Um, every single non-Apple centric retail store that sold iPods also sold no-name shit MP3 players. Radio Shack, Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, Target, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Sears. And none of them appeared to have their prices fixed by Apple (I'm not sure why Apple would require Circuit City price a Coby MP3 player at $39).
Also, you could import your music into your iPod from ripped CDs, or any online source of industry standard MP3, AAC, AIFF, WAV (among other) formats. I also don't recall other stores having their prices for music set by Apple.
In fact, I'm having trouble making any sense of your post whatsoever.
Am I the only one which sees a difference between "not supporting" and "actively working against"?
There's a difference, but it doesn't change anything. Apple is under no obligation to keep from breaking Real's breaking of Apple's DRM. In fact, they are likely under contract to do so.
Apple never did anything to prevent Real from selling music to iPod owners in MP3, AAC, WAV, AIFF, or other officially supported formats. They just prevented Real from using Apple's own, proprietary DRM format. This is not illegally anti-competitive. If it is, please be sure to let GeoHot know. I imagine such a fact would be quite useful to him at the moment, where it actually true and not just geek fantasy.
Sure they can deliberately kill it on the iPod itself. Real circumvented Apple's DRM. Apple fixed their DRM. Your assertion that it's illegal to fix your own DRM is amazing.
Real can sell music for the iPod in supported formats all they want. Apple did nothing to stop this.
It's not about buying music from iTunes. It's about Apple killing music from a competing retailer on the iPod.
This assumes Apple has any obligation whatsoever to support third party DRM'd music stores on their iPod. I see no reason why that should be the case.
Anti-competitive business practices. It would be like the phone company refusing to let you use telephones made by anybody other than their own approved supplier. (which they tried to do before being bitch-slapped down).
Um, no. It was actually against the law to connect a non-approved phone to the Bell system. I'm unaware of any law which requires Apple to allow any apps be run on their phones. It's not illegal to only allow approved software on your platform. In fact, it's the industry standard in mobile phones, gaming consoles, and set top boxes.
They may not be under any obligation to actively support something, but specifically taking measures to change their customers' devices so that they can no longer purchase from Real is another thing entirely.
They didn't actively change their customers' devices. Their customers voluntarily updated their iPods.
The deliberate action to offer an update that breaks Real's DRM happened. No one has made a compelling argument that this is illegal.
This assumes Apple has any obligation whatsoever to support third party DRM'd music stores on their iPod. I see no reason why that should be the case.
Rephrased: This assumes Microsoft has any obligation whatsoever to support third party browsers on their Windows OS. I see no reason why that should be the case.
They don't have to support third party browsers on their Windows OS. Any jurisdiction (such as the EU, which has no bearing on a lawsuit in California) where they do have to do this, it's as a punishment (or in an attempt to avoid punishment) for past behavior, which would be a "reason why that should be the case" which applies to Microsoft and not to Apple.
Thanks for agreeing with me, but you really didn't have to rephrase my post in order to do so.
Leveraging a monopoly in one market (MP3 players) to gain a monopoly in another (online music stores) is a violation of antitrust law. The problem no longer exists, so damages will be limited, but if Real want to continue to pursue this based on the situation 5 years ago, then that is between them and the lawyers on both sides, who will likely be the only winners here.
They didn't have a monopoly in MP3 players, nor did they force people to buy music from iTunes.
That's not how the word "monopoly" works. If Microsoft was the only place to buy operating systems, it could be a monopoly. Just because some software is exclusive to one operating system does not make that operating system a monopoly.
Um, I'm not sure what point you think you are making, but your re-written post is actually quite correct.
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement).
No shit, Captain Obvious. iOS is Apple's product. This is them controlling their product. Controlling how your product works is not inherently monopolistic.
Are you actually reading what you wrote dumbass? You just said You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products, now you're saying it's them controlling there product and that's not inherently monopolistic. Well which is it?
That's why I used the quotation marks. 'A "monopoly"' is different from 'a monopoly'. Since you clearly need this spelled out: you are supposed to be able to be the sole supplier of your own products, but this isn't a monopoly as defined by antitrust law.
I think you're missing the point that having a monopoly isn't necessarily a bad thing it's when you leverage that monopoly in another market, which is what MS did (but Apple isn't), that it becomes a problem.
I never said anything about whether it's bad or not. Nor did I ever say simply having a monopoly is illegal. I'm not sure where you are getting these straw men from, but they are not from my words.
MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.
So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.
