Federal lawsuit over iTunes/iPod monopoly

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

The problem is if I own some iTunes music then the only player it will work with is an ipod.

Exactly. The real problem here is that the iPod has 85% marketshare, and Apple is keeping other music services from producing paid music content that's compatible with the iPod. Worse yet, if you DO buy another MP3 player, Apple makes it extremely difficult for non-technical people to transfer their purchased content to another MP3 player. Hmm... Sounds like an abuse of monopoly power to me!

Let's put it this way... If Microsoft forced all Windows XP users to buy their music from Windows Media Player in order to play it on their PC's, how do you think the other music sellers would react to that?

Extremely diffucult for non-technincal people? I mean, how technical is it to burn your downloded itunes music file to a cd? How technical can ripping that cd back to your computer be? Not that technical in my opinion.

And yes, Apple is keeping other services from using the Itunes Music store. They developed the Itunes Music store in order to support the Ipod. They are not just going to let other companies piggyback. Its kinda like how nintendo is offering the option to download old nintendo games to the wii for a price. Nintendo is not going to let microsoft or sony have acess to its network of games for free. Nope, nada, not going to happen.

Apple releases a product that kicks ass, dominates the market, and then gets a lot of sh!t for this. They get in trouble for using proprietary DRM designed for their product.

Sony releases idiotic products that use proprietary storage *cough*Sony MS*cough* that goes through like 10 different formats like MS, MS Pro, MS Pro Duo, MS Pro Duo Micro M2, blah blah blah blah blah. Yea tell me I'm pissed that my Sony Ericsson W810i is now succeeded by a K800i that uses M2 storage and not Pro Duo. Oh noz. SD Card makers should be crying too, but too bad Sony products really suck and they can't really dominate much of the market (ok I love their phones, but pretty much everything else they have is teh suck).

 

[ElFenix]

the offense of monopoly has 2 elements:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market (i.e. having a monopoly)
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.

it's going to be hard for apple to show that they don't have a monopoly in mp3 players.

the real fight for them is to show that anyone can go down to best buy and get music on CD that will work on their player, and that CDs are a sufficient competitor to online music sales. the reason this is important is because they might get slapped with the essential facilities tag, that for a competitor's product to be viable, it has to be usable with apple's essential facility. any easy way to visualize the problem is with long distance-local interconnects. obviously, it does no good to create a long distance system if you can't hook it to the local interconnects.



and the ps2 sold 110 million units to xbox's 20 million units and gamecube's 20 million units. that's 73%.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the offense of monopoly has 2 elements:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market (i.e. having a monopoly)
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.

it's going to be hard for apple to show that they don't have a monopoly in mp3 players.

the real fight for them is to show that anyone can go down to best buy and get music on CD that will work on their player, and that CDs are a sufficient competitor to online music sales. the reason this is important is because they might get slapped with the essential facilities tag, that for a competitor's product to be viable, it has to be usable with apple's essential facility. any easy way to visualize the problem is with long distance-local interconnects. obviously, it does no good to create a long distance system if you can't hook it to the local interconnects.



and the ps2 sold 110 million units to xbox's 20 million units and gamecube's 20 million units. that's 73%.

Bingo,
the first step in an antitrust case is to define a market that you're in. Apple will try their hardest to argue they're in the portable music player market (or something even broader) and DoJ will argue for DRM-compliant mp3 players (or mp3 players as whole, ipod has a huge market share).

Are you a law student?

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Hacp
To close my arguement, I need to say this. Think of who is really losing out. No, it is not the customers. It is the music industry. The music industry has already stated that they want a tiered download service, where for example, popular songs would be downloaded for a higher price, lets say 2 dollars, while less popular songs would be downloaded for 50 cents.

The thing keeping the industry from doing this is apple. Apple right now does have a comanding marketshare in both the mp3 player market, and the online download industry. If the music companies piss apple off, then alot of their sales will be lost. But, if they get apple to cave in, they can start freely charging higher prices.

Lets not pretend the music industry won't do this. They are basically an oligopoly afterall.

As an iPod owner, I'd like the ability to use a subscription music service like Napster or Yahoo Music Engine on my iPod. Apple won't let me do that, so I'm definitely losing out as a customer.

Besides, if you get enough competition between the music services, the prices for online music downloads will probably go down instead of up. That's just basic supply and demand .

