11/07/2007, 12:25pm, EST
Wednesday, November 7th
Apple sued over iPod/iTunes 'monopoly'
Apple's legal woes are being compounded by a newly-launched class-action lawsuit, court documents reveal. A 19-page filing was originally submitted to a Florida court in August, but the case is just now seeing the light of day after having been moved to the US District Court for the Southern District of California. The venue change was requested by Apple, which argued that similar cases have been pending in the California court for more than two years. The latest incarnation was brought about by Floridian Frederick Black, who alleges that he and other state residents have been made victims of Apple's music DRM protections, according to AppleInsider.
The difficulty is that while iPods can play non-Apple music, and DRM-free tracks are available via iTunes Plus, shoppers who buy standard tracks from iTunes will find they cannot load the tracks on other music players. Black claims that this violates Florida's Antitrust and Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Acts, since people switching from one iPod must either buy another or repurchase their music collections elsewhere.
Alternatively, says Black, Apple could choose to finally license its Fairplay DRM scheme to other companies, or incorporate support for Microsoft's Windows Media format into its own technology. Should that not be appealing, an unspecified, industry-wide copy protection scheme could be adopted.
Apple is further accused of using underhanded tactics, such as intentionally disabling the little-known Windows Media support on earlier iPods, or using its economic clout to influence third-party content providers. "[Apple], by controlling such a large part of the portable digital media player market, the online music market and the online video market, maintains sufficient economic power in these markets to control consumer pricing in these markets, which has resulted in consumers paying higher prices," reads Black's filing.
The company is a monopoly in digital media, says the lawsuit, actively excluding competitors from the industry. Should Black win his case, he would be granted damages of at least $15,000, and possibly triple that, plus legal fees and relief suggested by the court. A jury is being requested.
Filed under: Apple
, 
, 28
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
Top
subscribe to comments
for this article
If you don't like what Apple is doing, buy that really cool new Zune 2, I promise there won't be any lines, or people to share music with for that matter...
One last comment, just to be rude... Mr Frederick Black, when you look in the toilet after you take #2, does it look similar to a mirror?
damn it. it's on the tip of my tongue!!
dwoodruff is 100% correct
Monopoly - a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity.
So no one else sells mp3's online? No one else sells MP3 players? No one can use mp3's on the iPod? There is no way to get iTunes AAC music on other mp3 players??
yea.. no monopoly here...
If this suit contends that Apple did not use the "right" DRM, then it is mighty thin indeed. There is no precedent for that, and none likely to emerge.
I predict a hasty dismissal.
With the growing number of DRM-free files on iTMS he might also find himself looking stupid by the time it actually comes to court. Notably (and this is where I think this is a shill case), removing DRM was not on the list of suggested options.
I do like the idea of making it an industry specified standard though (like CCS on DVD, or MPEG). Because that's actually the last thing the RIAA want (an intractable technical problem landing on their doorstep).
Some wacky HDCP style scheme keeping music digital all the way to decoder chips locked inside your sealed speakers? Somehow I don't think so.
Perhaps if the arguement actually changed or even had the most minute shred of logical sense to it, then it would be worth putting up. However, it still doesn't on both counts. Please keep the trash news off the feeds. Thanks.
just once, I wish MacNN would tell me how the judge had to take a 10 min recess after opening statements cause he was laughing so hard..