iphone game downloads
A class-action suit filed against Apple Inc. alleges the company unfairly uses technological restrictions with its iPod line and iTunes Store to beat out competitors.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is the latest one to accuse Apple of unfair business practices. Apple is facing similar legal actions and scrutiny in the U.S. and Europe.
The suit was filed Dec. 31 by Stacie Somers, a resident of San Diego County, Calif., who bought a 30GB iPod from a Target retail store. Others who bought an iPod or content from Apple’s iTunes Store after Dec. 31, 2003, may join the suit.
The suit calls for Apple to forfeit money it earned from the unfair practices and pay the plaintiffs damages.
It alleges that Apple has constricted the market by not enabling iPods to play content in the Windows Media Audio (WMA) format, Microsoft Corp.’s copy-protection technology. Further, Apple sells songs on the iTunes Store site with its own copy-protection technology, FairPlay, which is incompatible with music players other than the iPod.
The suit contends consumers who own iPods can buy music only from iTunes, an unlawful tie-in that violates U.S. antitrust laws. Apple could license the WMA format for as little as .03 cents per iPod, or for a total of $800,000 based on Apple’s 2005 iPod sales, the suit reads.
The suit may quickly become less relevant as many online music retailers, including Apple, expand their offerings of music that is free of copy-protection restrictions, also known as DRM (digital rights management).
DRM-free tracks offer the advantage of being compatible on a wider range of devices. In May, Apple began selling songs from the music label EMI without DRM. Also, Amazon.com now sells songs in the MP3 format, and Universal Music Group has tested selling DRM-free music.
Apple doesn’t comment on pending litigation, a company spokeswoman said
January 22, 2008
This is crap, I cannot believe that they cannot use their own software but Microsfot can and can be a monopoly. I think that Mircrosoft is probably the ones behind this to begin with.
I think that they should be allowed to make software specifiically for their products and be allowed to hold the market on it. I cannot see why anyone would argue this other than they want to rip off the consumer more by offering less equiped suites.
January 22, 2008
I doubt very much that Microsoft is behind the legal action at all. It’s a seductive theory, to be sure, but it’s also somewhat akin to the conspiracy theories that revolve around JFK’s assassination in Dallas.
Apple’s proprietary principles, in my opinion, are what helped Microsoft (and Intel) to get such a big piece of the home computer market. IBM was smart enough to license its PC technology to other companies, which made PC clones cheaper and more available. Macs…well, there aren’t many Mac clones out there, are there?
February 25, 2008
I think that as a candy maker, I should sue the Pez dispenser company because I am sure that I am sure that I can make a product that fits your copyright description, and would work in your dispenser for your own willing clients, who also know, that you will not let them put my candy in your dispenser.
This really might sound like a far out there example. Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
April 10, 2008
If I would be on the side of Apple, why would I ever let the competitor’s audio format which is the wma format be played on our product? For me I still prefer MP3 format rather than the WMA format.