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Please someone tell me....how in any possible way is the ipod a monopoly. Its a music player that uses a propietary music format and software. Nothing wrong with that. The consumer has the option to buy from over 100 diffrent kinds of players (many that are better) and use many diffrent sources to buy their music from. They have the market share obviously, but thats because they did a wonderful job marketing and have a solid product with a lot of accesories that everyone already have.

The problem is if I own some iTunes music then the only player it will work with is an ipod.

Unless you, *GASP*, rip the music to a cd and rip it back to your computer. I mean who would have ever thought to do that?

And then have to deal with the loss of quality issues? I think that is not an acceptable substitute for having your DRMed music work on whatever portable player you buy.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: halik
Bingo,
the first step in an antitrust case is to define a market that you're in. Apple will try their hardest to argue they're in the portable music player market (or something even broader) and DoJ will argue for DRM-compliant mp3 players (or mp3 players as whole, ipod has a huge market share).

Are you a law student?

i was a law student.

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

As an iPod owner, I'd like the ability to use a subscription music service like Napster or Yahoo Music Engine on my iPod. Apple won't let me do that, so I'm definitely losing out as a customer.

Besides, if you get enough competition between the music services, the prices for online music downloads will probably go down instead of up. That's just basic supply and demand .

iirc, apple wasn't making money off itms, the record companies were. if that is still the case, you're probably not going to see prices falling with competition, as the prices are already at the most competitive levels.

i think the 'losing out as a consumer' argument is full of crap, as you knew of the restrictions going into it and still bought an ipod when there were plenty of other choices. that's just my opinion, though.

 

[Tom]

Having a huge market share has absolutely nothing to do with establishing that a company is a monopoly. You have to establish a lack of alternatives, and there's no legal basis for saying Apple has a monopoly on portable digital music players.

It's akin to arguing that McDonalds has a monopoly on hamburgers because they are the only place you can get a Big Mac.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Tom
Having a huge market share has absolutely nothing to do with establishing that a company is a monopoly. You have to establish a lack of alternatives, and there's no legal basis for saying Apple has a monopoly on portable digital music players.

It's akin to arguing that McDonalds has a monopoly on hamburgers because they are the only place you can get a Big Mac.

what are you talking about? you can't establish monopoly without a very large market share in this country (in the EU you might be able to). so yes, it is integral to the finding of monopoly.


and the big mac isn't a relevant market anyway.

 

[episodic]

Ok all of the people supporting the monopoly thing - how come (in the United States) - Microsoft hasn't been broken up? I know about Europe - but I'm talking the United States. By your definitions - Windows is definately a monopoly

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: episodic
Ok all of the people supporting the monopoly thing - how come (in the United States) - Microsoft hasn't been broken up? I know about Europe - but I'm talking the United States. By your definitions - Windows is definately a monopoly

Windows was ruled to be an illegal monoploy. THey where not broken up because bush was elected.

 

[Scorpion2k6]

I am sorry but, I do not see iTunes as a Monopoly... Granted yes they control over 75% of the legal music, and Videos. But there are several other alternative to iTunes. Napster for (cough, crap), or there is the legal version of Limewire, or all the other ones out there... But there is no way that iTunes is a monopoly... That is like saying that Adobe is one for their Photoshop or for Acrobat, cause up until MS come out with their version, they are the only ones out there that with 95% market share. Do you see them being sued for that. NO! Now I know that is like comparing apples to oranges, but that is the only things that I can think of at the moment. LOL... But I do no how MS can have a 85% Web Browser Market Share, and not be nailed for Monopoly, or how about their 96% Desktop Market Share and wait still not a Monopoly? Or how about the Office 2000, XP, 2003, 2007, with 98.5% Monopoly (I am sorry there is no market share there)... That just sounds like some one like MS and not APPLE. So there are trying to give iTunes a blow to the market share... There is 25% share that apple does not control... So it is not a monopoly... If they still over 80% then it would be, but they don't, so it is not...

 

[L00ker]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the offense of monopoly has 2 elements:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market (i.e. having a monopoly)
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.

it's going to be hard for apple to show that they don't have a monopoly in mp3 players.

the real fight for them is to show that anyone can go down to best buy and get music on CD that will work on their player, and that CDs are a sufficient competitor to online music sales. the reason this is important is because they might get slapped with the essential facilities tag, that for a competitor's product to be viable, it has to be usable with apple's essential facility. any easy way to visualize the problem is with long distance-local interconnects. obviously, it does no good to create a long distance system if you can't hook it to the local interconnects.

