More on the iPod antitrust lawsuit

Here are a few updates on the iPod antitrust lawsuit (for background on the case, see yesterday's post): 1. What if there is no plaintiff?

Jeff Elder, The Wall Street Journal (link).

A federal judge Thursday questioned whether any of the plaintiffs in a long-running antitrust suit against Apple Inc. had actually bought the iPods at issue in the case.

“What am I supposed to do if I don’t have a plaintiff?” asked a concerned U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers after the jury left the courtroom at the end of Thursday’s proceedings.

Oops.

2. Catchy headline of the day

Many sites ran with the assertion that Apple deleted rivals songs from users' iPods. I tend to agree with John Gruber at Daring Fireball (link):

"This had nothing to do with rival music stores’ music files, and everything to do with rival music stores’ DRM. The plaintiffs in this class action suit are, from what I’ve read, deliberately blurring the lines to conflate the two."

3. Eddy Cue on Apple and DRM

Eddy Cue took the stand today to explain why Apple used DRM (to appease the music labels, duh) and shared some other insights into Apple's Fairplay DRM encryption (for example, it's actually still used in storing music on Apple's servers, for apps, and for iBooks). I enjoyed reading Josh Lowensohn's take on The Verge (link).

Bonus: Steve Jobs' 2007 open letter 'Thoughts on Music'

In the letter, Steve pressures the music companies to go DRM free. I'm surprised that I haven't seen this mentioned in any of the articles I have read (link).