Some of the last known video of Steve Jobs, from the deposition tape that was played in court last Friday, may be made public as a group of lawyers representing CNN, Bloomberg, and the Associated Press filed a motion earlier this week to have it released (via CNET).
Up until now, both Apple and the plaintiffs in the case have asked the court to consider the video "regular testimony," which would prevent it from being shown outside the court walls. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has not yet sealed the evidence, however, leaving open the possibility of the video being made publicly available. Representing all three media outlets, attorney Thomas Burke cited public interest as a major argument for releasing the video.
"Given the substantial public interest in the rare posthumous appearance of Steve Jobs in this trial, there simply is no interest that justifies restricting the public's access to his video deposition," attorney Thomas Burke wrote in the filing Monday.
/article-new/2014/04/steve-jobs-iphone.jpg?lossy)
Burke sent an official email request to broadcast the video on Sunday, to which Apple's lead attorney, Bill Isaacson replied, "Apple does not consent to your request. We are preparing a substantive response to your points and will get that to you tonight hopefully."
Jobs' deposition video is acting as evidence in the ongoing lawsuit dating back to 2005 that sees Apple facing accusations of attempting to enforce a monopoly over the iPod and iTunes by shutting out competing services.
In the video, Jobs echoed much of the same sentiment Apple has expressed in the case so far, stating that "We had pretty much black and white contracts with the labels," and that preventing the iPod from playing music from competing music services was "collateral damage."
Apple has yet to comment on the attempt to make the video public since Isaacson's initial response. According to the plaintiff's lawyers in the iPod case, whether or not the deposition video is released to the public is entirely up to Apple.
Top Rated Comments
Given the substantial public interest...
Translation: Think of all the clicks we could get if we had that video!
Public interest is a reason to release evidence? That sounds a bit strange to me.
I think these lawyers are confusing "in the public interest" with "things that a nosy public is interested in".
They want to be the first to show this video clip of the deceased deity. And they hope that it will bring tons of click-views, and revenue, to their websites and news programs.