/article-new/2014/10/itunesicon.jpg?lossy)
As a part of the ongoing class action iPod lawsuit Apple is facing in court this week, former iTunes engineer Rod Schultz testified that he worked on a project that aimed to block non-iTunes clients and shut out third-party music providers competing with the iPod, reports The Wall Street Journal.
A former iTunes engineer testified in a federal antitrust case against Apple Friday that he worked on a project "intended to block 100% of non-iTunes clients" and "keep out third-party players" that competed with Apple’s iPod.
Subpoenaed by the plaintiffs to prove that Apple's moves to block outside music from playing on the iPod drove up prices, Schultz told the court that his project was codenamed "Candy" and that he didn't really want to talk about his work on iTunes from 2006 to 2007.
Schultz went on to reiterate Apple's argument in the case, suggesting the security measures introduced in iTunes reflected the digital music landscape at the time. Record companies, Apple says, demanded DRM and forced Apple to keep the iPod secure.
Both Schultz and Apple also argued Apple's DRM efforts were designed to protect its systems and user experiences, which could have been compromised by being opened up to third-party music players and file formats. Schultz did, however, say that this also led to iPod's market dominance.
Schultz was the final witness in the case, and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said she plans on sending the case to the jury for deliberations next week. The plaintiffs are requesting $350 million in damages, which could triple under antitrust laws.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)You seem to know so much about the case for someone who is not involved with it in any capacity.
What he said really is not rocket science, genius. I, and millions of other people put music on our iPods. Music that we did not buy from the iTunes store. Such as inserting a music cd, and importing the tracks to iTunes. And such music never got deleted or removed by iTunes. Guess you never did this. Perhaps you are a kid and never owned one of the iPods at the time. Who knows. But save your smart a** comments for somewhere else.One wonders why you're not in the courtroom yourself helping out.
That's not what he said at all, he said they were trying to block third-party clients. A very important difference, especially in this case. There was never a problem with putting third-party music on iPods as long as they were in supported formats.
You seem to know so much about the case for someone who is not involved with it in any capacity.
One wonders why you're not in the courtroom yourself helping out.
He seems to know so much because he read what the article said. It said "third-party music players" or "third-party music providers", and no where does it just say "third-party music" was what was blocked, which is what the comment you replied to was addressing.
You seem to know so much about the case for someone who is not involved with it in any capacity.
One wonders why you're not in the courtroom yourself helping out.
Good, let the hate flow through you...
"designed to block third-party music from playing on the iPod"
You seem to know so much about the case for someone who is not involved with it in any capacity.That's not what he said at all, he said they were trying to block third-party clients. A very important difference, especially in this case. There was never a problem with putting third-party music on iPods as long as they were in supported formats.
One wonders why you're not in the courtroom yourself helping out.
I liken this to how Apple restricts OS X to work with only Macs and Apple isn't forced to have it work with other hardware.