges that Apple violated federal antitrust laws and California's unfair competition law, was originally filed in January 2005. Later that year, Apple filed a motion to dismiss the case, but the request was denied.
In a recent development to the case, a judge approved last month limited questioning of Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs regarding a 2004 iTunes update from Apple that disabled a RealNetworks technology, dubbed Harmony, which enabled music purchased from Real's online music store to be transferred to an iPod.
At the time, Apple accused RealNetworks of resorting to "the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod." Later that year, Apple quietly released an iPod firmware update that disabled the workaround.
Speaking on behalf of Apple, attorney Robert Mittelstaedt defended on Monday the iPod maker's actions, asserting that the decision to block RealNetworks was intended to improve downloading quality for iTunes customers, Bloomberg reports. Mittelstaedt asked the judge to dismiss the suit, arguing against the claim that Apple's actions were anticompetitive.
?Apple?s view is that iPods work better when consumers use the iTunes jukebox rather than third party software that can cause corruption or other problems,? Mittelstaedt said at a hearing. According to the report, Apple cited 58 "consumer downloading complaints" as the rationale behind the iPod firmware update that 'broke' Harmony.
U.S. District Judge Ware asked whether Apple had conducted "scientific tests" to confirm that other companies' downloads were indeed the cause of the complaints. Mittelstaedt acknowledged that Apple had not performed such tests.
"Bonny Sweeney, a lawyer representing iTunes customers who sued, said the plaintiffs could not locate any legacy software that would allow them to conduct accurate tests," the report read. Ware responded that, given the lack of tests, the trial may come down to a "battle of experts."
Sweeney also revealed that Jobs had met with plaintiff attorneys for questioning on April 12, but declined to provide further details.
Ware will decide by May whether to approve Apple's request to dismiss the case.
Apple is also defending itself in other cases where it has been accused of creating an unfair monopoly with the iPod and iTunes. In 2008, another class action lawsuit was filed against Apple accusing the company of leveraging its FairPlay digital rights management (DRM) technology to lock out competitors.
In 2009, Apple removed DRM from iTunes music purchases, though iTunes movie and television show purchases and rentals still use FairPlay DRM.
Comments
Apple's stranglehold over content is getting worrisome. I hope they have to defend against some lawsuits from print publishers as well.
I agree with the premise of the lawsuit.
Apple's stranglehold over content is getting worrisome. I hope they have to defend against some lawsuits from print publishers as well.
Import anything you want into iTunes, sync with iPod, iPad, iPhone.
Want torrented music?
No problems.
Want music from Amazon?
No worries.
Rip your CD's.
Easy peasy.
The ones who should be sued are the recording industry for insisting on draconian DRM in the first place.
I agree with the premise of the lawsuit.
Apple's stranglehold over content is getting worrisome. I hope they have to defend against some lawsuits from print publishers as well.
I would actually like to have an amazon music store on my device. That is largely irrelevant to this case, but I can dream.
I am not sure how Apple can lose this case. There is no particular behavior that is glaringly anti-competitive. I though all the browser crap against ms was stupid too, so what do I know. MS did some other things that were clearly anti-competitive (OEM Manipulation was the big one). But sound technical considerations that are made to enhance user experience should not be called anti-competitive.
Microsoft released a music player and had a store. The fact that it sucked and used a proprietary music format is not Apple's fault.
Import anything you want into iTunes, sync with iPod, iPad, iPhone.
Want torrented music?
No problems.
Want music from Amazon?
No worries.
Rip your CD's.
Easy peasy.
The ones who should be sued are the recording industry for insisting on draconian DRM in the first place.
The problem with that is that it requires itunes. iTunes on windows is horrible. It's a huge file that's buggy and whenever it updates it keeps trying to get you to install other things you don't want (like safari). It also locks your device to one computer. What if you buy a CD when you're on vacation and want to put it on your iPod/iPhone for the drive back? Unless you have your computer with you you can't.
So if you have an ipod/iphone you'll need itunes on your PC.
But what if you have iTunes (because you like the genius playlists, which are amazing) but you don't have an ipod. Maybe you have some cheap third party player, or maybe you have an android/blackberry/winmo device and you want to get your playlists over on it. Currently, you can't hook these devices up to itunes and sync with it, at least not directly. Instead, you'll have to download another application (like Doubletwist) and work to sync your playlists that way.
