Can Apple be found in violation of antitrust laws for Apple Music? Spotify, Rdio, Pandora and certainly others that I haven't heard of are all competing for a spot on iOS while Apple's Music software is both bundled and cannot be uninstalled. Are there parallels here to Microsoft and Internet Explorer? Is there something I am missing otherwise?
In United States v. Microsoft, Microsoft was accused of abusing its monopoly power by bundling. A prerequisite for this type of Sherman Act Section 2 claim is that the company must have monopoly power to abuse. Market share is one of the primary measures courts use to determine if a company has monopoly powers, and therefore can be punished for abusing them. At the time of the Microsoft case, its market share was over 80% of all PCs and over 95% of Intel PCs. In United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416, Learned Hand considered three possible market share numbers. He wrote that market share of more than 90% "is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-four percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three per cent is not." Worldwide, iOS has about 15% of the smartphone OS market. In the US, it's about 40%. According to Judge Hand, that's well below "doubtful" and awfully close to "certainly not" a monopoly. No monopoly equals no monopoly power equals no Sherman Act Section 2 violation.
They wouldn't need to keep samples, just the fingerprint. So they could send a guy with a laptop to Japan, download all the songs, fingerprint them, and take the fingerprints back home. It's not a problem, but it would be expensive. I suspect that US and European record companies will make the music available to them for free, otherwise they'd have to pay 20-30 million dollars for 20-30 million songs. The Japanese record companies wouldn't, so while it is technically and legally possible to collect the fingerprints, it would be expensive. And what is the benefit? We are talking here about music that you cannot legally own, that you cannot legally buy after the software recognised it, so there is very little incentive to spend that money.
It’s tricky. I’ll talk about the general then the specific. In general, your notion of &quot;didn't get permission&quot; doesn't really reflect how the music industry works. Generally, a venue pays for a universal license to use recorded music. There are three major licensors: ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. If you get an ASCAP license, you can play any ASCAP music in your licensed venue without limit. I don't know if you have any records or CDs, but look carefully at the disc or the liner notes, and you'll see ASCAP or BMI next to each song. That tells you whether you can play it on your license. Licenses go to the venue or application, not to the person. So for instance if you have a bar and grill, of course you get an ASCAP and/or BMI license, and that covers the bar's normal activities as agreed in the contract. If you then create a Youtube channel, you would need to negotiate a separate ASCAP license to use music there. Each one is negotiated and priced separately, and you are negotiating with ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. Keep in mind a blanket license for the venue, say a baseball park, is not enough, as they exclude political events specifically. Political campaigns have to get the same blanket license as everyone else. But for political campaigns, particularly, ASCAP etc. provide an “opt-out”, by which an artist can exclude themselves from the license. Of course the artist usually has failed to do this when they hear their music on coverage of the event. The artist still has some recourses in the area of false endorsement and a few other legal theories, but they’re complicated. However a campaign will usually honor the artist's wishes. In theory, the artist’s legal options would take years winding through the courts, and the campaign would be long over by then. But in practice, the artist would likely team up with the opposition, and now the campaign is squared off against two different experts at using media - the other campaign, and the artist, who got where they are by playing the media well. The campaign doesn’t want to fight that fight, because a knock-down drag-out media palaver with a universally beloved musician is not a good look. Now there is something called a &quot;compulsory license&quot;, but that is about a performer's right to use a song someone else has written. (But they must still pay for the use; and ASCAP/BMI/SESAC handle that too). That would come up if the campaign's house band was playing Fleetwood Mac songs.
There seems, to my ear, to be a degree of similarity between the first two works. The third does not sound, to me, very similar to either of the first two. That is not a legal question, and I am no expert. However, all of these seem to be simple themes of only a few notes, repeated, in one case with some variations. The history of music is replete with examples of short themes or figures duplicated without intentional copying. Generally, to win a copyright suit over a claimed infringement of a musical copyright one must show either proven direct copying, or identity of melody over a long enough passage that independent invention is not plausible. Normally access of the alleged infringer to the claimed source is also shown. How much identity is needed is a judgement call for the court involved, often based on expert testimony, but I rather doubt if the short themes linked in the question would be found to infringe one another. In any case, even if identity is proved, it is possible that both are copying some earlier source, perhaps one in the public domain, or one properly licensed. It is also possible that one of thee has obtained a license from another and so is perfectly legal. There is no way to know without the records of those involved.
