Doesn’t matter. That’s irrelevant. Apple did not create a monopoly–the basis of this suit–therefore this suit is irrelevant. Apple has every right in the world to disable other companies from piggybacking their software. Real can sit and spin. Just like Palm sat and spun (whining like a petulant child) when their phones were kicked out of iTunes because they were pretending to be iPods. When they whined to the USB board, they were told to knock it off or lose their certification.
That is irrelevant and not really the focus of the suit. It is a good idea to read the entire article and not just the headline before posting.
-kpluck
The focus of the suit is that Apple would not let any other music with DRM, other then FairPlay, play on their iPods (or in Tunes). Even if the DRM in the music met the record labels requirements. Unlike MS, Apple did not license out FairPlay for others to use. They were not required to. But the record labelsl did require the sellers of DRM music to maintain (and update) the DRM they installed in the music they sold AND to patch any hacks that may compromise that DRM. The firmware (and software) in an iPod (and in iTunes) works in conjunction with the FairPlay DRM installed in the music sold from their iTunes Store. They are part of the DRM and what allows music with FairPlay DRM in to play on an iPod (and in iTunes) and not play on other companies devices (or music jukebox software). If someone compromised that firmware (or software), Apple had every right (and was required) to patch it in order to maintain the integredy of their FairPlay DRM. Apple was not required or obligated to maintain someone elses music DRM in an iPod (or in iTunes). If the music had no DRM, it played fine in an iPod (or in iTunes). So in essence, Apple did not have to let Real music, with their DRM, play in an iPod (or in iTunes) because of the record labels requirement that DRM must be incorporated in any digital music sold online.
I wonder how the plaintiff got restrictions playing musics not purchased from iTunes. I have musics not downloaded from iTunes and still plays with my iPod shuffle.
The focus of the suit is that Apple would not let any other music with DRM, other then FairPlay, play on their iPods (or in Tunes). Even if the DRM in the music met the record labels requirements. Unlike MS, Apple did not license out FairPlay for others to use. They were not required to. But the record labelsl did require the sellers of DRM music to maintain (and update) the DRM they installed in the music they sold AND to patch any hacks that may compromise that DRM. The firmware (and software) in an iPod (and in iTunes) works in conjunction with the FairPlay DRM installed in the music sold from their iTunes Store. They are part of the DRM and what allows music with FairPlay DRM in to play on an iPod (and in iTunes) and not play on other companies devices (or music jukebox software). If someone compromised that firmware (or software), Apple had every right (and was required) to patch it in order to maintain the integredy of their FairPlay DRM. Apple was not required or obligated to maintain someone elses music DRM in an iPod (or in iTunes). If the music had no DRM, it played fine in an iPod (or in iTunes). So in essence, Apple did not have to let Real music, with their DRM, play in an iPod (or in iTunes) because of the record labels requirement that DRM must be incorporated in any digital music sold online.
This. And again, Apple never advertised their products to be compatible with Real’s services and are under no obligation to support competing services.
Somebody mentioned game consoles. Back in the day, Nintendo (and I think every other cartridge based system) incorporated a physical lockout chip that prevented non-Nintendo licensed games from running on their consoles. Some companies did manage to work around Nintendo (I think they were sued too) and Nintendo changed their console to lock out non-licnesed games and accessories. Point is, Nintendo only guarantees compatibility with their own stuff. Not other devices that weren’t licensed. Apple basically said to users “don’t do this” and “updates to our system will break whatever Real is doing, so don’t try to use their service on our hardware."
1) Apple never claimed or intended iTunes DRM-protected music to work on any other system.
2) From memory Napster was trying to spoof iPods to work with their iTunes competitor, to cash in on Apple's ecosystem. Apple just shut them down.
Interoperability was the design of the other DRM system, it failed. If all proprietary consumer systems are going to be hit by anti-trust suits I wish the law would just state this up front.
According to plaintiffs, Apple allegedly stifled competition in the digital music space by implementing FairPlay DRM protocols that supposedly "locked" iPod users in to the iTunes ecosystem. By making songs purchased through competing services unplayable on iPods at the time, Apple is said to have dissuaded users from switching over to other platforms, specifically those built by RealNetworks.
I thought I'd check... but clearly, songs I "purchased through competing services" are playable my iPod Classic.
Can someone, preferably the judge overseeing this case, tell me how Gillette for decades produced handles that couldn't be used with other companies' blades and blades that couldn't be used with other companies' handles and how this differs from what Apple is being accused of here?
Because Gillette is not Apple. Apple does lots of things that are just like what other companies do but only Apple gets called out for it. Like all those companies that use 'tricks' (which are totally legal) like routing sales through an Irish based office to avoid US taxes. The government confirmed that it was totally legal but Apple shouldn't do it anyway. But did they call out any other company with such a request. Nope
Comments
I was thinking East Texas.
So, I'm trying to remember... was DRM the music labels' demand, or Apple's demand?
Hmmm... oh, right! Apple opposed DRM and the music labels demanded it!
