Judge Rules Steve Jobs Deposition Video Will Not See Public Release

jobs_poseThe Steve Jobs deposition video that played a key role in the iPod antitrust trial Apple faced in court last week will not see a public release, ruled by District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

In a filing released today (via AppleInsider), the judge denied a request issued by several major news outlets last week, including CNN, Bloomberg, and the Associated Press. The news agencies had filed a motion to have the deposition video, which was filmed just six months before Steve Jobs' death, released to the public.

Citing past precedent of a decision made by the Eighth Circuit court in a case involving a video deposition of former President Bill Clinton, the court decided the Jobs video was not a judicial record and should be treated as any live testimony.

Here, the Court agrees with the Eighth Circuit and concludes that the Jobs Deposition is not a judicial record. It was not admitted into evidence as an exhibit. Instead, the Jobs Deposition was merely presented in lieu of live testimony due to the witness's unavailability, and was and should be treated in the same manner as any other live testimony offered at trial. As is typical of all live testimony, it is properly made available to the public through its initial courtroom presentation and, subsequently, via the official court transcript, the latter of which is the judicial record of such testimony.

Part of the reason the court decided not to publicly release the video was due to Apple's strong objection to the motion. Had there been no objection, Judge Rogers' filing says the ruling "might be different."

In the video in question, Steve Jobs explained that Apple's airtight Digital Rights Management (DRM) policies were the result of "black and white" contracts with record labels. Preventing the iPod from playing music from competing services was merely "collateral damage," he said.

Jobs was said to be evasive in his testimony, answering questions with "I don't remember," "I don't know," or "I don't recall" more than 74 times. He also had a "snarky" attitude, according to CNN, asking "Do they still exist?" when questioned about RealNetworks.

Apple's iPod trial ended yesterday, with a ruling in its favor. After deliberating for just three hours, the jury decided that Apple had not harmed consumers with anticompetitive practices. Had Apple lost the case, it could have been on the hook for up to $1 billion in damages.

Popular Stories

AirPods Pro 3 Mock Feature

AirPods Pro 3 Just Months Away – Here's What We Know

Friday April 18, 2025 5:16 am PDT by
Despite being more than two years old, Apple's AirPods Pro 2 still dominate the premium wireless‑earbud space, thanks to a potent mix of top‑tier audio, class‑leading noise cancellation, and Apple's habit of delivering major new features through software updates. With AirPods Pro 3 widely expected to arrive in 2025, prospective buyers now face a familiar dilemma: snap up the proven...
iphone 16 pro models 1

17 Reasons to Wait for the iPhone 17

Thursday April 17, 2025 4:12 am PDT by
Apple's iPhone development roadmap runs several years into the future and the company is continually working with suppliers on several successive iPhone models simultaneously, which is why we often get rumored features months ahead of launch. The iPhone 17 series is no different, and we already have a good idea of what to expect from Apple's 2025 smartphone lineup. If you skipped the iPhone...
Beyond iPhone 13 Better Triad

Apple's 20th Anniversary iPhone May Finally Go All Screen

Tuesday April 15, 2025 6:31 am PDT by
Apple is preparing a "bold" new iPhone Pro model for the iPhone's 20th anniversary in 2027, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. As part of what's being described as a "major shake-up," Apple is said to be developing a design that makes more extensive use of glass – and this could point directly to the display itself. Here's the case for Apple releasing a truly all-screen iPhone with no...
maxresdefault

iPhone 17 Pro Launching Later This Year With These 12 New Features

Sunday April 13, 2025 7:52 am PDT by
While the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max are not expected to launch until September, there are already plenty of rumors about the devices. Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos. Below, we recap key changes rumored for the iPhone 17 Pro models as of April 2025: Aluminum frame: iPhone 17 Pro models are rumored to have an aluminum frame, whereas the iPhone 15 Pro and ...
CarPlay Hero

Apple Releases Wireless CarPlay Fix

Wednesday April 16, 2025 11:28 am PDT by
If you have been experiencing issues with wireless CarPlay in your vehicle lately, it was likely due to a software bug that has now been fixed. Apple released iOS 18.4.1 today, and the update's release notes say it "addresses a rare issue that prevents wireless CarPlay connection in certain vehicles." If wireless CarPlay was acting up for you, updating your iPhone to iOS 18.4.1 should...
top stories 2025 04 19

Top Stories: iPhone 17 Pro Rumors, CarPlay Bug Fix, and More

Saturday April 19, 2025 6:00 am PDT by
This week saw rumor updates on the iPhone 17 Pro and next-generation Vision Pro, while a minor iOS 18.4.1 update delivered not just security fixes but also a fix for some CarPlay issues. We also looked ahead at what else is in Apple's pipeline for the rest of 2025 and even the 20th-anniversary iPhone coming in 2027, so read on below for all the details on these stories and more! iPhone 17 ...
iOS 18

iOS 18.5 Includes Only a Few Changes So Far

Monday April 21, 2025 11:00 am PDT by
Apple seeded the third beta of iOS 18.5 to developers today, and so far the software update includes only a few minor changes. The changes are in the Mail and Settings apps. In the Mail app, you can now easily turn off contact photos directly within the app, by tapping on the circle with three dots in the top-right corner. In the Settings app, AppleCare+ coverage information is more...

Top Rated Comments

Patriot24 Avatar
135 months ago
I think this makes sense. There was nothing to be gained by releasing the video given that the transcript is available.
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
batchtaster Avatar
135 months ago
The fact that a corporation can squelch such a request should be of concern to those who value freedom of information. The judge admits that she might have released the video had Apple not objected.

Was the request ghoulish? Absolutely. But it is the duty of the Fourth Estate to doggedly pursue what it perceives as public information. Freedom of the press is not always a pretty thing.
You can have the information - the article says exactly that.

As is typical of all live testimony, it is properly made available to the public through its initial courtroom presentation and, subsequently, via the official court transcript, the latter of which is the judicial record of such testimony.
But that's not what you're asking for. You want to watch the famous dead man talk. Look who is making the request - news sites desperately wanting to be the first to get it on the air in order to create a spectacle and score ratings. The filing was not from anyone acting in the interests of freedom of information, that there were things revealed that people have a right to know about - it was out of self-interest.

If information is what you genuinely want, then you will be satisfied with the court transcript.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
sshambles Avatar
135 months ago
Glad they heeded Apple's request.

The presentation video of Steve and the Cupertino council members is worth watching - for those who want a video to watch.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
JeffMaxinDC Avatar
135 months ago
The fact that a corporation can squelch such a request should be of concern to those who value freedom of information. The judge admits that she might have released the video had Apple not objected.

Was the request ghoulish? Absolutely. But it is the duty of the Fourth Estate to doggedly pursue what it perceives as public information. Freedom of the press is not always a pretty thing.

I have no problem with the press "doggedly pursuing" it. That's what I would expect them to do. But it's absolutely reasonable for the court to say no. That's the nature of checks and balances.

And Apple was the defendant in the case so they're the ones who had standing to request that the court not release it. That's not "squelching" it - that's making a request. The judge was the final arbiter.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
jozeppy26 Avatar
135 months ago
Nothing unexpected... It would have been fun to see snarky Steve Jobs but... oh well.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
macduke Avatar
135 months ago
I miss the snark—probably because he was often correct and his brand of snark cut right through the bullcrap. He was great at doing that.
Score: 2 Votes (Like | Disagree)