(1)Why will it be hard to show that Apple doesn't have a monopoly? I am not attempting to sound like an ignorant ass here but as far as I can tell they don't have one on MP3 players, AAC players yes but MP3 players no. A large market share and support yes, but I don't think it's as one sided as the "Windows monopoly of 98'" Which was the there are other "options" but many aren't as viable, in the MP3 player arena, many are available and they all (generally) support MP3 (as does the iPod) so they are similarly viable. While many may not have as good an interface etc, thats part of how other companies chooses to develop their product and therefore shouldn't be Apple's problem.
(2) The only thing that Apple is maintaining as far as power is over the iTunes music format (AAC) however this is proprietary technology and therefore they aren't required (by any law I have heard of) to disclose this to anyone they don't wish to. Also it is well known that iTunes music (or other availables at the iTMS) is only available for use on the iPod or the computer it is downloaded to. Not other players, it again being proprietary in the first place how is this an issue?

As for your statements:
"anyone can go down to best buy and get music on CD that will work on their player, and that CDs are a sufficient competitor to online music sales"

The first part is true, anyone can use a CD to load songs onto their "player" (whether it be an iPod or other player is immaterial) however the second part is due to the pricing done by the store, which I fail to see how this is Apples issue? Apple/Record company sets the prices in the iTMS, they are competitive (somewhat) and the prices for cd's are generally higher, this is in part due to higher production cost (plastic for CD's etc albeit minor) but how CD's are priced I don't see as reasonably apples problem, I guess it would seem more reasonable IF iTunes and buying a CD worked the same way, i.e. you would have to purchase complete albums from iTunes (as opposed to individual songs) and the prices were similar to cd's. Lets assume they changed the iTunes model to do this for a moment and lets even further expand that to make the prices per cd on iTunes to be the same as in stores, I believe they would still enjoy a high success rate as the competitive nature of iTunes isn't the savings of buying stuff cheaper (in some cases) online but the portability, but when you buy iTunes music you agree to their terms of service:

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html

"4. System Requirements. Use of the Service requires a compatible device, Internet access (fees may apply), and certain software (fees may apply), and may require obtaining updates or upgrades from time to time. Because use of the Service involves hardware, software, and Internet access, your ability to use the Service may be affected by the performance of these factors."

"Compatible device" as defined by Merriam webster
Compatible:
designed to work with another device or system without modification; especially : being a computer designed to operate in the same manner and use the same software as another computer
Device: A piece of equipment or a mechanism designed to serve a special purpose or perform a special function <an electronic device>

This being the case iPod's are designed to work with iTunes primarily and secondarily MP3's. Furthermore iTunes lists the iPod as it's "compatible device" no other devices are considered "compatible" it further states that any attempt to circumvent this is a violation of your service agreement and therefore not supported etc...

IANAL But this lawsuit seems rather frivolous to me....

 

[Regs]

I was disappointed when I noticed I could not play my itune songs which I bought and paid for on windows media player. Though a online company that faces 1000 pee'd off publishers with strict contracts, I can imagine they have to show some duty of care with selling their product before they get sued.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Tom
Having a huge market share has absolutely nothing to do with establishing that a company is a monopoly. You have to establish a lack of alternatives, and there's no legal basis for saying Apple has a monopoly on portable digital music players.

It's akin to arguing that McDonalds has a monopoly on hamburgers because they are the only place you can get a Big Mac.

what are you talking about? you can't establish monopoly without a very large market share in this country (in the EU you might be able to). so yes, it is integral to the finding of monopoly.


and the big mac isn't a relevant market anyway.

Monopoly does not mean "majority of market share." There are plenty of alternative players.

Monopoly also does not mean "proprietary."

I don't see the problem. No one is forced to use an Ipod, or to use Itunes. And that's the key - in a monopoly you are forced to use a product. There is NOTHING stopping someone else from creating a rival player and rival distribution system that could be better than Itunes. Apple specifically, is doing nothing to stop another company from doing this. There are no barriers to entry into the digital music market that are caused by Apple.

