You are on page 1of 5

App Store and iTunes in a

lawsuit of copyrights.

The smart phone technology is thoroughly familiar to everyone for years, and the interaction of
this technology with business and law had been evolved and developed for a long time. The
major issue acquainted with this technology is the copyright within the field of business law.
After the Digital Millennium Copyright Act carried out, people have a strong will and sense of
protecting their knowledge. For Apple industry, Mr. Steven Jobs intent with the iPhone and iPad
products together with App Store and iTunes service was to create an online environment closely
resembling the physical environment and experience of purchasing music, broadcast and books
at a shop. It was at once revolutionary and obvious; importantly, it closely mimics the way users
search peer-to-peer (P2P) for music and books online, seamlessly integrating the hardware and
software. The success of the revolutionary development of the smart phone technology and
market is remarkable, however, the price of the copyrights Apple industry faced was also
extremely high.
There was another lawsuit happening recently as a writer, known as Jiangnan pressed a charge
upon apple store for the misuse of his book without paying him. Jiangnan as the plaintiff,
claimed that he had eight books available for downloading on the app store and one of them was
charged with a price whereas others are totally free for downloads. Thus, he wanted 180,000
yuan (rmb) as compensation.
However, the defendant, the representative of App Store claimed that the compensation is way
higher than their real income for each download. Moreover, the exact editing and creation of the
electronic books is the third party not them as they only provide a platform for the downloading
as a technical support in the middle. Also, on their perspective, the defendant was meant to be
the App Store Company only, but the representative of App Store wanted the iTunes company to

be counted as the second defendant as the running of the apps was not under their right and the
one who should be blamed on is the iTunes company.
However, Jiangnan disagreed and he thought ITunes Company is directly connected with Apple
Corporation and there is a profit relationship in between of them. Moreover, apple industry has
the responsibility to run the check program and service if the apps are invading other peoples
privacy and basic rights.
Since the two parties cannot decide if the iTunes should be involved with the lawsuit, they
decided to shift towards the amount of the money required as compensation. Jiangnan claimed
that according to the regulations of the copyrights and compensation in China, mentioned that
the original author could require for 2-5 times of the average payment of the published works
and they choose to require for 5 times of the average income which is 500 yuan per 1000
words, in addition with the amount of money spent on the lawsuit and other expenses, total will
be 182698 yuan.
The defendant side found the calculation is biased and they insisted that the charged book is only
downloaded with 24 times, which costs 23.45 dollars, and Apple Industry only gain 7 dollars as
revenue, which is about 40 yuan only. Also, the other 7 free download books are collected inside
an app, which is not able to be read through iTunes or app store directly such that it is not under
the Company at all.
Eventually, the two parties did not settle the lawsuit and the decision will be made on another
day.
In this case, the plaintiff has the right to choose which one as his defendant as the invasion of
rights may be caused by several parties but the plaintiff can choose to sue only one part of them

or all of them. This is the right given by the law to the plaintiff. Hence, Apple Company cannot
avoid the lawsuit by pulling in the related company iTunes company.
Jiangnan may win the lawsuit, but the compensation may not necessarily be at the exact amount
he had been asked for. As the law had put three ways of calculating the compensation for the
copyrights. Firstly, calculate the real loss of the author, which is utilized in this case; secondly,
the amount of money had been gained by the defendant through the invasion of the copyrights,
which is utilized by the Apple company; thirdly, it is not according to the loss or the gain, which
is decided by the judge, but 500,000 is the limit of the compensation. Hence, in this case, it is
more likely that the court will respect the choice made by the plaintiff and after confirm that the
invasion of copyrights or infringement is established, the compensation will be decided
according to the situation.

Plaintiff: Jiangnan
Defendant: the representative of App Store
Issue: Defendant misused plaintiffs book without paying him. The plaintiff claimed that he had
eight books available for downloading on the app store and one of them was charged with a price
whereas others are totally free for downloads.
Plaintiff wanted 180,000 yuan (rmb) as compensation.
Defendant:
The compensation is way higher than their real income for each download.
The exact editing and creation of the electronic books is the third party not them as they only
provide a platform for the downloading as a technical support in the middle.
App Store wanted the iTunes company to be counted as the second defendant.

Reference link
Margo E.K. Redern, Case Study of Apple, Inc. for Business Law Students: How Apples
Business Model Controls Digital Content through Legal and Technological Means
http://dcollections.bc.edu/webclient/StreamGate?folder_id=0&dvs=1417437820212~539
News of apple lawsuit
http://news.mydrivers.com/1/301/301897.htm
Journal of legal studies Education
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jlse.1987.6.issue-1/issuetoc
Lawsuit Apple had acquainted with
http://tech.sina.com.cn/it/apple/2012-12-27/14387929373.shtml
Apple Hit by Lawsuit
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3455431
Lucille M. Ponte, The Case of the Unhappy Sports Fan: Embracing Student-Centered Learning
and Promoting Upper-Level Cognitive Skills Through an Online Dispute Resolution Simulation
Randall Stross, The Human Touch That May Loosen Googles Grip, N.Y. TIMES, June 24,
2007, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/business/yourmoney/24digi.html?bl&ex=1182916800&en=
0e89eebe2b245dac*&ei=5087%0A