Virgin Says Apple Won't Play Fair with FairPlay

[Kent Pribbernow]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://macminute.com/2004/08/05/virgin' target='_blank'>http://macminute.com/2004/08/05/virgin</a><br /><br /></div><i>"In Apple's quarterly report filed today, the company reveals that Virgin Mega filed a complaint on June 28 against Apple France with the French Competition Council alleging that the company has wrongfully refused to license Fairplay DRM (digital rights management) technology to competitors. Virgin is seeking "Interim Measures," pending the determination of the merits of the case. A hearing on Virgin's request for such measures will likely take place in October or November 2004."</i><br /><br />This is the second time Apple has come under fire for its refusal to license FairPlay. You would think by now the folks in Cupertino would get the message; PlayFair with FairPlay. Sorry, I just had to say that. :wink:

[James Fee]

Huh? Why would this be an issue? I'm not sure what Virgin is arguing here. :?:

[Felix Torres]

While its amusing to see also-rans whine about somebody other than MS, the reality is it is way too early in the development of the digital music business to say Apple has a dominant market position and hence has to be hammered with antitrust.

Mind you, it would be fun to watch, but it really isn't fair.
29% market share does not a monopoly make.
Not with three competitors using similar technology, each with 14-17%.

Virgin has no case.
Let Apple have their little walled garden; they deserve what the've got coming...

[Filip Norrgard]

While its amusing to see also-rans whine about somebody other than MS, the reality is it is way too early in the development of the digital music business to say Apple has a dominant market position and hence has to be hammered with antitrust.
...
Virgin has no case.

Fact is, this is not an antitrust case, let alone a case where someone is shouting "monopoly!". As I've gotten to understand, the French competetive laws are very strict and well governed. This court could get Apple to "PlayFair with FairPlay" (I love that sentence :lol: ) and with Virgin. I'm not that sure that Virgin can win, but it will be interesting to see if they succeed.

Talking about Microsoft, I think Microsoft has been to French courts a number of times but managed to avoid (or ?) serious sentencing most of the times...

[Felix Torres]

Fact is, this is not an antitrust case, let alone a case where someone is shouting "monopoly!". As I've gotten to understand, the French competetive laws are very strict and well governed. This court could get Apple to "PlayFair with FairPlay" (I love that sentence :lol: ) and with Virgin. I'm not that sure that Virgin can win, but it will be interesting to see if they succeed.



The argument they are making is the same SUN and Real made to get to the EU to order MS to give them access to MS IP; that the dominant player in a market is *obligated* to provide wannabe competitors with the means to be interoperable.

This is an old issue in Europe, with the EU repeatedly taking companies, often Phamaceuticals, to court over it.
And the argument has always been about dominant market share, hence, antitrust.

The most recent ruling on one of these cases came in April:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/04/30/HNeuantitrust_1.html

Basically, the EU competition commision ordered an american company, IMS Health, to license its copyrighted IP to a would-be competitor to allow it to enter the market IMS dominates.
The recent ruling states this can *only* be done if the refusal to license prevents *any* competition, which is what Virgin alleges.

Personally, I think Virgin is misuing the system cause they are arguing for mandatory access to Apple's iPOD customer base, while neglecting the much larger aggregate customer base of Apple's competitors, which is freely open to them.

Its probably just a PR stunt and, who knows, it *might* even work; we *are* talking a french company whining against an american company in France, so Apple should expect no sympathy, but on the merits of the case it is unfair to force Apple to cough up its IP.
They created it and they own it.
They deserve to milk the customers for every last cent they can.

[Mojo Jojo]

They created it and they own it.
They deserve to milk the customers for every last cent they can.

Sometimes you have good points Felix but usually the last lines of your posts have such a strong bias that its hard to take the first part at face value. :?

Anyways, they could always turn it around and license it for a very very high price and financially keep them from obtaining rights. However I think the January time frame might bring some interesting news. In my mind I think after the Christmas rush Apple will have a change of heart and FairPlay will start to make it out to other companies.

[Jason Dunn]

In my mind I think after the Christmas rush Apple will have a change of heart and FairPlay will start to make it out to other companies.

Apple only has a "change of heart" when:

1) Jobs gets fired
2) Jobs dies

So far we've seen #1, but not #2. :lol: (I wish Jobs a long life!)

[Mojo Jojo]

2) Jobs dies

On the sarcastic dark humor side... he is recovering from cancer. :!:

But seriously, I think with the new iPod group there could actually be some change of pace from the Apple gang. Sure it may be wishful thinking but being tasked with keeping the momentum going there would probably be continued growth in the iTunes store, improvements in the iPod line... and once sales slow down they will have to find ways to tap into the other side of the market for sales.

Best way to do that (in my opinion) is to expand their share. There are possibly two ways of doing that, first would be to open their licensing and let other music stores get into the act, or add WMA support to convince others that don't like AAC (and the Apple garden) that they are a good alternative to other players.

While I see both ideas coming, I think adding additional licenses would be the first step. Shore up the troops and create a mighty big foothold as they say before participating in a free for all market.

[Felix Torres]

They created it and they own it.
They deserve to milk the customers for every last cent they can.

Sometimes you have good points Felix but usually the last lines of your posts have such a strong bias that its hard to take the first part at face value. :?



&lt;SHRUG>

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm a wiseass. 8)

I'm glad you find merit in my position.
As to bias, I don't hide that I am biased in favor of value and against hype and whining.
After all, bias is not the same as prejudice; I try not to pre-judge or ignore facts.
But we all have biases and I prefer to keep mind front and center.

With the iPOD the issue is plain and simple: people who buy into Apple's business model know what they're getting into.

Apple isn't lying or hiding their intention to make sure that every last cent their customers spend on digital music go to Apple.
What consenting adults do is no business of mine; Apple created the platform and they are entitled to milk it.
And customers that wish to follow Apple's "guidance" are entitled to do so.
Just because I have no use for the iPOD doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed to buy it.
Alternatives exist.
As long as the alternatives exist, I am cool with Apple's business model.
Its not for me, but so are a lot of other things.

Now, I do think Apple is being foolish--trading tomorrow's dollars for today's pennies--but I am *happy* they are being foolish; they have a *right* to be foolish. I will defend to the death their right to be foolish.

Cause if they weren't foolish, someday I might not have a non-Apple choice. Not with the way the media fawns over everything Apple...

I tend to think of it as nature's way of maintaining balance. ;-)

Bottom line is Apple created Fairplay and they shouldn't be forced to share it if they don't want to, as long as alternatives exist.
And alternatives do exist.
So Virgin has no case.

I trust customers to choose for themselves.
Whether they make good choices or bad is between them and their financial consultants. 8)