As far as I'm concerned, Itunes + Ipod IS the product. It's like saying that GM has a monopoly on the automotive industry, because the LS1 engine can't easily be integrated into a Kia, and a Kia engine can't be easily integrated into a Corvette. This lawsuit is a bunch of malarkey and should be easily won by Apple.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Tom
Having a huge market share has absolutely nothing to do with establishing that a company is a monopoly. You have to establish a lack of alternatives, and there's no legal basis for saying Apple has a monopoly on portable digital music players.

It's akin to arguing that McDonalds has a monopoly on hamburgers because they are the only place you can get a Big Mac.

what are you talking about? you can't establish monopoly without a very large market share in this country (in the EU you might be able to). so yes, it is integral to the finding of monopoly.


and the big mac isn't a relevant market anyway.

Yes it is, it's almost exactly the same situation.

And market share is incidental to a monopoly, not determinative. What is determinative is a lack of alternatives, and that just isn't the case with the ipod, itunes, or the Big Mac.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: L00ker

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the offense of monopoly has 2 elements:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market (i.e. having a monopoly)
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.

it's going to be hard for apple to show that they don't have a monopoly in mp3 players.

the real fight for them is to show that anyone can go down to best buy and get music on CD that will work on their player, and that CDs are a sufficient competitor to online music sales. the reason this is important is because they might get slapped with the essential facilities tag, that for a competitor's product to be viable, it has to be usable with apple's essential facility. any easy way to visualize the problem is with long distance-local interconnects. obviously, it does no good to create a long distance system if you can't hook it to the local interconnects.

(1)Why will it be hard to show that Apple doesn't have a monopoly? I am not attempting to sound like an ignorant ass here but as far as I can tell they don't have one on MP3 players, AAC players yes but MP3 players no. A large market share and support yes, but I don't think it's as one sided as the "Windows monopoly of 98'" Which was the there are other "options" but many aren't as viable, in the MP3 player arena, many are available and they all (generally) support MP3 (as does the iPod) so they are similarly viable. While many may not have as good an interface etc, thats part of how other companies chooses to develop their product and therefore shouldn't be Apple's problem.
(2) The only thing that Apple is maintaining as far as power is over the iTunes music format (AAC) however this is proprietary technology and therefore they aren't required (by any law I have heard of) to disclose this to anyone they don't wish to. Also it is well known that iTunes music (or other availables at the iTMS) is only available for use on the iPod or the computer it is downloaded to. Not other players, it again being proprietary in the first place how is this an issue?

As for your statements:
"anyone can go down to best buy and get music on CD that will work on their player, and that CDs are a sufficient competitor to online music sales"

The first part is true, anyone can use a CD to load songs onto their "player" (whether it be an iPod or other player is immaterial) however the second part is due to the pricing done by the store, which I fail to see how this is Apples issue? Apple/Record company sets the prices in the iTMS, they are competitive (somewhat) and the prices for cd's are generally higher, this is in part due to higher production cost (plastic for CD's etc albeit minor) but how CD's are priced I don't see as reasonably apples problem, I guess it would seem more reasonable IF iTunes and buying a CD worked the same way, i.e. you would have to purchase complete albums from iTunes (as opposed to individual songs) and the prices were similar to cd's. Lets assume they changed the iTunes model to do this for a moment and lets even further expand that to make the prices per cd on iTunes to be the same as in stores, I believe they would still enjoy a high success rate as the competitive nature of iTunes isn't the savings of buying stuff cheaper (in some cases) online but the portability, but when you buy iTunes music you agree to their terms of service:

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html

"4. System Requirements. Use of the Service requires a compatible device, Internet access (fees may apply), and certain software (fees may apply), and may require obtaining updates or upgrades from time to time. Because use of the Service involves hardware, software, and Internet access, your ability to use the Service may be affected by the performance of these factors."

"Compatible device" as defined by Merriam webster
Compatible:
designed to work with another device or system without modification; especially : being a computer designed to operate in the same manner and use the same software as another computer
Device: A piece of equipment or a mechanism designed to serve a special purpose or perform a special function <an electronic device>

This being the case iPod's are designed to work with iTunes primarily and secondarily MP3's. Furthermore iTunes lists the iPod as it's "compatible device" no other devices are considered "compatible" it further states that any attempt to circumvent this is a violation of your service agreement and therefore not supported etc...

IANAL But this lawsuit seems rather frivolous to me....

