"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"

Filing 405

REDACTION to 404 Redacted Document Declaration of Alexandra S. Bernay in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Apple Inc.'s Motion for a Protective Order Preventing the Deposition of Steve Jobs by Somtai Troy Charoensak, Mariana Rosen, Melanie Tucker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11, ***UNDER SEAL*** Unable to link to order granting to file under seal the exhibits. (Bernay, Alexandra) (Filed on 12/20/2010) Modified on 12/21/2010 (cv, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation" Doc. 405 Att. 1 EXHIBIT 1 [Filed Under Seal] Dockets.Justia.com EXHIBIT 2 [Filed Under Seal] EXHIBIT 3 [Filed Under Seal] EXHIBIT 4 [Filed Under Seal] EXHIBIT 5 Apple Accuses RealNetworks of Hacking - PCWorld http://www.pcworld.com/printable/article/id,117183/printable.html RealNetworks reaffirms commitment to Harmony software that extends tunes to any player. By Jim Dalrymple Ju l 30, 2004 11:00 AM Apple has issued a statement accusing RealNetworks of hacker-like tactics for its Harmony technology, which will allow content from Real's music store to be played on Apple's IPod. RealNetworks announced earlier this week that its updated software will let songs downloaded from its own music store be played on a variety of devices. The company quickly shot back to Apple's rebuke, saying it has done nothing wrong, and reaffirming its commitment to developing Harmony. "W e are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the IPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA and other laws, says Apple's statement. "We strongly caution Real and their customers that when we update our IPod software from time to time it is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future IPods. For its part, Real Networks says customers have welcomed the introduction of Harmony. "Consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their IPod," Real Networks says in a statement to MacCentral. A Legal Matter? Apple's statement says the company will investigate the implications of RealNetwork's actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. But representatives of RealNetworks say they are following well-established tradition of fully legal independent developed paths to achieve compatibility. "There is ample and clear precedent for this activity, for instance the first IBM compatible PCs from Compaq," RealNetworks says in its statement. "Harmony creates a way to lock content from Real's music store in a way that is compatible with the IPod, Windows Media DRM devices, and Helix DRM devices. Harmony technology does not remove or disable any digital rights management system. Apple has suggested that new laws such as the DMCA are relevant to this dispute. In fact, the DMCA is not designed to prevent the creation of new methods of locking content and explicitly allows the creation of interoperable software." Jupiter Research Senior Analyst Joe Wilcox is cautious about commenting on legal issues, but notes that Apple has other ways to deal with RealNetworks. "I assume Real wouldn't have taken the risk without confidence there would be no legal consequences," Wilcox says. "However, there are always technological consequences. Real reiterates its commitment to Harmony "and to giving millions of consumers who own portable music devices, including the Apple IPod, choice and compatibility." 1 of 1 12/20/2010 4:59 PM EXHIBIT 6 [Filed Under Seal] EXHIBIT 7 [Filed Under Seal] EXHIBIT 8 [Filed Under Seal] EXHIBIT 9 [Filed Under Seal] EXHIBIT 10 [Filed Under Seal] EXHIBIT 11 [Filed Under Seal] EXHIBIT 12 EXHIBIT 13 U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05-md-01720-JG -JO In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation Assigned to: Judge John Gleeson Referred to: Magistrate Judge James Orenstein Member case: (View Member Case) Cause: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation 09/16/2008 Date Filed: 10/20/2005 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 410 Anti-Trust Jurisdiction: Federal Question ORDER denying 1075 Motion for Protective Order -- The Chase defendants' application for a protective order precluding the deposition of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, James L. Dimon, is denied. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C)(i), the Chase defendants failed to demonstrate that "the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). With respect to the burden on the deponent, the movants make the implicit but untenable assertion that no deposition burden at all may be imposed on Mr. Dimon, apparently due his status as Chief Executive Officer, absent an affirmative showing of need by the plaintiffs. See DE 1075 at 2 ("There is no reason for burdening Mr. Dimon's extremely demanding schedule with a deposition in this case."). That is not the law, see General Star Indemnity Co. v. Platinum Indemnity Ltd., 210 F.R.D. 80, 83 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ("high ranking corporate executives are not automatically given special treatment which excuses them from being deposed") (quoting Kuwait Airways Corp. v. American Security Bank, N.A., 1987 WL 11994, at *4 (D.D.C. May 26, 1987)); see also CBS, Inc. v. Ahern, 102 F.R.D. 820, 822 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ("the fact that the witness has a busy schedule is simply not a basis for foreclosing otherwise proper discovery"), and the movants have done nothing to show that Mr. Dimon's schedule is any more demanding than the schedules of the many other witnesses and attorneys participating in this litigation. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on September 16, 2008. (Kochendorfer, Kate) (Entered: 09/16/2008) EXHIBIT 14 EXHIBIT 15

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?