So if you have iTunes and want to easily sync your music, you need an iDevice.
Sure, this is Vertical integration and iDevices SHOULD work very well with iTunes, but at the same time, itunes has an overwhelming majority of the digital music market, which does create a "monopoly" (as stupid as that word is).
I don't know what the specifics of this case are, but I can sympathize with people not being able to sync the way they want.
My first MP3 player was a Creative Zen, and I loved it, but Creative's desktop software sucked, and at the time, iTunes was a better player. But since I had the Zen, I had to drag and drop.
Then I got an ipod, which I also loved (the old "Classic" model) but it was frustrating because I still bought a lot of music by CD's, and I couldn't just drag and drop with it.
I've since stopped using iTunes (AmazonMP3 for Digital, still buy a lot of CD's) so it's not an issue for me. But my brother's having the same struggle I am (Has an iPod, loves his CD's). I don't know how Apple could fix this, or if they'd want to. But the frustration is there.
I don't really understand this lawsuit. It seems that it's mistaking the itunes app with the itunes store, which are obviously not the same thing. Everybody knows you can bring in music from any source, in a variety of formats, and itunes will stick them into your ipod, and you're good to go. All you have to do is never click the itunes store icon, and you never have to interact with it, and you still get full functionality for your ipod or i-whatever. Is it that the old harmony thing DID use DRM, but made a way to use that DRM'd music in an ipod, and then Apple broke it? Hmm, argument seems weak. Without any sort of deal in place between the 2 companies, realnetworks/harmony/whatever and apple, I don't see how apple could be expected to keep something like somebody ELSE's DRM working on their devices, considering apple never SAID it would work, and the whole point of DRM is control which devices can play a file. I don't know, is this as simple as it seems to me? Or am I missing something? If it's as simple as it seems to me, it seems like apple couldn't possibly lose this lawsuit.
I think this lawsuit is mentioning the fact that RealNetworks worked a way that you could sync an ipod with Their software. The DRM worked fine (I didn't use it, but my neighbor did) until it was broken.
RealNetworks worked out a way to make the DRM functional on an iPod, Apple didn't have to figure it out. The suit is because Apple intentionally broke that functionality and locked Realnetworks out of the device.
The problem with that is that it requires itunes. iTunes on windows is horrible. It's a huge file that's buggy and whenever it updates it keeps trying to get you to install other things you don't want (like safari). It also locks your device to one computer. What if you buy a CD when you're on vacation and want to put it on your iPod/iPhone for the drive back? Unless you have your computer with you you can't.
So if you have an ipod/iphone you'll need itunes on your PC.
But what if you have iTunes (because you like the genius playlists, which are amazing) but you don't have an ipod. Maybe you have some cheap third party player, or maybe you have an android/blackberry/winmo device and you want to get your playlists over on it. Currently, you can't hook these devices up to itunes and sync with it, at least not directly. Instead, you'll have to download another application (like Doubletwist) and work to sync your playlists that way.
So if you have iTunes and want to easily sync your music, you need an iDevice.
Sure, this is Vertical integration and iDevices SHOULD work very well with iTunes, but at the same time, itunes has an overwhelming majority of the digital music market, which does create a "monopoly" (as stupid as that word is).
I don't know what the specifics of this case are, but I can sympathize with people not being able to sync the way they want.
My first MP3 player was a Creative Zen, and I loved it, but Creative's desktop software sucked, and at the time, iTunes was a better player. But since I had the Zen, I had to drag and drop.
Then I got an ipod, which I also loved (the old "Classic" model) but it was frustrating because I still bought a lot of music by CD's, and I couldn't just drag and drop with it.
I've since stopped using iTunes (AmazonMP3 for Digital, still buy a lot of CD's) so it's not an issue for me. But my brother's having the same struggle I am (Has an iPod, loves his CD's). I don't know how Apple could fix this, or if they'd want to. But the frustration is there.