I think you confused monoploy law with contract law. Apple saying iTunes will only support ipods is not a defense to an anti-trust lawsuit. It would be evidence you against them but it isn't a defense.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Tom
Having a huge market share has absolutely nothing to do with establishing that a company is a monopoly. You have to establish a lack of alternatives, and there's no legal basis for saying Apple has a monopoly on portable digital music players.

It's akin to arguing that McDonalds has a monopoly on hamburgers because they are the only place you can get a Big Mac.

what are you talking about? you can't establish monopoly without a very large market share in this country (in the EU you might be able to). so yes, it is integral to the finding of monopoly.


and the big mac isn't a relevant market anyway.

Monopoly does not mean "majority of market share." There are plenty of alternative players.

Monopoly also does not mean "proprietary."

I don't see the problem. No one is forced to use an Ipod, or to use Itunes. And that's the key - in a monopoly you are forced to use a product. There is NOTHING stopping someone else from creating a rival player and rival distribution system that could be better than Itunes. Apple specifically, is doing nothing to stop another company from doing this. There are no barriers to entry into the digital music market that are caused by Apple.

There are over 1 billion songs that only ipod are allowed to play. That is a huge and artificial barrier to entering the mp3 player market. It also force anyone that has purchased one of those songs to use overpriced ipods if they want to use all of there music.

 

[L00ker]

Originally posted by: smack Down
I think you confused monoploy law with contract law. Apple saying iTunes will only support ipods is not a defense to an anti-trust lawsuit. It would be evidence you against them but it isn't a defense.

How does stating that itunes only supports ipod's fit as evidence against apple? They don't HAVE to license the itunes codec's/technology to anyone it's not like that is the only audio format out there....
It certainly is a defense, as you have to agree to the "terms of service" BEFORE you actually are able to download music. I understand that most people don't even read them but the fact of the matter is before you are able to download anything you are told (in the terms of service) that you may only use itunes on an apple ipod and anything other than an ipod and you are violating said terms of service... In otherwords you have been warned that itunes only works on ipod's it's not like this is some underhanded afterthought...

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Tom
Having a huge market share has absolutely nothing to do with establishing that a company is a monopoly. You have to establish a lack of alternatives, and there's no legal basis for saying Apple has a monopoly on portable digital music players.

It's akin to arguing that McDonalds has a monopoly on hamburgers because they are the only place you can get a Big Mac.

what are you talking about? you can't establish monopoly without a very large market share in this country (in the EU you might be able to). so yes, it is integral to the finding of monopoly.


and the big mac isn't a relevant market anyway.

Monopoly does not mean "majority of market share." There are plenty of alternative players.

Monopoly also does not mean "proprietary."

I don't see the problem. No one is forced to use an Ipod, or to use Itunes. And that's the key - in a monopoly you are forced to use a product. There is NOTHING stopping someone else from creating a rival player and rival distribution system that could be better than Itunes. Apple specifically, is doing nothing to stop another company from doing this. There are no barriers to entry into the digital music market that are caused by Apple.

There are over 1 billion songs that only ipod are allowed to play. That is a huge and artificial barrier to entering the mp3 player market. It also force anyone that has purchased one of those songs to use overpriced ipods if they want to use all of there music.

:roll: Yeah, lets punish Apple for making the investment to offer that many songs to the customers. What is stopping Amazon from doing the same? Or FYE? Or Sam Goody? Does Apple have exclusive rights granted by the copyright holders to distribute these songs? No, they do not.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Tom
Having a huge market share has absolutely nothing to do with establishing that a company is a monopoly. You have to establish a lack of alternatives, and there's no legal basis for saying Apple has a monopoly on portable digital music players.

It's akin to arguing that McDonalds has a monopoly on hamburgers because they are the only place you can get a Big Mac.

what are you talking about? you can't establish monopoly without a very large market share in this country (in the EU you might be able to). so yes, it is integral to the finding of monopoly.


and the big mac isn't a relevant market anyway.

Monopoly does not mean "majority of market share." There are plenty of alternative players.

Monopoly also does not mean "proprietary."

I don't see the problem. No one is forced to use an Ipod, or to use Itunes. And that's the key - in a monopoly you are forced to use a product. There is NOTHING stopping someone else from creating a rival player and rival distribution system that could be better than Itunes. Apple specifically, is doing nothing to stop another company from doing this. There are no barriers to entry into the digital music market that are caused by Apple.

