So was Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. Microsoft was still found guilty.
It only becomes illegal when you have a monopoly. Apple had something like 95% of the portable music player market.
I don't think Apple ever had more than 80% in any given market. Many developed markets, it was 70-75%. Worldwide, it was really 25%.
I really don't know if there are any parallels. iPod is a consumer electronics device with an embedded style OS, I'm not aware of any embedded CE OS legally forced open, market share or otherwise. The closest ruling I can think of ruled on the side of the embedded device, Tengen was found to be in violation of Nintendo's rights when they made their own unlicensed cartridges for the NES. This was a time when Nintendo had a similarly powerful share of the console game market.
So was Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. Microsoft was still found guilty. It only becomes illegal when you have a monopoly. Apple had something like 95% of the portable music player market.
1. Your numbers are wrong. Most estimates I've seen say that Apple has about 80%.
2. The bolded is incorrect. Many actions are illegal even if you don't have a monopoly. Many actions are legal even if you do.
3. Please look up what Microsoft as convicted of and show us where Apple has done the same thing. The fact that it is possible to use your music without iTunes is pretty clear evidence that you're wrong.
I was not aware that was still possible. I have heard of third party applications though which you could copy files directly but no just the Finder. Can you explain how to get the iPod into Disk Mode? Does it work with iPod Touch or iPhone?
How are you finding this difficult? You are, AGAIN, failing to recognize the lawsuit for what it is. Read about the lawsuit. You can't find a single thing correct because you are talking about this in the present tense and not understanding what is going on here in the first place. Your arguments are unrelated to the topic at hand. That is why you see no one arguing with you about them, your right about all that junk you just listed but its irrelevant.
I see. So you can't refute anything I said and stand by your silly interpretation which does not agree with the filing which is shown in clear sight in this article - yet you continue to insist that your inane rants are valid.
Come back when you can refute my arguments and when you understand what the case is about. There is absolutely nothing there that supports your contention that Apple requires you to buy an iPod to use iTunes as you claimed.
While this is true, I believe what was being discussed originally was using the Finder (or Windows Explorer) to copy music to your device. That is not supported. Enabling the use of an iPod as a storage device is nice for carrying files (I do it with my iPod Classic), but I still have to use iTunes to manage music. Not that I mind - perhaps I'm in the minority, but I actually like iTunes. I think its smart playlists are pretty powerful. I never understood how Windows users can call iTunes a bloated mess when they put up with the jumbled mess that is Windows Media Player.
Tip: To sync music files to iPod, use iTunes. You will not be able to play songs on your iPod that you transferred to your iPod using Finder on a Mac or using My Computer/Computer or an Explorer window on a PC. If you transfer songs to your iPod using those methods, your iPod will see them as data.
[SIZE=1em]Tip:[/SIZE] To sync music files to iPod, use iTunes. You will not be able to play songs on your iPod that you transferred to your iPod using Finder on a Mac or using My Computer/Computer or an Explorer window on a PC. If you transfer songs to your iPod using those methods, your iPod will see them as data.
There are third party apps that do that - which negates the lawsuit's argument that you can only play music on your iPod if you use iTunes.
[...] Apple has negotiated with music labels for a more open iTunes Music Store, and songs sold there are now provided without digital rights management software, which restricts how files can be used. [...]
Boom. Not guilty.
Want to buy an off-brand MP3 player? Knock yourself out. Plenty of also-rans out there. (I hear Sony sells Walkmans that can play MP3s now.)
Want to play your iTunes tracks on an off-brand MP3 player? Go ahead. iTunes can transcode it all for you.
There are third party apps that do that - which negates the lawsuit's argument that you can only play music on your iPod if you use iTunes.
I guess, but the entire concept is completely irrational. Every device from camera to printer comes with free software to manage the device's functionality. Some of the included applications are not always necessary but sometimes they are to achieve the full feature set of the device. I really don't see how iTunes is much different. Sure it didn't come with the device and has other features unrelated to the iPod but it is still the free software from the same manufacturer that is recommended for the best user experience of the device.