Your friend's relationship with the game company is one of contract. You don't say what the contract terms are, so it's impossible to say whether they were breached by your friend or the company. In any case, it is likely that the only remedy your friend could seek is damages, probably limited to whatever outstanding portion of the subscription they have not had the benefit of. It seems unlikely that it will be a large enough amount to be worth pursuing. As a private company the game provider can choose to contract with who they wish, or not as the case may be (unless they can be shown to be discriminating against protected characteristics).
it would violate law? It would be very dependent of what your jurisdiction is and what the software does. I would expect most software that would be lawful to install at your home would be lawful to install at your company, but there may be exceptions. To put an hyperbolic example, if you work at the CIA and you install some remote access software that allows you to access your workstation from a non-secure PC through non-secure methods, I am pretty sure that would be illegal, even if you had the best of intentions. A recent scenario taken from real life involves some members an organization who are required to use official e-mail servers for FOIA purposes setting up their own private mail servers. Of course, YMMV. can I purchase it for myself, and then use at workplace Even if the software is legal it does not mean that it is ok to use it at the workplace. Most business have rules about what software may be installed in the PCs, who may install it and how to manage it. Your software could introduce security vulnerabilities that your IT team may need to be aware of, or incompatibilities with other software. It may introduce legal liabilities (you install a "home edition" licence in a corporate environment where that licence is invalid). Your company may discipline you if you breaking those guidelines and install software without authorization, even if there is no harm for them for this action. On top of that, if your actions cause some damage to the company, it can sue you to get you to pay for those damages. Before taking any action you should inquiry about your company's IT policy and, if your company does not have one or if the policy is not clear about allowing you to install the software, ask the people in charge (preferably in writting).
The EU has established rules about member governments subsidising industries. The intention is to ensure that trade in the EU is not distorted by government incentives, so that factories get built in the most efficient location rather than where a government offers the biggest subsidy. This is the mirror image of the rules which prohibit tariffs; governments cannot protect their own industry from competition either by imposing tariffs on imports or by providing subsidies to exports. The Irish government was found to have provided an illegal subsidy to Apple in the form of a tax reduction made especially for Apple. Hence the tax break was invalid and effectively did not exist. Legally Apple therefore had to pay their back taxes. As to why Apple had to pay after being assured that they would not have to, its a basic principle that civil servants cannot change the law merely by saying something. If a civil servant tells you that you don't need to pay tax when you do, then the civil servant is simply wrong. You could use their opinion as a defence against criminal charges of tax evasion, but you would still have to pay the tax.
I've found Commission Decision 2003/675/EC which sheds light on what exactly happened here (more digestable press release here). Basically, there was a dispute involving Nintendo and its various independent distributors who had exclusive distribution rights in their respective territories, Bergsala AB for Sweden. Note this wasn't simply a matter of Bergsala's rights being violated, but rather a scheme to reduce parallel imports/exports which the Commission found to be anti-competitive. For most parties, this was brought to an end in December 1997 (see section 2.2.11 on pgs. 54-55). So no, there was no change in the law, but the anti-competitive scheme stopped in late 1997. Weirdly this should have resulted in the possibility for more imports, but since those imports would no longer have artificially higher prices, perhaps the advertisements and/or imports were no longer worth economically worth it. Or perhaps Bergsala pivoted to greater enforcement the exclusive rights it did have, even if this didn't include the ability to block parallel imports according to EU competition law. In any case, trade of Nintendo products in Europe was greatly altered in late 1997. Please take my summary with a grain of salt, I'm not very well versed in the field of commerce and I've already misunderstood the decision at least once; check the cited decision for proper details.