updated - July 8, 2020 Wednesday EDT
Ten years after the filing of the antitrust case, Apple emerged victorious.
Apple needed to prove in the lawsuit that its update Apple's iTunes 7.0 didn't break any antitrust law and was a product improvement for the benefit of users. Focusing on the Digital Rights Management (DRM) restrictions on iTunes, the class-action lawyers who claim to represent millions of iTunes users said that Apple tries to manipulate its users.
The antitrust case started with two users saying that they were unhappy with the product since they cannot play music they purchased outside iTunes and those they purchased in the Apple store can't be played in other product.
Apple said that DRM are required by music companies under the license, and they argued that their hardware and music software are integrated with each other.
A two weeks worth of testimony were presented to the jury, including one from Steve Jobs six months after his death. Three hours were enough for the jury to decide that Apple isn't guilty over the plaintiff's accusations. The company avoided the supposed $1 billion payout.
Apple thanked and applaud the jury in a statement. Additionally, the company said, “We created iPod and iTunes to give our customers the world’s best way to listen to music. Every time we’ve updated those products — and every Apple product over the years — we’ve done it to make the user experience even better.”
Cornell law professor George Hay said that the case is a prime example where competitors sues a company for disadvantaging their services.
“Courts are hesitant to punish firms for improving their products even if there are reasons to believe that the improvements were modest and that the firm was intentionally trying to disadvantage competitors,” said Hay.
After losing, the plaintiff's said Tuesday that they plan to appeal the court's decision.
TOP 10 FRANCHISES OF 2020