You are wrong about no other app being able to interact with the iPod.
First, Finder or Windows Explorer will interact with the iPod. You can simply mount the drive onto your computer and drag the files to the iPod - even on the current versions.
Second, several apps are available which DO interact with the iPod. However, they use Apple's public APIs to do so. Harmony was using APIs that they were not licensed to use - which is why Apple shut them down.
Finally, since iTunes is a free app, it's hard to make a claim of damages if you're forced to use iTunes, anyway.
The suit isn't about the inability to interact with the iPod -- it's about actions Apple took to block a 3rd-party vendor's attempts to maintain an end-to-end DRM protection system whilst interacting with the iPod. Apple does not offer - and never has - any public APIs which would allow any 3rd party vendors to have that functionality.
Is the suit frivolous? Maybe. Probably. Almost certainly.
But please refute the actual facts of the case, not your own invented substiute for the facts.
Ok, this may seem like a daft question but....how are they able to obtain the email addresses of those who purchased an iPod between 2006 and 2009?
Presumably Apple was required to give it to them, assuming your registered your iPod when you bought it.
A colleague of mine is an intellectual property licensing expert (but not a lawyer). She "hates" Apple and Steve Jobs because they "illegally engaged in patent tying" and were never called to account for it (in her opinion). I need a little reading on this mind-numbingly boring topic and think that's at the core of this (dumb) law suit. The gist is that you can't legally use a patent (and the legally sanctioned monopoly power that a patent gives you) to improve your market position in some other market by artificially "tying" one to the other.
I don't know what patent she was referring to or which direction the tying was supposed to have occurred. Did Apple have a patent and monopoly on a certain type of digital music players and use that to get market share on the (remarkably unprofitable) digital music sales? Or was it the other way around? For the law suit to make sense it has to be the former, right? Since the "class" are people who bought iPods not the people who bought songs through iTunes. And if that's the case, it's a really stupid argument because as others have pointed out there were any number of ways to put music on your iPod without buying from iTunes Music Store.
Presumably Apple was required to give it to them, assuming your registered your iPod when you bought it.
A colleague of mine is an intellectual property licensing expert (but not a lawyer). She "hates" Apple and Steve Jobs because they "illegally engaged in patent tying" and were never called to account for it (in her opinion). I need a little reading on this mind-numbingly boring topic and think that's at the core of this (dumb) law suit. The gist is that you can't legally use a patent (and the legally sanctioned monopoly power that a patent gives you) to improve your market position in some other market by artificially "tying" one to the other.
I don't know what patent she was referring to or which direction the tying was supposed to have occurred. Did Apple have a patent and monopoly on a certain type of digital music players and use that to get market share on the (remarkably unprofitable) digital music sales? Or was it the other way around? For the law suit to make sense it has to be the former, right? Since the "class" are people who bought iPods not the people who bought songs through iTunes. And if that's the case, it's a really stupid argument because as others have pointed out there were any number of ways to put music on your iPod without buying from iTunes Music Store.
Thanks for the explanation. Personally, only around 10% of my iTunes library was purchased from iTunes Music Store. The large majority was ripped from my CD collection...
Presumably Apple was required to give it to them, assuming your registered your iPod when you bought it.
A colleague of mine is an intellectual property licensing expert (but not a lawyer). She "hates" Apple and Steve Jobs because they "illegally engaged in patent tying" and were never called to account for it (in her opinion). I need a little reading on this mind-numbingly boring topic and think that's at the core of this (dumb) law suit. The gist is that you can't legally use a patent (and the legally sanctioned monopoly power that a patent gives you) to improve your market position in some other market by artificially "tying" one to the other.
I don't know what patent she was referring to or which direction the tying was supposed to have occurred. Did Apple have a patent and monopoly on a certain type of digital music players and use that to get market share on the (remarkably unprofitable) digital music sales? Or was it the other way around? For the law suit to make sense it has to be the former, right? Since the "class" are people who bought iPods not the people who bought songs through iTunes. And if that's the case, it's a really stupid argument because as others have pointed out there were any number of ways to put music on your iPod without buying from iTunes Music Store.
