Steve Jobs Testimony to Play Key Role in iPod Trial

The transcript discusses Apple's antitrust case, focusing on whether Apple's actions were competitive or monopolistic. It examines Apple's control over music downloads on iPods, the role of Steve Jobs, and the influence of his legacy on the trial. The jury's perception and the legal implications of describing Jobs as a visionary are also explored.

What was the central question in the antitrust case against Apple?

• Whether Apple was reducing prices for consumers

• Whether Apple was expanding into new markets

• Whether Apple was competing on merits or using its market power

• Whether Apple was innovating new products

What justification did Apple provide for linking iPod with iTunes?

• To ensure the best quality music and security

• To reduce production costs

• To expand into new markets

• To increase sales of iPods

What was the plaintiffs' main argument against Apple's practices?

• Apple was attempting to monopolize the market

• Apple was trying to improve user experience

• Apple was expanding its product line

• Apple was reducing prices for consumers

How might Steve Jobs' testimony influence the jury?

• By demonstrating Apple's market expansion

• By evoking sympathy due to his health condition

• By highlighting Apple's innovative products

• By showcasing Apple's financial success

What risk does Apple face by invoking Steve Jobs' legacy in the trial?

• It might reduce the trial's duration

• It could result in more innovation

• It might backfire by highlighting aggressive business tactics

• It could lead to increased sales

What was one of the pro-competitive moves by Apple mentioned in the trial?

• Allowing individual song downloads on iTunes

• Increasing iPod prices

• Limiting employee hiring

• Fixing prices with publishers

What was a key question for the jury regarding Apple's actions?

• Whether Apple was reducing its workforce

• Whether Apple was expanding into new markets

• Whether Apple was innovating new products

• Whether Apple's actions were pro-competitive or anti-competitive