Um... IE comes bundled with Windows.
You haven't seen the 'ballot' or heard of the massive antitrust case the was brought on them? (of course it's EU)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.
Screwdrivers do not have DRM or security measures or license agreements. Your analogy makes no sense.
Of course screwdrivers don't have any of those things -- that's the point. Phones have no actual reason for them either, other than to allow manufacturers to be overly controlling and anti-competitive.
Phones that run software do have uses for these things. I can't believe you just stated that security and licenses are only there for "overly controlling and anti-competitive" purposes.
1. MS still distributes IE with Windows.
You didn't hear about the whole browser ballot thing? Microsoft is required to offer their competitors as an alternative. As in, the thing Apple is refusing to do with competitors' apps they deny.
Outside of the jurisdiction being discussed. I.e., it doesn't apply.
2. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in smartphones. They can't use their position to force Angry Birds, for example, to only run on iOS.
Sherman Act Section 2:
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony...
The iPhone is not "any part of the trade or commerce", it's a product. It's fucking insane to say a company or person can't control their own products.
I don't know what that means to a lawyer, but it sure sounds like you don't actually have to have a monopoly to violate it.
As for not being able to keep Angry Birds off of Android, that's not the problem. The problem is that they can keep Chrome off of iOS (or disadvantage it vs. Safari), or prohibit competing app stores for iPhone (thereby making Apple the exclusive distributor, with it's 30% cut), or prevent you from using Skype or Skype features in exchange for consideration from AT&T, on and on.
You still haven't explained why this should be illegal.
You do understand what "copyright" is, right? The copies of the code are being restricted. These copies are the result of the work of the upstream authors. The fruits of their labor are being closed. Presumably, they are fine with this, but acting like it's not happening is dishonest.
Yes, that is what can happen when you "give" physical property away. You lose control over what happens to it.
In other words, no, you don't know what copyright it. The GPL does not apply to physical things themselves.
The GPL is not really "giving" something away since it restrict what you can do with it. GPL is not really "free" software. It has very strict terms and conditions which I would argue violates the inherent "copyright" of contributors downstream. Those people have their rights limited by the GPL license because of the viral nature of the license. The fruits of their labour would still exists under a BSD license but they would not necessarily gain the fruits of the labour of others downstream unless if they also chose to give it away. The BSD license is about freedom of choice whereas the GPL is basically stealing the fruits of the labour of people downstream through force of the license rather than receiving it through goodwill sharing.
This is a bunch of religious bullshit. Neither is worse than the other, just different. Both are free licenses.
Also, your claim that the BSD license does not come with restrictions is complete fantasy. In your own words, "the GPL^wBSD License is not really "giving" something away since it restrict [sic] what you can do with it."
the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially
This is a gross mis-representation of GPLv3, and obfuscates the real basis of argument that Apple may have in conforming to the licensing terms.
Why the innuendo? Why not state exactly the thing you are alluding to?
Because it's not some sort of horrible thing. Not nearly as bad as the imaginary unstated thing could be.
The problem isn't the copyright effects, it's the patent effects. Apple has no problem making source code available (in fact, they are highly active in the open source world), because there's no fear of having to give up the copyright to software they either can't or simply don't want to give up. But patents have no such easy way to partition and can have much more severe business consequences.
He didn't say it was "more free", he said it wasn't bad.
BSD is more free, but does little to promote freedom itself. GPL is less free, but it more strongly promotes freedom. Neither is better than the other except when considered in specific contexts. If you ignore context and make a blanket statement about which is freer, you are making a religious argument.
You do understand what "copyright" is, right? The copies of the code are being restricted. These copies are the result of the work of the upstream authors. The fruits of their labor are being closed. Presumably, they are fine with this, but acting like it's not happening is dishonest.
They do not have any obligation to make 3rd party DRM work, but that isn't what the lawsuit is about. The issue is they apparently actively moved to break compatibility with Real's files, when they had the dominant music player on the market (~70%). If true, it is sketchy and a legal gray area, hence the lawsuit.
It's not a "sketchy gray area". Lawsuits don't imply this. They only imply a sufficiently valid dispute.
If the things which broke compatibility were bug fixes done without any thought to Real's service then Apple is in the clear. However if so much as a single email turns up which says "awesome, this fixes Bug #23912 and also keeps Real's tracks from working!" then the lawyers and both sides will go nuts and we won't know for years what the Real result will be.