Feel free to explain what illegal tying Apple is doing.
Since iTunes works on both Windows and Macs, even if they were to use their market power in media players to try to improve their computer market position, it wouldn't apply.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by JsongPovision
… your right about all that junk you just listed but its irrelevant.
Rule 11: All your carefully crafted arguments can be easily ignored.
So was Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. Microsoft was still found guilty.
It only becomes illegal when you have a monopoly. Apple had something like 95% of the portable music player market.
I don't think Apple ever had more than 80% in any given market. Many developed markets, it was 70-75%. Worldwide, it was really 25%.
I really don't know if there are any parallels. iPod is a consumer electronics device with an embedded style OS, I'm not aware of any embedded CE OS legally forced open, market share or otherwise. The closest ruling I can think of ruled on the side of the embedded device, Tengen was found to be in violation of Nintendo's rights when they made their own unlicensed cartridges for the NES. This was a time when Nintendo had a similarly powerful share of the console game market.
1. Your numbers are wrong. Most estimates I've seen say that Apple has about 80%.
2. The bolded is incorrect. Many actions are illegal even if you don't have a monopoly. Many actions are legal even if you do.
3. Please look up what Microsoft as convicted of and show us where Apple has done the same thing. The fact that it is possible to use your music without iTunes is pretty clear evidence that you're wrong.
Try this:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1478?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
I see. So you can't refute anything I said and stand by your silly interpretation which does not agree with the filing which is shown in clear sight in this article - yet you continue to insist that your inane rants are valid.
Come back when you can refute my arguments and when you understand what the case is about. There is absolutely nothing there that supports your contention that Apple requires you to buy an iPod to use iTunes as you claimed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Try this:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1478?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
While this is true, I believe what was being discussed originally was using the Finder (or Windows Explorer) to copy music to your device. That is not supported. Enabling the use of an iPod as a storage device is nice for carrying files (I do it with my iPod Classic), but I still have to use iTunes to manage music. Not that I mind - perhaps I'm in the minority, but I actually like iTunes. I think its smart playlists are pretty powerful. I never understood how Windows users can call iTunes a bloated mess when they put up with the jumbled mess that is Windows Media Player.
Class Action for lulz.
In that case it's working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Try this:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1478?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
I guess that answers my question:
Tip: To sync music files to iPod, use iTunes. You will not be able to play songs on your iPod that you transferred to your iPod using Finder on a Mac or using My Computer/Computer or an Explorer window on a PC. If you transfer songs to your iPod using those methods, your iPod will see them as data.
There are third party apps that do that - which negates the lawsuit's argument that you can only play music on your iPod if you use iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
[...] Apple has negotiated with music labels for a more open iTunes Music Store, and songs sold there are now provided without digital rights management software, which restricts how files can be used. [...]
Boom. Not guilty.
Want to buy an off-brand MP3 player? Knock yourself out. Plenty of also-rans out there. (I hear Sony sells Walkmans that can play MP3s now.)
Want to play your iTunes tracks on an off-brand MP3 player? Go ahead. iTunes can transcode it all for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
There are third party apps that do that - which negates the lawsuit's argument that you can only play music on your iPod if you use iTunes.
I guess, but the entire concept is completely irrational. Every device from camera to printer comes with free software to manage the device's functionality. Some of the included applications are not always necessary but sometimes they are to achieve the full feature set of the device. I really don't see how iTunes is much different. Sure it didn't come with the device and has other features unrelated to the iPod but it is still the free software from the same manufacturer that is recommended for the best user experience of the device.
Who cares? Too many lawyers in this country...
Ok, this may seem like a daft question but....how are they able to obtain the email addresses of those who purchased an iPod between 2006 and 2009?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You are wrong about no other app being able to interact with the iPod.
