The worst thing about DRM? The things it makes people do. Take the iPodhash project, a group of coders dedicated to reverse-engineering Apple’s database files on the iPod classic and iPod touch. Doing so allows for third-party utilities to access information on the iPod, which is particularly useful for those who want to use their iPods on Linux, since there’s no version of iTunes available for that platform.
Unfortunately, Apple didn’t take too kindly to a bunch of people picking apart its tech, and it’s called up its crack legal team to remove the offending information, which it claims violates the DMCA’s circumvention clauses. As the site administrator, Sam Odio, wrote:
A lawyer claiming to represent Apple, Inc has asked that we remove all content on this page (see email). We’re currently investigating the issue, and determining what our rights are. We’re not quite sure how the DMCA pertains to us, and where we fall within the law. We’re talking to a lawyer about whether we’re considered a “service provider” and what we’re legally obligated to do if that is the case.
The lawyer’s correspondence suggests that reverse-engineering the iPod database file violates Apple’s FairPlay DRM, which could conceivaably mean that said information could be used to figure out away to remove the DRM on files purchased from the iTunes Store (not that such methods don’t already exist).
Of course, you know how it goes: once the cat’s out of the bag, it’s sure to convince him to go back in.
What’s a company to do when it has no leg to stand on for making knock-off products? Why, retaliate, of course. The best defense is a good offense, and Psystar aimed to get all offensive by accusing Apple of violating antitrust laws.
Unfortunately for the boys from Miami, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup has told Psystar to stick it, dismissing the company’s monopoly allegations against Apple. Alsaup points out that the company can not both have its delectable baked goods and consume them as well:
“Indeed, Psystar’s allegations are internally contradictory. Psystar alleges that Mac OS is, by definition, an independent and unique market. That is, Mac OS, by definition, admits no reasonable substitutes,” Judge Alsup wrote in his ruling. “Psystar further avers, however, that Apple engages in the alleged anti-competitive conduct “in order to protect its valuable monopoly in the Mac OS market and, by extension, Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems from potential competitive threats,” and that Apple’s “unreasonable restraints on trade allow APPLE to maintain its monopoly position with respect to the Mac OS and Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems submarket.”
Well, unfortunately for Psystar, if that was their best defense, then they’re going to have trouble with the next round; they’ve got twenty days to amend their complaint and bring it before the judge. After that, the case moves ahead with a proposed trial date of November 9th, 2009.
Geez, we’ve got to spend another year with these guys? Please shoot me now.
Once again we undertake a journey to the wonderful world of Mark Papermaster. The court case between Papermaster and his former employer, IBM, continued this week, with the almost-minted veep of devices hardware engineering filing a countersuit against Big Blue (PDF link).
The key issue at stake here is whether or not IBM’s non-compete agreement is valid. Papermaster contends that Apple and IBM are not direct competitors and that the division he’d be heading would not draw upon knowledge that he’d used when at IBM, meaning that he should be free to go work in Cupertino. The counterclaims also argue that IBM’s non-compete is “unreasonably broad” and imposes an “unreasonably lengthy” period of one year in which Papermaster is not allowed to work for competitors. There’s also the geographic matter of the non-compete agreement being based in New York law, Apple being in California, and Papermaster living in Austin, Texas.
And round and round we go: it seems like this could easily go the way of “who wants to throw more money at lawyers?” If you’re interested, you can go look at all the case’s documents and then fall asleep, which is what I did.
Oh, snap. IBM threw scissors after all. In the continuing saga of Mark Papermaster—torn between two worlds—IBM has won the latest round. The company had sued Papermaster, its former employee, for violating a non-compete agreement in his contract when he went off to work for Steve Jobs’s Magical House of Candy and Wonder.
The courts have backed IBM in the immediate future, granting a preliminary injunction that prevents Papermaster from going to work at 1 Infinite Loop while the whole matter is settled. U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas has told Mr. Papermaster to “immediately cease his employment with Apple Inc. until further order of this court.” The big issue at question here is just how enforceable the non-compete clause of a contract is, and the decision in this case could have far-reaching implications.
Papermaster is supposed to be starting his job as senior vice president for devices hardware engineering (here’s his bio at Apple, via the magic of Google cache), a post that he snagged after the departure of Tony Fadell. Apple is optimistic about the future of the lawsuit, with spokesman Steve Dowling telling Bloomberg, “We will comply with the court’s order, but are confident that Mark Papermaster will be able to ultimately join Apple when this dust settles.”
