I must be imagining playing music I bought from iTunes on my portable CD player. And anything I can play on a CD can be ripped to play on any other music player.

This lawsuit is just a side-effect of the illusion that digital rights management is anything but an illusion to satisfy the lawyers.

So wouldn't this make Napster-to go illegal?
It only works on Windows and it will only work with a couple of proprietary players.

And Napster music only plays on Napster compatible music players. So I guess they're next.

I have always thought to be the problem with Apple's firm grip on the iPod (and iTMS).

If you are an iPod owner who wants to buy music online, you can only buy through iTMS. That is absolutely anti-compeitive.

The telling moment was when Real released code that unlocked the iPod, enabling music purchased from a different source (Real's) to play on an iPod, and then Apple's immediate response.

I liken the whole situation to buying a car - an awesome car - but only being able to fill it up with BMW-brand gasoline that costs 20% more.

Spacefreak, what are you smoking? iTMS music doesn't cost 20% more, it's the same damn price.

Argue on facts, moron.

I can buy an iPod and use it's software (iTunes) or I can buy a Sony player and use their software.

I can buy a PC and use Windows or I can buy a Mac and use Mac OS X.

Where's the lack of competition? The only case for anti-competitive practices exists if you start splitting up the product into it's components.

Is anyone surprised that you can't put a GM transmission behind a Ford engine. Our Mercury is missing the badge on the trunk. I can't take the badge from the Nissan. It won't fit. Surely this is an anti-competitive practice on Mercury's part, deliberately designing their cars so competitors parts won't fit.

iTMS/iPod are one product just like Sony's player/online store combo. They are one product, one experience. PowerPC/Mac OS is one product too. Should Apple be forced to sell their computers sans OS? Should you have to pay for each iLife app separately (remember iTunes is an iLife app)? What about all the other apps that come on a new mac?

The courts have already ruled on this. This is just a case of a self appointed "consumer watchdog" seeking publicity.

Says it all really.

Apple will counter sue this freak (since Apple has already paid legal fees to fight this same battle) and win some extra revenue for the company.

"If you are an iPod owner who wants to buy music online, you can only buy through iTMS. That is absolutely anti-compeitive."

Several online music stores sell music that plays just fine on an iPod so the above statement isn't true. Granted DRMed music stores will not play on iPod but of course they also don't play on the Mac since MS, etc. hasn't made the needed libraries available on Mac OS X.

I expect this court case to be thrown out shortly because it is drawing an arbitrary line between components of a product.

Songs from ITMS play on up to 5 non Apple devices, so as long they run Win2000/XP. And soon those songs will play on many non-apple cell phones. Expect to see more playback capability in areas where Apple has no interest in building or selling hardware devices.