Apple Wins iPod Antitrust Lawsuit, Found Not Guilty of Harming Consumers
Jury deliberations for the iPod antitrust lawsuit Apple faced in court last week began on Monday, and it appears the jury has already reached a verdict just a day later. As reported by The Verge, the jury has sided with Apple, finding the company not guilty of harming consumers with anticompetitive practices.
In the class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that Apple had deliberately crippled third-party music services by locking iPods and iTunes to its own ecosystem, which in turn artificially raised the price of Apple's products. At issue was a specific iTunes 7.0 update that disabled the DRM workarounds put in place by RealNetworks, a competing music service, allowing its music to be played on the iPod.
Apple argued that the iTunes update in question was done mainly to improve the iTunes service rather shut down third-party music services, a point that the jury agreed with.
Delivering a unanimous verdict today, the group said Apple's iTunes 7.0, released in the fall of 2006, was a "genuine product improvement," meaning that new features (though importantly increased security) were good for consumers. Plaintiffs in the case unsuccessfully argued that those features not only thwarted competition, but also made Apple's products less useful since customers could not as easily use purchased music or jukebox software from other companies with the iPod.
During the trial, Apple also explained that its DRM efforts and the blocking of competing music services was done at the behest of record companies. According to Apple, its iTunes updates were designed to preserve deals and protect consumers from hackers and malicious content.
Apple executives like iTunes chief Eddy Cue and head of marketing Phil Schiller testified during the trial, and former Apple CEO Steve Jobs also had a large role, in the form of emails and a 2011 videotaped deposition that was shown in court.
The plaintiffs in the trial were asking for damages of $350 million, which could have gone up to $1 billion under antitrust law. Apple's victory means the company will not have to pay out any money at all.
Popular Stories
Apple is expected to announce iOS 18 during its WWDC keynote on June 10, and new features have already been rumored for many apps, including Apple Music, Apple Maps, Calculator, Messages, Notes, Safari, and others. Below, we recap iOS 18 rumors on a per-app basis, based on reports from MacRumors, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, and others: Apple Maps: At least two new Apple Maps features are...
With the 10th anniversary of the Apple Watch approaching, we thought it would be fun to take a look back at an interesting bit of Apple Watch history. After the Apple Watch was announced in 2014, and before it became available in 2015, Apple sent out custom Apple Watch iPad demo kiosks to retail stores. The Apple Watch and iPad units used for these devices were specially designed, had custom ...
While Apple's upcoming iPad Pro models have been expected to feature the M3 chip for over a year, recent reports have unexpectedly suggested that the new devices will instead feature the as-yet-unannounced M4 chip. Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos. Last week, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman said that he now believes there is a "strong possibility" that the upcoming iPad Pro ...
An in-depth Bloomberg report today resurfaced General Motors' decision to replace Apple CarPlay with its own software. Last year, GM announced that it planned to forgo Apple CarPlay in its new electric vehicles, starting with the 2024 Chevrolet Blazer EV. Instead, the automaker introduced a proprietary infotainment platform, aiming to control and customize the digital experience within its...
Just over six months ago, Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo said the likelihood of a new Apple Watch Ultra being released in 2024 was "decreasing," but it now sounds like there will be an Apple Watch Ultra 3 this year after all. In a direct message shared with MacRumors today, Kuo said that while the Apple Watch Ultra will be updated this year, the new model will have "almost no"...
Apple has announced it will be holding a special event on Tuesday, May 7 at 7 a.m. Pacific Time (10 a.m. Eastern Time), with a live stream to be available on Apple.com and on YouTube as usual. The event invitation has a tagline of "Let Loose" and shows an artistic render of an Apple Pencil, suggesting that iPads will be a focus of the event. Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more ...
Top Rated Comments
Sanity prevails, indeed.
The plaintiffs allege anti-competitive behavior by Apple. In the 2006 - 2008 period, Apple’s software prevented copying iTunes music content from the iPod to a 2nd computer, if the iPod had been already been connected (and backed up) to another computer via iTunes. If a user attempted to connect to a 2nd computer, a message appeared stating, “ … this device (iPod) was already associated with a computer … to connect with another computer, you must erase all content - click OK to continue …”. And the content was then erased. Oops!
Did this represent Apple’s attempt to prevent competing music on its devices, or other anticompetitive behavior? No - what really happened was that Apple had been told by the music industry (RIAA) to cease/desist rampant music piracy (copying to multiple devices). The RIAA was paranoid and considered the iPod to be the ultimate piracy device, with a huge 160 GB disk drive, allowing users to copy music to all their friends in an unlimited way. RIAA demanded that Apple remedy this by installing a method to prevent copying to more than one device.
Which Apple did - it had no choice. Given the nature of Apple’s business development and the nature of distributing massive software updates, the correction (software update to iPods and the iTunes software to satisfy the RIAA) was a bit clumsy. iTunes was modified so that the iPod could copy songs to only one computer, as demanded by the RIAA, and not to a 2nd computer. In certain situations (a customer bought a 2nd computer due to computer crash, or whatever), this resulted in inconvenience, or maybe the customer “lost” his music because it was erased when the iPod connected to a 2nd computer and had not been backed up properly. Predictably, some sued, and the lawsuit is still playing out. And this is all due to legal issues and the RIAA, not Apple’s anticompetitive behavior.
My take is that it represents predictable growing pains at the intersection of two huge industries - music and mobile/computer technology - in a period of rapid and disruptive change, complicated by the legal system. For sure, Apple wanted to change the way music was distributed and wrestle away the viselike grip that the big music distributors had on the music content providers and artists. This was embraced by customers - note that CD sales are way down, now that most people now buy music by software download or by paid streaming services instead of by CD purchases. Or cassette tapes or vinyl records, for that matter. To continue this rapid change theme, Apple’s iTunes music sales subsequently peaked and then declined as competitors entered the picture with another disruptive technology - streaming music: Beats Music, Google Play, iTunes, Pandora, Rdio, Spotify. Far from monopolizing all music sales, Apple’s actions to popularize online digital music distribution ultimately opened music distribution to many competitors, and Apple is playing catch-up with its purchase of Beats Music. In fact, Spotify is winning, not Apple, at the moment. Customers are getting all the music they want (and only what they want!) at lower prices. The old music distributors are fading away since they offer no value. And it’s harder for artists to command exorbitant fees, since it’s easier for newer (and lesser-paid) artists to enter the digital distribution scheme (at least in some cases, not all).
If you think about it, this lawsuit is a moot issue. Old news, now passed by by even newer technology and new competition. But the lawyers still want their millions, while allegedly “affected” customers each get 50 cents or so.
It's gratifying to see the jury side with Apple, not the class action lawyers, on this one.
Here is a link to more info if you are interested. It’s a video podcast by Leo Laporte. This issue starts at 2:50, goes for 4 minutes or so.
http://techguylabs.com/episodes/1141
I know this is the cost of doing business, but in my opinion the lawyers should have to pay Apple for a frivolous lawsuit. Think of all the effort Apple had to put into their defense. If the plaintiff's won, Apple would have been forced to pay lawyer fee's. It should go both ways.