I get that maybe you don't like itunes on Windows, that's fine, but it's important to note that the lawsuit is about the itunes store. The Apple i-devices being locked to the itunes app to get music into them is NOT the same thing as them being locked to using only music from the itunes store. You can import your CDs into itunes by letting itunes do the conversion, OR you can convert elsewhere and just drag in your converted files, your choice. You can import MP3s you buy at amazon by just dragging them into the itunes window. Even if you have a format the ipod won't play, as long as it's something quicktime can recognize, itunes will convert it for you in one click to MP3 or AAC or apple lossless or WAV, whatever, your choice. If it's something so out there that itunes can't recognize it at all, but you find another way to convert it to whatever format, then drag your converted file into itunes just like your amazon MP3s. The point being that even if the i-device is locked to using the itunes app for syncing, you are not locked to ANY single source of music. I use itunes on a Mac, not a PC, so I can't say anything about the user experience on Windows beyond the occasional usage on a friend's machine, but importing a CD into itunes on Windows is as easy as it gets, so I don't know why your brother has trouble with that. I'm still a CD buyer myself as well, and I verrrrry seldom buy music from the itunes store. On either a Mac or a PC, just launch itunes, stick in the CD, select it in the source list on the left, click "import CD", wait a bit, and bam, you're done, the tracks are ready to be sync'd into your ipod.
I think this lawsuit is mentioning the fact that RealNetworks worked a way that you could sync an ipod with Their software. The DRM worked fine (I didn't use it, but my neighbor did) until it was broken.
RealNetworks worked out a way to make the DRM functional on an iPod, Apple didn't have to figure it out. The suit is because Apple intentionally broke that functionality and locked Realnetworks out of the device.
Yeah, I think I get it, but since there was no agreement between apple and realnetworks wherein apple agreed to anything about what realnetworks was attempting to do, the only basis for the complaint would be an anti-competitive/anti-trust thing, right? And on a strictly anti-trust basis, it seems like it has no chance of succeeding, regardless of whether apple broke the functionality intentionally or accidentally.
But what if you have iTunes (because you like the genius playlists, which are amazing) but you don't have an ipod. Maybe you have some cheap third party player, or maybe you have an android/blackberry/winmo device and you want to get your playlists over on it. Currently, you can't hook these devices up to itunes and sync with it, at least not directly. Instead, you'll have to download another application (like Doubletwist) and work to sync your playlists that way.
So if you have iTunes and want to easily sync your music, you need an iDevice.
So basically you like iTunes Application but want iTunes to support all the music devices out there. This is simply not possible and Apple can't be required to do so. iTunes is developed as a companion to iDevices. It is not Apple's fault that they made it better than all those software that accompany the mp3 players. You mentioned about Zune software yourself.
I really don't see the reason for this trial.
Windows uses Windows Mobile Device Center (ActiveSync) for a lot of mobile devices. In my experience that's a lot worse (the software).
So basically you like iTunes Application but want iTunes to support all the music devices out there. This is simply not possible and Apple can't be required to do so.
They can't be required to support all devices but Apple could be in trouble if they deliberately blocked a particular device as that could be deemed anticompetitive.
I get that maybe you don't like itunes on Windows, that's fine, but it's important to note that the lawsuit is about the itunes store. The Apple i-devices being locked to the itunes app to get music into them is NOT the same thing as them being locked to using only music from the itunes store. You can import your CDs into itunes by letting itunes do the conversion, OR you can convert elsewhere and just drag in your converted files, your choice. You can import MP3s you buy at amazon by just dragging them into the itunes window. Even if you have a format the ipod won't play, as long as it's something quicktime can recognize, itunes will convert it for you in one click to MP3 or AAC or apple lossless or WAV, whatever, your choice. If it's something so out there that itunes can't recognize it at all, but you find another way to convert it to whatever format, then drag your converted file into itunes just like your amazon MP3s. The point being that even if the i-device is locked to using the itunes app for syncing, you are not locked to ANY single source of music. I use itunes on a Mac, not a PC, so I can't say anything about the user experience on Windows beyond the occasional usage on a friend's machine, but importing a CD into itunes on Windows is as easy as it gets, so I don't know why your brother has trouble with that. I'm still a CD buyer myself as well, and I verrrrry seldom buy music from the itunes store. On either a Mac or a PC, just launch itunes, stick in the CD, select it in the source list on the left, click "import CD", wait a bit, and bam, you're done, the tracks are ready to be sync'd into your ipod.