Apple doesn't care if Real's tracks work. They only care that Real's tracks were not in a supported format. There's nothing illegal or shady about fixing your DRM when someone circumvents it. In fact, this is generally expected, and often legally required by contract.
I don't know that MS has to support third party browsers on Windows in the jurisdiction of the lawsuit in question, but if they do, it's due to reasons that do not exist in the iPod. They were found guilty of monopolistic practices far more egregious than just updating their firmware to fix security flaws in their DRM.
How many browsers do they have on the Xbox 360? There's nothing inherent about having a software platform that legally requires you support third party software.
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
I think you're confusing "their own products" with everything in the entire world that can be used with their products. Sears has a "monopoly" on Craftsman screw drivers. They don't have a monopoly on screws that can be used with Craftsman screw drivers.
Screwdrivers do not have DRM or security measures or license agreements. Your analogy makes no sense.
There are much better analogies, like video game consoles, which have even more stringent restrictions than iOS. This shouldn't be a surprise to readers of a nerd-oriented site like Slashdot.
And if they tried to leverage their strong market position in screw drivers to monopolize the market for screws, well, did you see what happened when Microsoft included Internet Explorer with Windows? And Microsoft didn't even try to prohibit you from using other browsers.
Two problems here:
1. MS still distributes IE with Windows. 2. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in smartphones. They can't use their position to force Angry Birds, for example, to only run on iOS.
Apple has no more a "monopoly" over iOS than Safeway has over what they carry on their store. It's also just as "artificial" (there's nothing inherent about the land upon which Safeway builds there stores that gives them a "monopoly" over its use).
If you aren't allowed to control your own products and offer them under your own terms, within a reasonable legal framework, what's the point of proprietary products in the first place?
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement).
No shit, Captain Obvious. iOS is Apple's product. This is them controlling their product. Controlling how your product works is not inherently monopolistic.
MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.
So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.
No, I meant what I wrote and didn't intend to blame the RIAA in any way. Apple's music contract was with each individual label, and has absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, every single non-Apple centric retail store that sold iPods also sold no-name shit MP3 players. Radio Shack, Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, Target, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Sears. And none of them appeared to have their prices fixed by Apple (I'm not sure why Apple would require Circuit City price a Coby MP3 player at $39).
Also, you could import your music into your iPod from ripped CDs, or any online source of industry standard MP3, AAC, AIFF, WAV (among other) formats. I also don't recall other stores having their prices for music set by Apple.
In fact, I'm having trouble making any sense of your post whatsoever.
Am I the only one which sees a difference between "not supporting" and "actively working against"?
There's a difference, but it doesn't change anything. Apple is under no obligation to keep from breaking Real's breaking of Apple's DRM. In fact, they are likely under contract to do so.
Apple never did anything to prevent Real from selling music to iPod owners in MP3, AAC, WAV, AIFF, or other officially supported formats. They just prevented Real from using Apple's own, proprietary DRM format. This is not illegally anti-competitive. If it is, please be sure to let GeoHot know. I imagine such a fact would be quite useful to him at the moment, where it actually true and not just geek fantasy.
Sure they can deliberately kill it on the iPod itself. Real circumvented Apple's DRM. Apple fixed their DRM. Your assertion that it's illegal to fix your own DRM is amazing.
Real can sell music for the iPod in supported formats all they want. Apple did nothing to stop this.
It's not about buying music from iTunes. It's about Apple killing music from a competing retailer on the iPod.
This assumes Apple has any obligation whatsoever to support third party DRM'd music stores on their iPod. I see no reason why that should be the case.
Anti-competitive business practices. It would be like the phone company refusing to let you use telephones made by anybody other than their own approved supplier. (which they tried to do before being bitch-slapped down).
Um, no. It was actually against the law to connect a non-approved phone to the Bell system. I'm unaware of any law which requires Apple to allow any apps be run on their phones. It's not illegal to only allow approved software on your platform. In fact, it's the industry standard in mobile phones, gaming consoles, and set top boxes.
They may not be under any obligation to actively support something, but specifically taking measures to change their customers' devices so that they can no longer purchase from Real is another thing entirely.
They didn't actively change their customers' devices. Their customers voluntarily updated their iPods.
The deliberate action to offer an update that breaks Real's DRM happened. No one has made a compelling argument that this is illegal.
This assumes Apple has any obligation whatsoever to support third party DRM'd music stores on their iPod. I see no reason why that should be the case.