That is irrelevant and not really the focus of the suit. It is a good idea to read the entire article and not just the headline before posting.
-kpluck
Doesn’t matter. That’s irrelevant. Apple did not create a monopoly–the basis of this suit–therefore this suit is irrelevant. Apple has every right in the world to disable other companies from piggybacking their software. Real can sit and spin. Just like Palm sat and spun (whining like a petulant child) when their phones were kicked out of iTunes because they were pretending to be iPods. When they whined to the USB board, they were told to knock it off or lose their certification.
Home of the Wapner!
I can't wait for Apple to lose this lawsuit ... then someone can sue the American government for the DMCA ...
That is irrelevant and not really the focus of the suit. It is a good idea to read the entire article and not just the headline before posting.
-kpluck
The focus of the suit is that Apple would not let any other music with DRM, other then FairPlay, play on their iPods (or in Tunes). Even if the DRM in the music met the record labels requirements. Unlike MS, Apple did not license out FairPlay for others to use. They were not required to. But the record labelsl did require the sellers of DRM music to maintain (and update) the DRM they installed in the music they sold AND to patch any hacks that may compromise that DRM. The firmware (and software) in an iPod (and in iTunes) works in conjunction with the FairPlay DRM installed in the music sold from their iTunes Store. They are part of the DRM and what allows music with FairPlay DRM in to play on an iPod (and in iTunes) and not play on other companies devices (or music jukebox software). If someone compromised that firmware (or software), Apple had every right (and was required) to patch it in order to maintain the integredy of their FairPlay DRM. Apple was not required or obligated to maintain someone elses music DRM in an iPod (or in iTunes). If the music had no DRM, it played fine in an iPod (or in iTunes). So in essence, Apple did not have to let Real music, with their DRM, play in an iPod (or in iTunes) because of the record labels requirement that DRM must be incorporated in any digital music sold online.
I wonder how the plaintiff got restrictions playing musics not purchased from iTunes. I have musics not downloaded from iTunes and still plays with my iPod shuffle.
The focus of the suit is that Apple would not let any other music with DRM, other then FairPlay, play on their iPods (or in Tunes). Even if the DRM in the music met the record labels requirements. Unlike MS, Apple did not license out FairPlay for others to use. They were not required to. But the record labelsl did require the sellers of DRM music to maintain (and update) the DRM they installed in the music they sold AND to patch any hacks that may compromise that DRM. The firmware (and software) in an iPod (and in iTunes) works in conjunction with the FairPlay DRM installed in the music sold from their iTunes Store. They are part of the DRM and what allows music with FairPlay DRM in to play on an iPod (and in iTunes) and not play on other companies devices (or music jukebox software). If someone compromised that firmware (or software), Apple had every right (and was required) to patch it in order to maintain the integredy of their FairPlay DRM. Apple was not required or obligated to maintain someone elses music DRM in an iPod (or in iTunes). If the music had no DRM, it played fine in an iPod (or in iTunes). So in essence, Apple did not have to let Real music, with their DRM, play in an iPod (or in iTunes) because of the record labels requirement that DRM must be incorporated in any digital music sold online.
This. And again, Apple never advertised their products to be compatible with Real’s services and are under no obligation to support competing services.
Somebody mentioned game consoles. Back in the day, Nintendo (and I think every other cartridge based system) incorporated a physical lockout chip that prevented non-Nintendo licensed games from running on their consoles. Some companies did manage to work around Nintendo (I think they were sued too) and Nintendo changed their console to lock out non-licnesed games and accessories. Point is, Nintendo only guarantees compatibility with their own stuff. Not other devices that weren’t licensed. Apple basically said to users “don’t do this” and “updates to our system will break whatever Real is doing, so don’t try to use their service on our hardware."
1) Apple never claimed or intended iTunes DRM-protected music to work on any other system.
2) From memory Napster was trying to spoof iPods to work with their iTunes competitor, to cash in on Apple's ecosystem. Apple just shut them down.
Interoperability was the design of the other DRM system, it failed. If all proprietary consumer systems are going to be hit by anti-trust suits I wish the law would just state this up front.
I own an 80GB iPod Classic and don't remember having any problem playing songs from iTunes or from elsewhere. I smell shenanigans.
I own an 80GB iPod Classic and don't remember having any problem playing songs from iTunes or from elsewhere. I smell shenanigans.
Huh?
I thought I'd check... but clearly, songs I "purchased through competing services" are playable my iPod Classic.
Can someone, preferably the judge overseeing this case, tell me how Gillette for decades produced handles that couldn't be used with other companies' blades and blades that couldn't be used with other companies' handles and how this differs from what Apple is being accused of here?
Because Gillette is not Apple. Apple does lots of things that are just like what other companies do but only Apple gets called out for it. Like all those companies that use 'tricks' (which are totally legal) like routing sales through an Irish based office to avoid US taxes. The government confirmed that it was totally legal but Apple shouldn't do it anyway. But did they call out any other company with such a request. Nope