The fact for WinPC people is that they don't trust any program that says you can do this or that by just clicking a button. It rarely works, and can screw up a PC-user because the people can't find it later.
The hardest training lesson I have is convincing switchers that it really does work... system wide... and that yes, that is the preferred way of doing things on a Mac.
"Drag and drop folder organizing" and a scattered icon desktop is the Windows-Way. The first thing everyone asks me is, "where did the files go?', whether music or photos, followed by, "what if I don't want them there", and "can I really delete these?". Years of Windows f-ups has made most people very cautious (rightfully for Windows!) of trusting their computer.
Time machine and Spotlight are also on that, "does it really work?" long list of skepticisms.
I think this lawsuit is mentioning the fact that RealNetworks worked a way that you could sync an ipod with Their software. The DRM worked fine (I didn't use it, but my neighbor did) until it was broken.
RealNetworks worked out a way to make the DRM functional on an iPod, Apple didn't have to figure it out. The suit is because Apple intentionally broke that functionality and locked Realnetworks out of the device.
Unauthorized hack into another software have no business claiming unfair treatment when software refresh caused the hack to break.
I get that maybe you don't like itunes on Windows, that's fine, but it's important to note that the lawsuit is about the itunes store. The Apple i-devices being locked to the itunes app to get music into them is NOT the same thing as them being locked to using only music from the itunes store. You can import your CDs into itunes by letting itunes do the conversion, OR you can convert elsewhere and just drag in your converted files, your choice. You can import MP3s you buy at amazon by just dragging them into the itunes window. Even if you have a format the ipod won't play, as long as it's something quicktime can recognize, itunes will convert it for you in one click to MP3 or AAC or apple lossless or WAV, whatever, your choice. If it's something so out there that itunes can't recognize it at all, but you find another way to convert it to whatever format, then drag your converted file into itunes just like your amazon MP3s. The point being that even if the i-device is locked to using the itunes app for syncing, you are not locked to ANY single source of music. I use itunes on a Mac, not a PC, so I can't say anything about the user experience on Windows beyond the occasional usage on a friend's machine, but importing a CD into itunes on Windows is as easy as it gets, so I don't know why your brother has trouble with that. I'm still a CD buyer myself as well, and I verrrrry seldom buy music from the itunes store. On either a Mac or a PC, just launch itunes, stick in the CD, select it in the source list on the left, click "import CD", wait a bit, and bam, you're done, the tracks are ready to be sync'd into your ipod.
This lawsuit is from a time when everyone (including apple) was required to use a DRM protection on their devices, several CD's would try and ship with an anti-copy program on board even. Granted, these were easily circumvented, but not everyone knew how to do that. Apple created an amazing consumer product (the ipod) and a great store to go along with it, but then they locked out all other services. Now, you can argue that it's their right because they created the ipod.. but is it your ipod, or is it theirs? Companies like Real Networks offered a completely different take on music purchase (subscription based model), so if you preferred that model, but liked the iPod, you were SOL.
Importing a CD, if he has his computer with him, is easy. He doesn't always have his computer with him though. With other devices, you can rip the CD to any computer and then copy it over to your phone/MP3 player. If he's at a concert and buys a CD, he has to wait until he gets back to his own computer to put it on his iPod instead of using a friends laptop. The problem isn't that importing a CD using itunes is hard. The problem is it's the ONLY way to get music on that device, and it has to be your computer.
The fact for WinPC people is that they don't trust any program that says you can do this or that by just clicking a button. It rarely works, and can screw up a PC-user because the people can't find it later.
The hardest training lesson I have is convincing switchers that it really does work... system wide... and that yes, that is the preferred way of doing things on a Mac.
"Drag and drop folder organizing" and a scattered icon desktop is the Windows-Way. The first thing everyone asks me is, "where did the files go?', whether music or photos, followed by, "what if I don't want them there", and "can I really delete these?". Years of Windows f-ups has made most people very cautious (rightfully for Windows!) of trusting their computer.
Time machine and Spotlight are also on that, "does it really work?" long list of skepticisms.
