Apple iPod Anti-trust Trial Closing Arguments Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 12/15/2014 8:48:49 PM PST by Swordmaker
(Reuters) Oakland, CA — A software update for Apple Inc's iPod music player was not a product improvement, but was intended to improperly raise costs for consumers who wanted to switch to newer devices, an attorney for Apple customers said in court.
Closing arguments were delivered on Monday in an Oakland, California, federal courtroom in an antitrust trial that has cast fresh scrutiny on Apple's onetime virtual domination of the digital music market.
The plaintiffs, a group of individuals and businesses who purchased iPods from 2006 to 2009, are seeking about $350 million in damages from Apple for unfairly blocking competing device makers. That amount would automatically triple under antitrust law.
Plaintiff attorney Patrick Coughlin told jurors the 2006 software update was a "one, two punch" designed to restrict the iPod to music purchased on iTunes.
"This is all about competition," Coughlin said.
However, Apple attorney William Isaacson said the evidence is "overwhelming" that the software update was meant to improve consumers' experience and protect against music theft. The new software contained many desirable features, Isaacson said, including movies and auto-synchronization.
"We now have a plaintiff and a case asking you to hold Apple liable for innovating," Isaacson said.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
the case sounds ridiculous
I’m for pure capitalism ( a free market). we have too many laws, regulations and government . get gov out of the way of the free market
reset all laws back to 1870
Then here's a biggie. On September 7, 2007, Apple updated iTunes 7.4 for the iPod TOUCH. . . the most major upgrade since the iPod was originally released. . . introducing support for a TOUCH SCREEN interface!
Ping
So not care about the fate of this big lib company
Oakland juries.
*spit*
You are aware, I suppose, that Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Intel, and a host of other tech companies gave more to Liberal causes and politicians than Apple ever has or does? Don't care? Fine. Care about justice.
Federal Court, not municipal. . . drawn from the entire Federal District. . . much broader draw.
When I "so not care" about the topic of a thread, I generally SKIP THE DAMN THREAD. Ya know, 'cause I truly don't care.
But posting a comment about how one "doesn't care" makes one out to be either a liar (since one cares enough to comment), or a troll, far as I can see. Take your pick.
Me, I care about this topic, not so much because it's Apple, but because the wrong decision sets a dangerous precedent for tech innovation.
Apple 'iPod iTunes' antitrust case sent to jury after closing arguments
Source — Apple Insider December 15, 2014Closing arguments in a class-action lawsuit against Apple's iPod iTunes ecosystem were heard on Monday, with each side arguing their case for what could potentially result in a $1 billion penalty for Apple.
(Contrary to this lawsuit prospectus, there are no longer three lead plaintiffs as all three original plaintiffs were
dismissed for lack of standing, but only a late-addition plaintiff, Barbara Bennett, who was added last week,
and who cannot claim what is asserted inthe lawsuit as her complaintcentered around having to buy CDs and ripping them to get the "rare music" she preferred on to her iPod which was not available on the iTunes store!.
Comments in red were added by Swordmaker)On Monday, lawyers for both Apple and plaintiffs offered closing arguments to a jury of eight in a California antitrust lawsuit regarding the tech giant's supposed scheme to use iPod, iTunes and FairPlay digital rights management to effectively lock customers in to its digital music ecosystem.
According to in-court reports from The Verge, plaintiffs targeted Apple's iTunes 7.0 software update, with attorney Patrick Coughlin saying security tweaks that came as part of the update "knocked out competitors" like RealNetworks. Released in September 2006, version 7.0 brought various user features to Apple's iTunes software, but certain security modifications are under scrutiny.
Specifically, iTunes 7.0 broke compatibility with RealNetworks' Harmony, a technology created to thwart FairPlay DRM and allow users to playback on their iPods music not purchased from the iTunes Music Store. Plaintiffs argue the change introduced "switching costs" that discouraged existing iPod users from leaving Apple's ecosystem when it came time to upgrade hardware.
Coughlin went on to reassert claims about a software error that reportedly wiped an iPod's library if songs not purchased or imported through iTunes were found.
"I liken it to blowing up your iPod," Coughlin said in court, repeating an analogy he used in presenting the supposed iTunes flaw earlier this month. "It's worse than a paperweight. You could lose everything."
