Major news outlets seek permission to broadcast Steve Jobs deposition in iTunes antitrust suit
Three major news organizations have filed a motion to release footage of a deposition from Steve Jobs shown in court last week, citing "substantial public interest" in rare footage of the late Apple co-founder.
Lawyers representing the Associated Press, Bloomberg and CNN filed the motion on Sunday, arguing there is no reason to keep the video hidden from the public. The footage shows Jobs giving testimony for an antitrust suit targeting Apple's iPod and iTunes ecosystem.
Both Apple and the plaintiffs in the antitrust case have asked the court to treat the video as "regular testimony," preventing it from being shown outside the court, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has not sealed the evidence. The media outlets' efforts to make the video public were noted by CNet on Tuesday.
The deposition which was first taped in 2011 aired in court last Friday. In it, the late Apple chief executive was said to be evasive, saying that he didn't "know" or "remember" certain details dozens of times.
The lawsuit targets Apple's use of digital rights management, locking song purchases to be used only on Apple hardware while also preventing outside content from being transferred to iPods. The lawsuit dates back to 2005, and applies to iPod models bought between Sept. 12 2006 and March 31, 2009, and could cost Apple up to $1 billion.
The complaint originally centered around RealNetworks and Apple's efforts to block songs from its storefront from being transferred to iPods. In his 2011 testimony, Jobs was asked about the long-defunct RealNetworks, to which he quipped: "Do they still exist?"
One of the key arguments in the lawsuit revolves around an iTunes update allegedly pushed out to break compatibility with Harmony, a technology created by Real that allowed users to playback non-iTunes music on iPod. Plaintiffs allege that Apple sought to create a monopoly by implementing a closed ecosystem with FairPlay DRM on the iPod and iTunes Music Store.
Song purchases from iTunes were restricted by DRM until December of 2009, when Apple successfully negotiated a deal with record labels to remove DRM from music purchases.
Lawyers representing the Associated Press, Bloomberg and CNN filed the motion on Sunday, arguing there is no reason to keep the video hidden from the public. The footage shows Jobs giving testimony for an antitrust suit targeting Apple's iPod and iTunes ecosystem.
Both Apple and the plaintiffs in the antitrust case have asked the court to treat the video as "regular testimony," preventing it from being shown outside the court, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has not sealed the evidence. The media outlets' efforts to make the video public were noted by CNet on Tuesday.
The deposition which was first taped in 2011 aired in court last Friday. In it, the late Apple chief executive was said to be evasive, saying that he didn't "know" or "remember" certain details dozens of times.
The lawsuit targets Apple's use of digital rights management, locking song purchases to be used only on Apple hardware while also preventing outside content from being transferred to iPods. The lawsuit dates back to 2005, and applies to iPod models bought between Sept. 12 2006 and March 31, 2009, and could cost Apple up to $1 billion.
The complaint originally centered around RealNetworks and Apple's efforts to block songs from its storefront from being transferred to iPods. In his 2011 testimony, Jobs was asked about the long-defunct RealNetworks, to which he quipped: "Do they still exist?"
One of the key arguments in the lawsuit revolves around an iTunes update allegedly pushed out to break compatibility with Harmony, a technology created by Real that allowed users to playback non-iTunes music on iPod. Plaintiffs allege that Apple sought to create a monopoly by implementing a closed ecosystem with FairPlay DRM on the iPod and iTunes Music Store.
Song purchases from iTunes were restricted by DRM until December of 2009, when Apple successfully negotiated a deal with record labels to remove DRM from music purchases.
Comments
No, no. They can show Stanford Commencement footage if they want video.
I don't much care how they try to spin it - that's just what they do...
But I've been thinking since this "testimony" was first mentioned in an article here
that I'd very much like to hear what he had to say.
I don't think that makes me ghoulish or disrespectful...
Just nostalgic.
I don't much care how they try to spin it - that's just what they do...
But I've been thinking since this "testimony" was first mentioned in an article here
that I'd very much like to hear what he had to say.
I don't think that makes me ghoulish or disrespectful...
Just nostalgic.
Your not missing anything, I have been deposed and found that most lawyers have no idea about what they are asking and when their questions do not lead you down their golden path they get very confused.
It sounds like in the Job deposition, the lawyers were fishing and did not asked specific enough questions to pin Job down so he was able to say he did not recall. Lawyers ask questions which they make you think they already know the answer to and they do not and the hope you will tell them something they should know. Jobs gave them none of that.
Reminds me of this...
This video makes my point above, notice how Gates just twisted the lawyer around.
I like the definition of killer app, one they promotes sales of hardware, interesting since MS did not sell hardware. I also say that MS made software which made old hardware obsolete. This is why they did not care is their code was inefficient
Well the full transcript of the deposition is available, so this is just hubristic entitlement by the media, mawkishly raking over the suffering of a man dying from advanced cancer.
"Substantial public interest" meh. It's despicable.
http://www.mjweber.com/page1/assets/InvasionPrivacy-09.pdf
The only "interest" is them having something to show on TV. Bloody grave robbers.
Wikipedia seems to think they still exist, and were even making acquisitions as of last year (2013). Perhaps they don't "own" the streaming data market anymore, but they do seem to exist. Doing something.
No, no. They can show Stanford Commencement footage if they want video.
"Substantial public interest" = "We want to make more money off SJ's celebrity status"
I'm OK with this so long as a hologram of Steve Jobs can take the stand¡
Only if preceded by the Tupac Shakur "hologram" and followed by Jem and the Holograms.
His hologram is being subpoenaed regarding some unsolved shootings.
These News organizations don't give rats ass to what people want. It's just another way of making $$ by showing Ads!
I am sure google loves this ... watching SJ .... buy viagra online no prescription is required ....