Real Worried About Apple Lawsuits

sebFlyte writes "silicon.com is reporting that Real is very worried that Apple will sue it over its Harmony technology that 'breaks' iTunes' FairPlay DRM to allow its music to play on the iPod. They acknowledged in an SEC filing that a lawsuit from Apple would potentially be very damaging to the company's bottom line, as it accepts that a court might not agree that the reverse-engineering is legal."

Comments

and Apple should be worried about the Beatles

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking 20 year old contracts binding you not to get involved in music won't be good for the bottom line either

but hey lawsuits is what America likes doing !, the legal industry is the biggest cash contributers in the world to American politics so nothing is going to change until everyone is either dead or in court

see you in court or hell !

Oh boohoo

[mikeophile]

Anyone remember Streambox?

I don't think Real was whining about the DMCA then.

You've got to be kidding

[geekee]

"Apple built a product (iTunes + iPod) that a lot of consumers love (marketshare speaks much louder than OGG support, open-ness, etc.), and Real wants a piece of that because very few are using their service. Why is it that we think just because it involves a computer or teh intarweb that it should all be fair game (or fair play, to pull a pun)?"

So then you must agree that it's good for Microsoft to use closed file formats for Office and that Lexmark should be able to sue competitors for refilling their ink cartridges. Also, cracking the DVD encrpytion scheme to make a Linux DVD player must be wrong too.

"If I create a product that is easier to use, looks good, and appeals to more consumers than everyone else's product, why should I have to share? I mean, if in the mean time I was running around telling the music companies that they could only use my service or could get some sort of incentive to not allow other services (i.e., the allegations behind much of the Wintel monopoly) that'd be one thing, but it appears that nothing of that sort happened."

Apple shouldn't be required to share, but if someone reverse engineers their product to make something that is compatible, do you really believe Apple should have legal grounds to sue?

Re:wow....Wrong statement of law ... Asteroids

[ziani]

" . . . it is every company's responsibility, in fact under the law, to state all possibilities that may negatively affect a business, however remote those possibilities may be."

Not quite. It is every company's responsibility to state all facts that a reasonable investor might consider important in deciding whether to invest.

The required level of disclosure is certainly something less than "all possibilities . . . however remote [they] may be." Under this type of standard, a company would have to disclose the possibility of an asteroid hitting the corporate headquarters, or the possibility of the CEO's having a heart attack and an infinite number of other "possibilities".

To be fair (and at the risk of stating the obvious), Real's disclosure is right on the money. Given the current state of the law and the spectre of even a threatened DMCA action, any new technology that requires reverse engineering (especially one that goes straight for Apple's market) makes its author vulnerable, and disclosure in this case is warranted.