Rephrased: This assumes Microsoft has any obligation whatsoever to support third party browsers on their Windows OS. I see no reason why that should be the case.
They don't have to support third party browsers on their Windows OS. Any jurisdiction (such as the EU, which has no bearing on a lawsuit in California) where they do have to do this, it's as a punishment (or in an attempt to avoid punishment) for past behavior, which would be a "reason why that should be the case" which applies to Microsoft and not to Apple.
Thanks for agreeing with me, but you really didn't have to rephrase my post in order to do so.
Leveraging a monopoly in one market (MP3 players) to gain a monopoly in another (online music stores) is a violation of antitrust law. The problem no longer exists, so damages will be limited, but if Real want to continue to pursue this based on the situation 5 years ago, then that is between them and the lawyers on both sides, who will likely be the only winners here.
They didn't have a monopoly in MP3 players, nor did they force people to buy music from iTunes.
That's not how the word "monopoly" works. If Microsoft was the only place to buy operating systems, it could be a monopoly. Just because some software is exclusive to one operating system does not make that operating system a monopoly.
Um, I'm not sure what point you think you are making, but your re-written post is actually quite correct.
MS never got in trouble for having a monopoly.
I never said 100% (neither directly nor indirectly) was required for a monopoly. Sorry you had to waste your time looking up things on Wikipedia.
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement).
No shit, Captain Obvious. iOS is Apple's product. This is them controlling their product. Controlling how your product works is not inherently monopolistic.
Are you actually reading what you wrote dumbass? You just said You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products, now you're saying it's them controlling there product and that's not inherently monopolistic. Well which is it?
That's why I used the quotation marks. 'A "monopoly"' is different from 'a monopoly'. Since you clearly need this spelled out: you are supposed to be able to be the sole supplier of your own products, but this isn't a monopoly as defined by antitrust law.
I think you're missing the point that having a monopoly isn't necessarily a bad thing it's when you leverage that monopoly in another market, which is what MS did (but Apple isn't), that it becomes a problem.
I never said anything about whether it's bad or not. Nor did I ever say simply having a monopoly is illegal. I'm not sure where you are getting these straw men from, but they are not from my words.
MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.
So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.
Um... IE comes bundled with Windows.
You haven't seen the 'ballot' or heard of the massive antitrust case the was brought on them? (of course it's EU)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.
Screwdrivers do not have DRM or security measures or license agreements. Your analogy makes no sense.
Of course screwdrivers don't have any of those things -- that's the point. Phones have no actual reason for them either, other than to allow manufacturers to be overly controlling and anti-competitive.
Phones that run software do have uses for these things. I can't believe you just stated that security and licenses are only there for "overly controlling and anti-competitive" purposes.
1. MS still distributes IE with Windows.
You didn't hear about the whole browser ballot thing? Microsoft is required to offer their competitors as an alternative. As in, the thing Apple is refusing to do with competitors' apps they deny.
Outside of the jurisdiction being discussed. I.e., it doesn't apply.
2. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in smartphones. They can't use their position to force Angry Birds, for example, to only run on iOS.
Sherman Act Section 2:
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony ...
The iPhone is not "any part of the trade or commerce", it's a product. It's fucking insane to say a company or person can't control their own products.
I don't know what that means to a lawyer, but it sure sounds like you don't actually have to have a monopoly to violate it.
As for not being able to keep Angry Birds off of Android, that's not the problem. The problem is that they can keep Chrome off of iOS (or disadvantage it vs. Safari), or prohibit competing app stores for iPhone (thereby making Apple the exclusive distributor, with it's 30% cut), or prevent you from using Skype or Skype features in exchange for consideration from AT&T, on and on.
You still haven't explained why this should be illegal.
You do understand what "copyright" is, right? The copies of the code are being restricted. These copies are the result of the work of the upstream authors. The fruits of their labor are being closed. Presumably, they are fine with this, but acting like it's not happening is dishonest.
Yes, that is what can happen when you "give" physical property away. You lose control over what happens to it.
In other words, no, you don't know what copyright it. The GPL does not apply to physical things themselves.
The GPL is not really "giving" something away since it restrict what you can do with it. GPL is not really "free" software. It has very strict terms and conditions which I would argue violates the inherent "copyright" of contributors downstream. Those people have their rights limited by the GPL license because of the viral nature of the license. The fruits of their labour would still exists under a BSD license but they would not necessarily gain the fruits of the labour of others downstream unless if they also chose to give it away. The BSD license is about freedom of choice whereas the GPL is basically stealing the fruits of the labour of people downstream through force of the license rather than receiving it through goodwill sharing.
