Ondrej Holzman The ongoing legal proceedings in which Apple is facing a class action lawsuit for harming users and competitors with its iPod and DRM protection in iTunes may take a very unexpected turn. Apple's lawyers have now questioned whether there are any plaintiffs in the case at all. If their objection were upheld, the whole case could be over.
Although Apple's top executives, iTunes chief Eddy Cue and chief marketing officer Phil Schiller, testified for several hours before the court on Thursday, the midnight letter that Apple's lawyers sent to Judge Rogers could turn out to be much more important in the end. According to them, the iPod owned by Marianna Rosen of New Jersey, one of the two named plaintiffs, does not fall within the time period covered by the entire case.
Apple is accused of using a DRM protection system called Fairplay in iTunes to block music purchased from competing stores, which then could not be played on the iPod. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for owners of iPods purchased between September 2006 and March 2009, and that could be a major stumbling block.
[do action=”quote”]I am concerned that I may not have an accuser.[/do]
In the aforementioned letter, Apple claims that it checked the serial number of the iPod touch that Ms. Rosen purchased and found that it was purchased in July 2009, several months outside the period at issue in the case. Apple's lawyers also said they could not verify purchases of other iPods Rosen claims to have purchased; for example, the iPod nano should have been purchased in the fall of 2007. Therefore, they require the other party to immediately provide evidence of these purchases.
There is also a problem with the second plaintiff, Melanie Tucker from North Carolina, also about her purchases Apple lawyers want evidence, because they found that her iPod touch was purchased in August 2010, again outside the specified time period. Ms. Tucker testified that she bought the iPod in April 2005, but that she owned several.
Judge Yvonne Rogers also expressed concern over the newly presented facts, which have not yet been confirmed, as the plaintiff is yet to respond. “I'm concerned that I don't have to have a prosecutor. That's a problem," she admitted, saying she would independently investigate the matter but wants both sides to resolve the issue quickly. If indeed no accuser came forward, the entire case could be dropped.
Eddy Cue: It was not possible to open the system to others
According to what they've said so far, both plaintiffs shouldn't own just one iPod, so it's possible that Apple's complaint will ultimately fail. Eddy Cue's testimony with Phil Schiller may play an important role if the case continues.
The former, who is behind the construction of all Apple stores for music, books and applications, tried to explain why the Californian company created its own protection (DRM) called Fairplay, and also why it did not allow others to use it. According to the plaintiffs, this resulted in users being locked into Apple's ecosystem and competing vendors were unable to get their music onto iPods.
[do action=”citation”]We wanted to license DRM from the beginning, but it was not possible.[/do]
However, the head of iTunes and Apple's other online services, Eddy Cue, said that it was a request from the record companies to protect the music, and that Apple was making subsequent changes to increase the security of its system. At Apple, they didn't really like DRM, but they had to deploy it to attract record companies to iTunes, which at the time together controlled 80 percent of the music market.
After considering all options, Apple decided to create its own Fairplay protection system, which they originally wanted to license to other companies, but Cue said that was ultimately not possible. "We wanted to license DRM from the beginning because we thought it was the right thing to do and we could grow faster because of it, but in the end we didn't find a way to make it work reliably," said Cue, who works at Apple since 1989.
The eight-judge panel's verdict will also largely depend on how it decides the iTunes 7.0 and 7.4 updates — whether they were primarily product improvements or strategic changes to block competition, which Apple's lawyers have already admitted was one of the effects , although apparently not the main one. According to Cue, Apple was changing its system, which subsequently wouldn't accept content from anywhere but iTunes, for one reason only: security and the increasing attempts to hack into iPods and iTunes.
"If there was a hack, we'd have to deal with it within a certain time frame, because otherwise they'd pick themselves up and walk away with all their music," Cue said, referring to the security agreements with record companies. Apple wasn't nearly as big a player at the time, so keeping all the contracted record companies was crucial to its later success. As soon as Apple learned about the hackers' attempts, they considered it a big threat.
If Apple allowed more stores and devices to access its system, everything would crash and cause a problem for both Apple and users. “It wouldn't work. The integration we had created between the three products (iTunes, iPod and music store - ed.) would collapse. There was no way to do it with the same success we had," explained Cue.
Phil Schiller: Microsoft has failed with open access
Chief Marketing Officer Phil Schiller spoke in a similar spirit to Eddy Cue. He recalled that Microsoft tried to apply the opposite method with music protection, but his attempt did not work at all. Microsoft first tried to license its protection system to other companies, but when it launched its Zune music player in 2006, it used the same tactics as Apple.
The iPod was made to work with only one software to manage it, iTunes. According to Schiller, this alone ensured his smooth cooperation with the software and the music business. "If there were multiple management software trying to do the same thing, it would be like having two steering wheels in a car," Schiller said.
Another high-ranking representative of Apple who should appear at the deposition is the late Steve Jobs, who, however, managed to give a deposition that was filmed before his death in 2011.
If Apple were to lose the case, the plaintiffs are seeking $350 million in damages, which could be tripled due to antitrust laws. The case is scheduled to run for six more days, then the jury will convene.
If I have a restaurant, do I have to allow everyone to eat their food there?
Can black passengers legally travel on the plane?
Ungrateful bastards!
What lock in ecosystem??
If someone was able to buy an iPod, then they were probably able to buy any other player.
Yeah, I get it, they bought a $40 iPod, and they want $80 back, and continue to use Apple service.
They should rather pay Apple a fine and return all the devices for that audacity!
No, but if someone buys food in a bag in a store, they should be able to buy another food in that bag in another store.
So, do you think it's good to continue with the farce "we don't have our browser in Win, we'll split Google, etc..." we really need to lead by the hand and when we buy a device, we won't respect its settings, ecosystem, etc.? will droids sue apple in a year because their apps don't work on ios or will we sue droid because they don't work from the app store? I once bought a player from sony... it could do their famous format and nothing else... all protected by who knows how etc... but I knew what I was getting into...
There is a difference in the open mp3 format, in which someone will covertly put protection. Of course, people need to lead by the hand, because otherwise we would best have an abundance of mp3 players in our pockets, as 2ts above wishes. Why did Apple cancel drm? Because he would not stand up to the competition that drm did not have, but of course from the beginning, when he gained an advantage, he was not afraid to suffocate the competition with this style, as his employees themselves testified.
All I have to do is ask, so what? Did the buyers know that ipods had DRM, I was told by son that I suspect ATRAC (I'm not sure) had it too? Yes. So apple, microsoft google etc... is being sued for setting up their product to have a competitive advantage? What exactly was DRM an advantage for apple? That they couldn't take the music elsewhere?
It's just the cry of failures... nothing else.
No one is stopping you from carrying an abundance of mp3 players in your bag.
You guys, comparing a shopping bag and an iPod is really strong. I assume you already have the right to vote. Well, that's really great!
One thing is absolutely identical to you, the inquisitors of all law. You invent any kind of demagoguery to somehow "sanctify" your illusions.
See this example about a shopping bag.
It seems to me like a classic lawsuit of a gluttonous American who eats 20 Big Macs a day, does not exercise, gains 200 kg and sues McDonalds for making him fat. A woman buys an iPod that works as it does, she can't play music bought elsewhere and what does she do? He buys several more iPods. He will sue Apple in five years. A normal person would be slapped with shame if they went public with that, but not in America. I like America, but I don't understand these things. I also won't install games purchased from Google Play on my iPhone. I will not install programs purchased for Windows on Mac. Like where is the problem. I want an open system, I'm not going to Apple. Just as I find it absurd to force Microsoft to choose a browser. Tupec still thinks that his browser is called Seznam, so why not.
True :D