Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The case In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation was filed as a class action in 2005 [9] claiming Apple violated the U.S. antitrust statutes in operating a music-downloading monopoly that it created by changing its software design to the proprietary FairPlay encoding in 2004, resulting in other vendors' music files being incompatible with and thus inoperable on the iPod. [10]
Apple Inc.'s MFi Program, referring to "Made for iPhone/iPod/iPad", is a licensing program for developers of hardware and software peripherals that work with Apple's iPod, iPad and iPhone. The name is a shortened version of the long-form Made for iPod , the original program that ultimately became MFi.
Apple Inc. has been the subject of criticism and legal action. This includes its handling labor violations at its outsourced manufacturing hubs in China, its environmental impact of its supply chains, tax and monopoly practices, a lack of diversity and women in leadership in corporate and retail, various labor conditions (mishandling sexual misconduct complaints), and its response to worker ...
The U.S. government's antitrust lawsuit against Apple draws on the watershed 1998 case that broke Microsoft's stranglehold on desktop software, but that may prove to be an imperfect blueprint for ...
The plaintiffs intended to ask the jury for $3 billion in compensation, a number which could in turn have tripled to $9 billion under antitrust law. [15] However, in late April 2014, the four remaining defendants – Apple Inc, Google, Intel and Adobe Systems – agreed to settle out of court.
Apple will create a special portal for law enforcement officials to legally request and receive user data from Apple, according to a letter sent to a senator and obtained by Business Insider.
Bruce Sewell was Apple’s general counsel and senior vice president of Legal and Government Affairs, reporting to CEO Tim Cook.Sewell served on the company’s executive team and oversaw all legal matters, including corporate governance, intellectual property, litigation and securities compliance, as well as government affairs.
However, Apple appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which, in a separate case decided three days after Franklin won at the lower level, had determined that both a program existing only in a written form unreadable to humans (e.g. object code) and one embedded on a ROM were protected by copyright.