"There is no evidence anyone went through the restore process and ever had this happen. Not even a complaint about it." -- Apple lawyer William IsaacsonTo this point, Apple's lead counsel William Isaacson said, "There is no evidence this ever happened. There is no evidence anyone went through the restore process and ever had this happen. Not even a complaint about it."
During trial proceedings, Apple argued its iPod and iTunes security measures were installed to protect users from potentially malicious software outside of their control. The company's security director Augustin Farrugia testified in court that Apple was "very paranoid" in implementing an extremely protected digital music service, especially when it came to possible pirated music and malware. Late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs said much the same in a deposition videotaped just months before his death in 2011.
In Jobs' view, Apple's subsequent iTunes revisions targeted DRM hacks, which were prevalent at the time. He said Apple would "constantly" revise both iTunes and iPod software to keep out what the company considers hackers.
Another major concern for Jobs was a series of tenuous deals made with record labels to sell music through iTunes. Without adequate protections and assurances that owned content would not be pirated, or alternatively that pirated content would not be promoted by iPod playback capabilities, iTunes would lose backing from content owners. When asked if music companies complained about RealNetworks' Harmony technology, Jobs said, "It doesn't really matter because in fixing holes for DRM hacks, it might screw up the Real technology anyway, as collateral damage."
While Jobs' statements are plausible, former Apple FairPlay engineer Rod Schultz disagreed, saying in court that the company's DRM deployment "intended to block 100% of non-iTunes clients" and "keep out third-party players."
Apple, however, maintains all iTunes, iPod and FairPlay enhancements were made to protect consumers and foster innovation in the digital music space.
"We now have a plaintiff that is asking you to hold Apple liable for innovating, for providing security, that is what they are asking you to do," Isaacson said during closing statements. "They are doing that and asking you to hold us liable for providing consumers a choice, for providing integrated products, for providing iPod plus iTunes, and saying that's how our products work best."
The suit has seen its share of troubles over the past two weeks, not the least of which being improper representing class plaintiffs. Last week, the suit against Apple lost its last named plaintiff after another withdrew one week prior due to ineligible iPod purchases. The lawsuit stipulates claimants must have purchased an iPod between Sept. 12, 2006 to March 31, 2009.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs found a suitable replacement in 65-year-old ice dancer Barbara Bennett, who is representing a class of 8 million iPod buyers.
A jury will now decide whether Apple is accountable for $350 million worth of damages, an amount that would automatically trebled to more than $1 billion under U.S. antitrust laws.
The jury would have to actually find that Apple locked RealNetwork's Codec and Music out deliberately and ONLY upgraded the software for that purpose, with no other upgrade purpose to provide additional abilities to the software, not just that it had an incidental effect of restraining trade, or that any price increases were not associated with increased capabilities of the software, and the judge would have to agree, for the penalty to treble. It is not automatic.
However, the judge has ruled they must first determine that the iTunes 7.0 and 7.4 software upgrades were not intended to provide additional abilities or improvements, but were only intended to lockout other any other company's DRMed content. Only then could they consider the rest. This is a huge step.
That was probably the biggest upgrade since the iPods came out.
The Plaintiff Lawyers tried a last minute "Hail Mary" play. . . They submitted briefs over the weekend accusing Apple and Amazon of colluding!
"Over the weekend, in court filings, the lawyers suing Apple added another accusation: that Apple and Amazon had colluded to make their products successful, while blocking their competitors.“Apparently Apple and Amazon had worked out an agreement and Amazon put Apple front and center in Amazon’s new service,” the plaintiff lawyers wrote in their filing.
Notably, in a separate antitrust case, a federal judge found Apple liable last year for colluding with book publishers to help them fight Amazon and its uniform pricing of $9.99 for new e-books.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers called the collusion assertion a “Hail Mary, last-ditch effort.”
“I find it offensive, frankly,” she said. She forbade the lawyers from presenting the idea of Apple and Amazon being in collusion to the jury.— Source BITS Blog NY Times — Lawyers in iPod Trial Await Jury Decision — December 15, 2014 — By BRIAN X. CHEN
The Attorney Plaintiff's must have just heard about the Amazon involvement in the e-Book case and conflated it in to this. . . SHEESH! There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE AT ALL OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT! Otherwise why was Amazon allowed to sell DRM free music nine months before Apple was allowed to????
The “plaintiffs” lost the suit. Jury finds in favor of Apple.
Hurrah! I'm not at all surprised. Thanks. I've been at work. It's payroll day. Up to my ears in alligators.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