This is a bunch of religious bullshit. Neither is worse than the other, just different. Both are free licenses.
Also, your claim that the BSD license does not come with restrictions is complete fantasy. In your own words, "the GPL^wBSD License is not really "giving" something away since it restrict [sic] what you can do with it."
This is a gross mis-representation of GPLv3, and obfuscates the real basis of argument that Apple may have in conforming to the licensing terms.
Why the innuendo? Why not state exactly the thing you are alluding to?
Because it's not some sort of horrible thing. Not nearly as bad as the imaginary unstated thing could be.
The problem isn't the copyright effects, it's the patent effects. Apple has no problem making source code available (in fact, they are highly active in the open source world), because there's no fear of having to give up the copyright to software they either can't or simply don't want to give up. But patents have no such easy way to partition and can have much more severe business consequences.
GPL is bad.
Bullshit.
Bullshit. BSD license is much more free than GPL.
He didn't say it was "more free", he said it wasn't bad.
BSD is more free, but does little to promote freedom itself. GPL is less free, but it more strongly promotes freedom. Neither is better than the other except when considered in specific contexts. If you ignore context and make a blanket statement about which is freer, you are making a religious argument.
You do understand what "copyright" is, right? The copies of the code are being restricted. These copies are the result of the work of the upstream authors. The fruits of their labor are being closed. Presumably, they are fine with this, but acting like it's not happening is dishonest.
You're either for software freedom or your not. GPL restricts what you can, therefor is not free.
That's what's known as a false dichotomy.
Having a single primary rule (with a small set of rules designed to support that rule) does not make you a dictator.
They do not have any obligation to make 3rd party DRM work, but that isn't what the lawsuit is about. The issue is they apparently actively moved to break compatibility with Real's files, when they had the dominant music player on the market (~70%). If true, it is sketchy and a legal gray area, hence the lawsuit.
It's not a "sketchy gray area". Lawsuits don't imply this. They only imply a sufficiently valid dispute.
If the things which broke compatibility were bug fixes done without any thought to Real's service then Apple is in the clear. However if so much as a single email turns up which says "awesome, this fixes Bug #23912 and also keeps Real's tracks from working!" then the lawyers and both sides will go nuts and we won't know for years what the Real result will be.
Apple doesn't care if Real's tracks work. They only care that Real's tracks were not in a supported format. There's nothing illegal or shady about fixing your DRM when someone circumvents it. In fact, this is generally expected, and often legally required by contract.
I don't know that MS has to support third party browsers on Windows in the jurisdiction of the lawsuit in question, but if they do, it's due to reasons that do not exist in the iPod. They were found guilty of monopolistic practices far more egregious than just updating their firmware to fix security flaws in their DRM.
How many browsers do they have on the Xbox 360? There's nothing inherent about having a software platform that legally requires you support third party software.
Um, who was it that ran the software update on your iPod?
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
I think you're confusing "their own products" with everything in the entire world that can be used with their products. Sears has a "monopoly" on Craftsman screw drivers. They don't have a monopoly on screws that can be used with Craftsman screw drivers.
Screwdrivers do not have DRM or security measures or license agreements. Your analogy makes no sense.
There are much better analogies, like video game consoles, which have even more stringent restrictions than iOS. This shouldn't be a surprise to readers of a nerd-oriented site like Slashdot.
And if they tried to leverage their strong market position in screw drivers to monopolize the market for screws, well, did you see what happened when Microsoft included Internet Explorer with Windows? And Microsoft didn't even try to prohibit you from using other browsers.
Two problems here:
1. MS still distributes IE with Windows.
2. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in smartphones. They can't use their position to force Angry Birds, for example, to only run on iOS.
Apple has no more a "monopoly" over iOS than Safeway has over what they carry on their store. It's also just as "artificial" (there's nothing inherent about the land upon which Safeway builds there stores that gives them a "monopoly" over its use).
If you aren't allowed to control your own products and offer them under your own terms, within a reasonable legal framework, what's the point of proprietary products in the first place?
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.
He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement).
No shit, Captain Obvious. iOS is Apple's product. This is them controlling their product. Controlling how your product works is not inherently monopolistic.
MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.
So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.
Um... IE comes bundled with Windows.
No, I meant what I wrote and didn't intend to blame the RIAA in any way. Apple's music contract was with each individual label, and has absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA.