Anyone hear about this court battle?
I recently heard off of another forum I visit that Apple is yet again in another court battle, United States v. Apple. Apparently Apple is being cited of unfair business practices with its overwhelming hold of the MP3 market, that it leaves no room for other companies to compete. Can anyone dig up any details, or at least verify that this is happening? I personally feel the idea of this case is ridiculous, but that's just me.
Comments
I'm awful skeptical as it is not announced on Apple's investor relations or PR pages. It would have such a profound impact on stock price if true that even delaying an announcement could be a FTC violation.
So no announcement or acknowledgment by Apple means it is probably bogus.
I did google up an anti-trust case that cited US v. Apple -- from 1992. That means that ruling is 14 years old and the case even older.
This was discussed on the Ars Technica boards, so search there.
United States v. Apple is a court case filed against Apple by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and twenty U.S. states. The plaintiffs allege that Apple is abusing monopoly power in its handling of iTunes music store sales and iPod hardware sales. The issue central to the case is whether Apple is allowed to bundle its flagship iTunes Music Store software with its Apple iPod MP3 players. Bundling them together is alleged to be responsible for Apple's seeming victory in the online music wars as every iPod user had a copy of iTunes and the iTunes Music Store will not work with competing MP3 players. It is alleged that this unfairly restricts the market for competing music services and hardware devices (such as Creative's Zen player) as those users cannot purchase from the most pervasive online presence. Underlying these disputes are questions over whether Apple has altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) on the iPod to favor Apple's protected AAC format over third party formats, or precluded formats for license from playing at all. Apple's conduct in refusing to form licensing agreements with OEM MP3 manufacturers, and Apple's intent in its course of conduct.
Apple stated that the merging of the iPod and iTunes Music store is the result of innovation and competition, and that the two are now the same product and that consumers are now getting all the benefits of iTunes for free. Those who opposed Apple's position countered that the iTunes Music Store is still a distinct and separate product which didn't need to be tied to the iPod, since a separate version of iTunes is available for Windows. They also asserted that iTunes is not really free, because its development and marketing costs may have kept the price of iPod higher than it might otherwise have been.
Originally posted by blackbird_1.0
This case was said to be from last year, and was the State of California VS. Apple.
This was discussed on the Ars Technica boards, so search there.
I relinquished my membership there because the boards there became nothing short of a liars flamefest. Since you have to be a member to search on ars and I have no intent of changing my status, someone needs to provide a link to the supposed ONLY other place on the internet that is claiming this ridiculous case. It's not like that's hard if you've been there and read the damn thread already.
The snippet Mac_Doll left reads more like a bad April Fools Day attempt than an actual case. Especially since it contains a response which implies the case has already passed the 30 day window for it's first filing in response to the original serving. Who here thinks this would stay under wraps for a month or more before showing up only on ars???
Originally posted by Hiro
I relinquished my membership there because the boards there became nothing short of a liars flamefest. Since you have to be a member to search on ars and I have no intent of changing my status, someone needs to provide a link to the supposed ONLY other place on the internet that is claiming this ridiculous case. It's not like that's hard if you've been there and read the damn thread already.
I read that thread, but I don't know where it is. I agree with your assessment that it was just a huge flamefest.
The snippet Mac_Doll left reads more like a bad April Fools Day attempt than an actual case. Especially since it contains a response which implies the case has already passed the 30 day window for it's first filing in response to the original serving. Who here thinks this would stay under wraps for a month or more before showing up only on ars???
Originally posted by BRussell
My guess: Someone just took the case against MS in the 1990s and replaced 'Internet Explorer' with 'iTunes' to be cute and make the point that Apple is really just like MS. It's not a real case.
I hope you both are right in that maybe this case doesn't really exist.
I think bogus.
Originally posted by Placebo
I don't really understand this, it's like suing Mercedes for manufacturing engines that only work in their cars.
And locking everybody else out from a certain type of fuel. Apple limiting their protected ACC to the iPod is an anti-trust violation. It doesn't matter if you're Apple and make the best product, you must open up the market to others on a level playing field. If Microsoft was doing the same thing you'd all be crying bloody murder and you know it.
Originally posted by Mac_Doll
Uh-oh. I think I might have opened one big can of worms here.
Naw, it's just a polarized issue. If we were at ars it would get ugly and stay that way because there are jokers that seem to only live for flame. Here there can be a LOT more give and take without name-baiting going on. As long as the name calling stays away the can is still closed.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
If Microsoft was doing the same thing you'd all be crying bloody murder and you know it.
If Microsoft was making an innovative, marketable and top-quality hardware software combination I'd be crying "The End Times are here!," not "bloody murder."
Originally posted by Guartho
If Microsoft was making an innovative, marketable and top-quality hardware software combination I'd be crying "The End Times are here!," not "bloody murder."
It's not about innovation, it's about whether keeping the protected ACC proprietary to the Mac represents an unfair advantage over other music players. It does. If the Creative Zen was allowed to work with iTunes, the iPod could kick its rear end to the end of the world and back and nobody would care because it would be perfectly legal. Apple doing this is no different than Microsoft keeping a file type unique to PCs and using it as a leverage to keep a customer from buying a Mac.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
It's not about innovation, it's about whether keeping the protected ACC proprietary to the Mac represents an unfair advantage over other music players. It does. If the Creative Zen was allowed to work with iTunes, the iPod could kick its rear end to the end of the world and back and nobody would care because it would be perfectly legal. Apple doing this is no different than Microsoft keeping a file type unique to PCs and using it as a leverage to keep a customer from buying a Mac.
It is different, because MS used monopoly power in one arena (OS) to get into and dominate others (browsers). What you're talking about with Apple is just one arena - music players. They didn't use their monopoly position in one arena to get into another.