AppleInsider StaffA federal court last week denied Apple's motion to dismiss an antitrust suit brought by a disgruntled iTunes Music Store customer, AppleInsider has discovered.
In the 9-page ruling dated Sept. 9th, United States District Judge James Ware did side with Apple in dismissing a few individual claims. Specifically, Ware threw out a claim arguing that Apple has been unjustly enriched from sales of iTunes and iPods. The Judge also dismissed two claims of attempted monopolization against the iPod maker, but granted Slattery and his attorneys a month to amend the two arguments.
However, the judge denied Apple's overall motion for a dismissal in the case and is allowing Slattery to proceed with seven of his ten original claims. These include allegations that Apple possesses monopoly power and has coerced customers into purchasing both iPods and iTunes files. Slattery also argues that Apple has violated state law under the Cartwright Act and California's unfair competition law.
Antitrust lawyers have said the key to such a lawsuit would be convincing a court that a single product brand like iTunes is a market in itself, separate from the rest of the online music market.
The court is requiring Slattery to file an amended complain on or before Oct. 11th. Apple will then have 15 days to respond.
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
Chip Loder
Malcolm Owen
50 Comments
That's all we need is another shoddy California court ruling.
That's all we need is another shoddy California court ruling.
This is just another looser trying to make a quick buck from the hard work of others, if he does not like having to listen to his iTunes music on an iPod then do not use it, do not purchase music from Apple, and sell your iPod.
Just my 2cents
I think the key, and thus the major weakness, with the case is how you define the market. If you divide the market into two parts - one, the business of selling music online, and second a market for music players - then, sure, Apple has a significant market share. From that perspective, it may seem that Apple, the "monopolist" in the on-line music distribution system, is acting anticompetitively by tying its iPod to the iTunes store (iPod only plays protected songs from Apple, and only Apple sells protected songs that work on the iPod). Also, it is excluding all other manufacturers from that music distribution system.
But this, it seems to me, is wrong. iTunes and the iPod are two parts of the same product, not two separate markets (for purposes of the portable digital music player market). You can buy a Creative Zen, get the same songs (for the most part) online, and have all the fun you can have with a Zen. Apple is not preventing the music publishers from selling to the other vendors, and is not forcing anyone to use iTunes.
There is nothing inherently anticompetitive with achieving market dominance by selling the best (or at least most popular) product. Just because Apple has the most success, doesn't mean it's violating the antitrust laws.
The judge probably didn't dismiss the case because he/she wanted to hear more evidence before issuing a final ruling. Most likely this will be dealt with by a summary judgment motion, after the facts have been more fully fleshed out.
requiring that customers use an iPod in order to listen to music purchased from its industry-leading iTunes Music Store.
Unfortunately, for this guy, this is not true.
This lawsuit
(Score:-1, Troll)
oops...wrong site.
I can rip my own cd's and put them on my ipod....never really need iTMS...
I can buy music on iTMS, burn it to cd, never need an ipod...
these frivilous lawsuits are raising the cost of health care for everyone..
oops....A.D.D....