Jury Says Apple DRM Not An Antitrust Violation
from the which-is-probably-right dept
We've written a few times about the long-standing class action lawsuit against Apple over whether its DRM efforts, designed to block out RealNetworks' attempt to reverse engineer a way into the iPod, violated antitrust law. As we noted recently, despite the case going on for years, the class action lawyers who brought the lawsuit ran into a bit of a stumbling block recently when it came out that none of the named plaintiffs were actually in the class, having purchased iPods outside the window which the class covered. The judge let the lawyers find a new plaintiff just a few days ago, but it certainly looks like the rotating plaintiffs issue may have helped Apple. The jury wasted little time in siding with Apple and saying that there was no antitrust violation. Apple's lawyers played up the plaintiff problem:“There’s not one piece of evidence of a single individual who lost a single song, not even a complaint about it,” said William Isaacson, Apple’s lead lawyer in the case. “This is all made up at this point.”There was a lot of interesting side notes to this case, but the failure of the class action lawyers to have an actual plaintiff was a pretty big deal -- and basically made it clear that these lawyers were just in this for the money, rather than to right some sort of wrong.
And, while I'm generally interested in the idea that DRM could potentially be seen as anti-competitive, the fact that this case was about iTunes and RealNetworks kind of highlights how infrequently antitrust law makes sense in the tech industry. The entire digital music ecosystem has changed dramatically since the case began. While iTunes is certainly still a big player, it's facing serious competition on a variety of different fronts including from streaming services like Spotify (one reason why Apple purchased Beats Music). Competition comes in all different ways, and even if you're dominant today, it doesn't mean you'll be dominant very long.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, class action lawsuits, drm, innovation, ipods, technology
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It an improvement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fairly disappointed
Sure, nobody got harmed directly by this case, but only because using a non-iTunes service to try and invade Apple's walled garden was a mug's game in the first place. It still is, for the most part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fairly disappointed
There were, and still are, other portable MP3 player options on the market. That would only be a chilling effect if the ipod is the only available one. And it obviously isn't. In fact I have literally never owned one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fairly disappointed
The only thing that really stopped it is the fact that the MPAA realized that they were having an IBM moment an they need to kill off their version of Microsoft.
The upstream content cartel reacted so badly to the idea of a downstream distribution monopoly that they got rid of DRM entirely.
This case is only obsolete because another entrenched interest decided things needed to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
flacftw
hint: less is not more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: because using a non-iTunes service
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The consumer trusts the corporation to not screw them over and then what does the corporation do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
voir dire insufficiency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]