First, Finder or Windows Explorer will interact with the iPod. You can simply mount the drive onto your computer and drag the files to the iPod - even on the current versions.
Second, several apps are available which DO interact with the iPod. However, they use Apple's public APIs to do so. Harmony was using APIs that they were not licensed to use - which is why Apple shut them down.
Finally, since iTunes is a free app, it's hard to make a claim of damages if you're forced to use iTunes, anyway.
The suit isn't about the inability to interact with the iPod -- it's about actions Apple took to block a 3rd-party vendor's attempts to maintain an end-to-end DRM protection system whilst interacting with the iPod. Apple does not offer - and never has - any public APIs which would allow any 3rd party vendors to have that functionality.
Is the suit frivolous? Maybe. Probably. Almost certainly.
But please refute the actual facts of the case, not your own invented substiute for the facts.
I think a court can compel a defendant to turn over a list of registered users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoXoM
Ok, this may seem like a daft question but....how are they able to obtain the email addresses of those who purchased an iPod between 2006 and 2009?
Presumably Apple was required to give it to them, assuming your registered your iPod when you bought it.
A colleague of mine is an intellectual property licensing expert (but not a lawyer). She "hates" Apple and Steve Jobs because they "illegally engaged in patent tying" and were never called to account for it (in her opinion). I need a little reading on this mind-numbingly boring topic and think that's at the core of this (dumb) law suit. The gist is that you can't legally use a patent (and the legally sanctioned monopoly power that a patent gives you) to improve your market position in some other market by artificially "tying" one to the other.
I don't know what patent she was referring to or which direction the tying was supposed to have occurred. Did Apple have a patent and monopoly on a certain type of digital music players and use that to get market share on the (remarkably unprofitable) digital music sales? Or was it the other way around? For the law suit to make sense it has to be the former, right? Since the "class" are people who bought iPods not the people who bought songs through iTunes. And if that's the case, it's a really stupid argument because as others have pointed out there were any number of ways to put music on your iPod without buying from iTunes Music Store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I think a court can compel a defendant to turn over a list of registered users.
Ok, that makes sense - thanks!
BTW, I can only see one smiley face in the "insert Smiley" list. I'm using Safari 5.1.5....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoXoM
BTW, I can only see one smiley face in the "insert Smiley" list. I'm using Safari 5.1.5....
Yeah, they're just outright broken.
I'm on 5.2, but try 5.1.6 that came with 10.7.4 today. See if that fixes any-*snort*…
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Presumably Apple was required to give it to them, assuming your registered your iPod when you bought it.
A colleague of mine is an intellectual property licensing expert (but not a lawyer). She "hates" Apple and Steve Jobs because they "illegally engaged in patent tying" and were never called to account for it (in her opinion). I need a little reading on this mind-numbingly boring topic and think that's at the core of this (dumb) law suit. The gist is that you can't legally use a patent (and the legally sanctioned monopoly power that a patent gives you) to improve your market position in some other market by artificially "tying" one to the other.
I don't know what patent she was referring to or which direction the tying was supposed to have occurred. Did Apple have a patent and monopoly on a certain type of digital music players and use that to get market share on the (remarkably unprofitable) digital music sales? Or was it the other way around? For the law suit to make sense it has to be the former, right? Since the "class" are people who bought iPods not the people who bought songs through iTunes. And if that's the case, it's a really stupid argument because as others have pointed out there were any number of ways to put music on your iPod without buying from iTunes Music Store.
Thanks for the explanation. Personally, only around 10% of my iTunes library was purchased from iTunes Music Store. The large majority was ripped from my CD collection...
Feel free to explain what illegal tying Apple is doing.
Since iTunes works on both Windows and Macs, even if they were to use their market power in media players to try to improve their computer market position, it wouldn't apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, they're just outright broken.
I'm on 5.2, but try 5.1.6 that came with 10.7.4 today. See if that fixes any-*snort*…
Upgraded to 5.1.6 - still doesn't work!!