We can’t pretend to know what Steve Jobs is thinking here, but if we were in his shoes, here’s what we’d suggest: Bertrand Serlet and an engineer to be named later. Eh? Eh?
Do not mess with the master of paper, friends. He will file his way into court so quick even The Flash gets dizzy. Firing back at the suit launched by IBM that the former employee violated his contract when he went to Apple, the company’s new senior vice president of devices hardware engineering Mark Papermaster said that he believed he was in the clear.
IBM says that the executive’s contract contained a non-compete clause and that his acceptance of employment at Apple constituted competition. Papermaster maintains that Apple and IBM are not competitors, and that his knowledge of IBM trade secrets is irrelevant, since he will be working on the iPod and iPhone.
“To the best of my knowledge, IBM does not design, manufacture or market consumer electronic products,” said Mark Papermaster, in a court document filed Thursday. “Instead, IBM focuses on high-performance business systems such as information technology infrastructure, servers and information storage products, and operating systems software,” Papermaster noted.
[…]
“I do not recall a single instance of Apple being described as a competitor of IBM during my entire tenure at IBM,” Papermaster stated.
Big Blue is asking the court to prevent Papermaster from working at Apple, so it’ll be up to a judge to decide whether the claim has merit. Now, we’re certainly not legal scholars here, but we’re pretty sure that Papermaster will come on top in the ensuing contest—unless, of course, IBM throws scissors.
It's that time of year again: Apple has filed its annual 10-K report to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The required report on Apple's business activities, as expected, outlines lots of fun and thrilling info about Apple's financial activities. Boring, right? Wrong: the 10-K is pretty much the only public document that companies have to release in which they have to come clean about almost everything.
Among the items required are "Risk Factors". So what's Apple afraid of this year? Here's a few:
- "Economic conditions could materially adversely affect the Company."
- "The matters relating to the Company's past stock option practices and the restatement of the Company's consolidated financial statements may result in additional litigation. "
- "Future operating results depend upon the Company's ability to obtain key components including, but not limited to microprocessors, NAND flash memory, DRAM and LCDs at favorable prices and in sufficient quantities. "
- "At present, the Company is vigorously defending more than 21 patent infringement cases, 13 of which were filed during fiscal 2008, and several pending claims are in various stages of evaluation."
- "In certain countries, including the U.S., the Company relies on a single cellular network carrier to provide service for iPhone. "
- "Political events, war, terrorism, public health issues, natural disasters and other circumstances could materially adversely affect the Company. "
- "Unfavorable results of legal proceedings could materially adversely affect the Company."
- "The Company is exposed to credit risk on its accounts receivable and prepayments related to long-term supply agreements. This risk is heightened during periods when economic conditions worsen."
Now there's no reason to panic just yet--likely a lot of these are just to cover the company's posterior--but still, things to keep in mind.
[via Apple 2.0]
To Norway now, where Apple has been battling with superhero consumer ombudsman Bjørn Erik Thon since the dawn of time. Apple was supposed to give a response to the Norwegians’ latest inquiries by Monday the 3rd, a date laid down by The Hammer of Thon himself.
While Apple apparently did offer some sort of comment, it doesn’t appear to have satisfied our favorite Mr. Ombudsman:
“We have received an answer from iTunes, but it was an answer that didn’t add anything of substance. We will now continue what we have done so far, prepare to bring the case before the Market Council.”
Anybody know what Norwegian for “snap” is?
Norway’s central beef, as you’ll recall, is that music purchased from iTunes isn’t playable elsewhere. Of course, if you believe Steve Jobs, he’s been trying to get the labels to let him drop DRM for over a year now. And so these little piggies are headed to Market Council. See you in another six months.
I guess things aren't looking to good on that whole arbitration front, especially now that Psystar has gone ahead and released a Blu-ray Mac clone.
Psystar and Apple recently jointly filed for a trial date of November 9, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for Northern California. The date has yet to actually be approved by the court, however.
I guess if that's the one thing that they've been able to agree on, then that's some kind of progress. Hey--you gotta start somewhere, right?
Still, I'm guessing that this case will get settled before next fall--likely before April 2009, the year anniversary of when this whole saga first began.
