Shuffle's new hardware DRM taxes 3rd-party vendors

ipodnncom ^ | 03/14/2009, 8:20pm, EDT

[Star Traveler]

Here’s an article in reference to the issue here, and a direct quote from Apple on the issue, denying any DRM or other authentication...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2343217,00.asp

[Swordmaker]

. . . direct quote from Apple on the issue, denying any DRM or other authentication. . .

Thought so.

[RayChuang88]

I don’t care what Apply denies, but if we see this same stunt happen when the iPod nano and classic are replaced this September they are going to run the risk of a lawsuit charging violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act—and it will be brought by a long list of third-party headphone manufacturers!

[Star Traveler]

Well..., can’t tell you about any prospects for lawsuits. Of course, I’ve heard about supposed lawsuits and other countries charging Apple with some violation of one kind or another. I just haven’t seen anything happen... :-)

[Swordmaker]

I don’t care what Apply denies, but if we see this same stunt happen when the iPod nano and classic are replaced this September they are going to run the risk of a lawsuit charging violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act—and it will be brought by a long list of third-party headphone manufacturers!

There is absolutely no evidence that this chip is a DRM or Authentication system. The only source for this hoopla is a single blogger with no technical expertise at all. Perhaps a factual statement that would be actionable if it turns out that Lee is lying means nothing to you, but I think it means that there is no "stunt" to be exercised about. It's a NON-ISSUE.