There are over 1 billion songs that only ipod are allowed to play. That is a huge and artificial barrier to entering the mp3 player market. It also force anyone that has purchased one of those songs to use overpriced ipods if they want to use all of there music.

:roll: Yeah, lets punish Apple for making the investment to offer that many songs to the customers. What is stopping Amazon from doing the same? Or FYE? Or Sam Goody? Does Apple have exclusive rights granted by the copyright holders to distribute these songs? No, they do not.

Apple will not license fairplay so they can't sell songs that will work on an ipod and they can't sell device to play music from itunes.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: smack DownApple will not license fairplay so they can't sell songs that will work on an ipod and they can't sell device to play music from itunes.

So what? So go buy another MP3 player and download music from somewhere else. Proprietary does not equal monopoly.

Go read the history on REAL monopolies. Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, Jay Gould's railroads, DeBeers diamond group, etc. Those companies owned a monopoly on entire INDUSTRIES, not on a proprietary subset of said industries. You HAD to buy oil from Rockefeller, you HAD to buy steel from Carnegie, you HAD to buy diamonds from Debeers, etc. You don't HAVE to buy anything from Apple.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: smack DownApple will not license fairplay so they can't sell songs that will work on an ipod and they can't sell device to play music from itunes.

So what? So go buy another MP3 player and download music from somewhere else. Proprietary does not equal monopoly.

Go read the history on REAL monopolies. Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, Jay Gould's railroads, DeBeers diamond group, etc. Those companies owned a monopoly on entire INDUSTRIES, not on a proprietary subset of said industries. You HAD to buy oil from Rockefeller, you HAD to buy steel from Carnegie, you HAD to buy diamonds from Debeers, etc. You don't HAVE to buy anything from Apple.

Nobody HAS to use Windows, either, but they were convicted for abusing their monopoly powers several times. The bar has been set lower now.

 

[L00ker]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Apple will not license fairplay so they can't sell songs that will work on an ipod and they can't sell device to play music from itunes.

You obviously aren't nearly as tech savvy as you should be, installing Quicktime on ANY machine will allow OTHER media players (MS Media Player, RealPlayer among others) to play properly licensed itunes music, furthermore show me where it says apple is obligated to license their proprietary technology to ANYONE? The same would go for ANY proprietary music format...

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: L00ker

Originally posted by: smack Down
Apple will not license fairplay so they can't sell songs that will work on an ipod and they can't sell device to play music from itunes.

You obviously aren't nearly as tech savvy as you should be, installing Quicktime on ANY machine will allow OTHER media players (MS Media Player, RealPlayer among others) to play properly licensed itunes music, furthermore show me where it says apple is obligated to license their proprietary technology to ANYONE? The same would go for ANY proprietary music format...

Wow your an idiot.
Great you got a copy of itunes I can install on my zune? Oh you don't point stands.

As for a law requiring them to license their propiertary technology you are right there isn't one that specifically does that but that doesn't have anything to do with an anti-trust case.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Tom
Having a huge market share has absolutely nothing to do with establishing that a company is a monopoly. You have to establish a lack of alternatives, and there's no legal basis for saying Apple has a monopoly on portable digital music players.

It's akin to arguing that McDonalds has a monopoly on hamburgers because they are the only place you can get a Big Mac.

what are you talking about? you can't establish monopoly without a very large market share in this country (in the EU you might be able to). so yes, it is integral to the finding of monopoly.


and the big mac isn't a relevant market anyway.

Yes it is, it's almost exactly the same situation.

And market share is incidental to a monopoly, not determinative. What is determinative is a lack of alternatives, and that just isn't the case with the ipod, itunes, or the Big Mac.

i didn't say it was determinative, i said it was integral. maybe i should have said, "necessary but not sufficient." according to your post it isn't even necessary.

and relevant market is a term of art. i could claim that double dave's has a monopoly on pizza places across the freeway from my office. the response from any reasonable person is 'so what.' now, if double dave's was the only place that sold pizza in all of houston, that might be saying something. mcdonald's has a monopoly on big macs. so what? hamburgers would be a relevant market. it might be that players that play songs from itunes is a relevant market. it might be that vendors that sell songs for ipods is a relevant market. or they might not. where does apple have market power? that's for people with far more math and theory than i've taken to argue to a jury.