I had a mac laptop. I still think they're one of the best laptops around and if I had two computers, one would be a mac. I understand how it works. iTunes was great on my mac, I had no issues with it. It's horrible on windows machines, akin to how flash behaves on Mac computers.
One button sync is great, if you accept every part of the apple ecosystem. If you deviate anywhere.. not so much. That's what I'm saying, and that's why a lot of long time PC users don't want to make the jump to mac. Because it's all or nothing. If you only go "part way" your experience will be sub-par. I don't WANT apple to change that amazing consistency for the people who enjoy it. All I want is the ability to put things on my ipod without being forced to load itunes on my PC. I haven't put any new music on my ipod in 8 months because of that (when I got a new PC I decided not to load the software because of the bugs)
I'm not "afraid" that itunes will mess something up on my computer. I know it will. I never did on my Mac, and I used it then. It does on my PC.
If I can adopt your condescending tone for a moment, that's something Mac people don't get. The "it just works" line only works if everything in the line has an apple stamped to the back. Things start to break down when that isn't the case. And no, this is not a fault of those competing devices. (At least not fully). It's because Apple products are designed to get you to want more apple products. This is a GREAT marketing tool and it's payed off for them quite a bit. But one of the consequences is the poor experience you get on other platforms.
A lot of people don't seem to see the option that you can set up the iPod with manual control of music and video transfer instead of automatic sync. With manual control you can connect your iPod or iPad to ANY computer with iTunes and put music on your idevice. All my devices are set up this way and their not tied to my computer or iTunes library for transferring music on my idevice.
I really don't see the reason for this trial.
Windows uses Windows Mobile Device Center (ActiveSync) for a lot of mobile devices. In my experience that's a lot worse (the software).
It still requires iTunes on that device. And iDevices are configured to automatically sync all because it IS a better user experience for most customers.
You and I are not normal customers. People like my brother are. They don't understand computers beyond the basics because they're tools not toys. This is why so many people on Windows machines still use Windows explorer, and so many people STILL have their email accounts tied to their internet service provider. Those are the customers Apple is insanely good at marketing towards because of things like the one button sync.
So no, a lot of people don't know about the manual sync. Just like a lot of people don't know the tricks on Windows machines to make them less frustrating. People take a product and use as it comes out of the box 99% of the time.
Another distinct problem with iTunes on Windows is the fact that the Apple ecosystem uses the Quicktime media framework and Windows uses the Windows Media Framework. From what I understand their can be problems in translation between the two. That problem obviously would not exist on a Mac.
If I can adopt your condescending tone for a moment, that's something Mac people don't get. The "it just works" line only works if everything in the line has an apple stamped to the back. Things start to break down when that isn't the case. And no, this is not a fault of those competing devices. (At least not fully). It's because Apple products are designed to get you to want more apple products. This is a GREAT marketing tool and it's payed off for them quite a bit. But one of the consequences is the poor experience you get on other platforms.
Importing a CD, if he has his computer with him, is easy. He doesn't always have his computer with him though. With other devices, you can rip the CD to any computer and then copy it over to your phone/MP3 player. If he's at a concert and buys a CD, he has to wait until he gets back to his own computer to put it on his iPod instead of using a friends laptop. The problem isn't that importing a CD using itunes is hard. The problem is it's the ONLY way to get music on that device, and it has to be your computer.
I hardly think having to wait to get home to rip the CD is a hardship. If so, buy a laptop and carry it with you at all times.
I don't really understand this lawsuit. It seems that it's mistaking the itunes app with the itunes store, which are obviously not the same thing. Everybody knows you can bring in music from any source, in a variety of formats, and itunes will stick them into your ipod, and you're good to go.
itunes has become a monster, it needs a major revamp.
1) They should split devices syncing and the content store. Itunes becomes just an online store and you sync your devices with iSync.
2) They need to allow multiple stores on idevices. The one store monopoly is not going to hold on devices that are becoming very close to PC's, like the ipad.
3) We should be able able to access the document folders (every app has a document folder) on any idevices just like using a USB flash drive. Connecting an idevices should automaticly map the drive on your desktop. You should be able to plug your idevices into any Pc's and copy content in and out of it without using syncing software.
The fact that devices are link to one PC's may have been workable with ipods, but now its getting to show its weakness with devices like the ipads.