iTunes: Not A Monopoly

The judge should also fine her and her lawyers, and have them pay Apple's legal fees for just showing up.

Something really needs to be done in this country about these nuisance lawsuits. It's a complete waste of productivity, and taxes (to pay for more judges and courts).

Microsoft's monopoly has allowed it to raise prices on it's OS to ridiculous levels. We are talking software here. MS ships a single master to manufacturers who then copy it to millions of hard drives, so the laws of supply and demand don't apply here. Look at the margins it is getting selling software, to the point where it can cover losses in half a dozen mulitibillion dollar attempts to enter other businesses. What does a copy of Vista Ultimate cost? How about Office? Now, what do competing operating systems and office packages cost? Is Ms. Somers overlooking the bigger fish for a reason?

This is one of the lamest tech lawsuits I've ever seen! What an anti-Apple, Microsoft-siding, no-good person Somers is. :p
APPLE WILL PREVAIL!!!

Nice hypocrisy there. Were it Microsoft who made the iPod and Apple who made the Zune, you'd be singing a different tune. Your defense of Apple's practices are the same ones Microsoft uses regarding its bundling of Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player.

Microsoft is being forced to give away its intellectual property. If it's theft when it happens to Apple, then it's theft when it happens to Microsoft.

And thus, if Microsoft is a monopoly, then so is Apple.

You don't get to have it both ways.

the case should go no where. all apple support formats are free and open standard that any company can use as you pointed out in the article. Somers is arguing that apple is a monopoly because it doesn't support a closed proprietary format infected with anti-consumer DRM. Its laughable...

Dollar to doughnut says the complaints gets amended to a bundling issue. In the Microsoft decisions, both the trial judge and the appeals court cited bundling as Microsoft's real crime.

Apple will either argue that (1) iTunes and iPod is not a tying arrangement, or (2) rule of reason. Apple must show you can use a different music file management software other than iTunes with your iPod, or you can use a different MP3 player with iTunes.

In rule of reason, Apple's lawyers will argue that Apple has a good reason for what they did. Many organizing bodies such as the NCAA and the Boy Scout argue rule of reason for rules that restrict conduct.

I bet Apple settles by giving every iPod owner $10 credits good only for iTunes.

Good luck, Apple.

I wish we knew the backstory. To know Ms. Somers' motives behind the suit would be most interesting. However, I doubt she concerned about general consumer rights, maintaining a competitive market. Litigation is expensive, slow, and unpredictable (you have a good chance of getting nothing for your money spent on lawyers, or even paying out). Which is why most lawsuits go to settlement. I suspect Ms. Somers and her lawyers are hoping for some payday, wherein Apple decides it's cheaper to settle rather than to litigate the issue. It won't be the first time a rich company with a reasonable legal defense has paid a gnat to go a way instead. Of course Apple may choose to do so because of the broader principles involved which go beyond music (like being forced to buy a license from a competitor).

Let's not forget that the fact that "Plays for sure" and Zune DRM only work under Windows. Both Apple and Real have proven DRM schemes can be multi-platform, yet Microsoft still wants to tie content to their operating system. What's the justification for that, except of course to make sure people stay locked to Windows?

You wanna talk about consumer lock-in... Zune locks the content to the player, the jukebox software, the online store and the operating system.

Somers has to be a mifia$oft stooge. Someone should investigate her background as to where she is getting the $$$ to do this....when you find where the money is coming from, you will find out what she is really all about.

Somers's case should be dismissed.

AND she should be forced to pay Apple's legal expenses for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Actually, AAC must be licensed from the MPEG-LA group, and it is not free. It is, however, relatively cheap... much cheaper than licensing Windows Media Audio, for example (gasps in shock).

I guess as Craig Birksmith Managing Director of Afresh Solution. Said a Monoploy is hard to break into pieces, when a controlling company has the monoply in the market, customer a stuck of which they will now pay a preium prices.

i luv this country

It seems that everyone wants a piece of the goose that laid the SUCCESSFUL GOLDEN EGG FOR ITS SHAREHOLDERS. Why don't they just buy AAPL shares???? MORONS!!!!!!

Spot on!

Apple are doing what they needed to to build the digital download market and, if anything, have loosened their model by convincing EMI to sell DRM-free on iTunes Plus.

A better example of a monopolistic tie-in would be Universal & Warner trying to ascert market control by supplying DRM-free MP3 tracks to Amazon and only DRM-enabled tracks to iTunes. When the general public finally realise MP3(MPEG-1 audio) is two generations older than AAC (MPEG-4 audio) and they're being sold old technology will there be the same outcry?

McD

I agree with your article and its conclusions but remember, judges are not all that smart and this one may allow her to waste more money and time for everyone involved.

You bloggers demand "free speech" via posting uncensored text blogs yet you censor responses to them or don't post them saying that they are offensive. How do you respond to offensive bloggers that try to demonize people like Steve Jobs. A lot of those bloggers are Microsoft lackies or?? doing guerrilla war-ware on competitors. How about some free speech for us offender shareholders? You are ALL a bunch of manipulating hypocrites.