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

iPhone 17 Pro 3 4ths Perspective Aluminum Camera Module 1

New iPhone 17 Pro Details: Brighter Display, Best Battery Life, and More

Wednesday September 3, 2025 5:33 am PDT by
Apple's iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max models will feature a number of significant display, thermal, and battery improvements, according to new late-stage rumors. According to the Weibo leaker known as "Instant Digital," the iPhone 17 Pro models will feature displays with higher brightness, making it more suitable for use in direct sunlight for prolonged periods. The iPhone 16 Pro and...
iPhone 17 Pro Iridescent Feature 2

iPhone 17 and iPhone 17 Pro Prices Estimated Ahead of Apple Event Next Week

Tuesday September 2, 2025 1:50 pm PDT by
Just one week before Apple is expected to unveil the iPhone 17 series, an analyst has shared new price estimates for the devices. Here are J.P. Morgan analyst Samik Chatterjee's price estimates for the iPhone 17 series in the United States, according to 9to5Mac: Model Starting Price Model Starting Price Change iPhone 16 $799 iPhone 17 ...
iPhone 17 Pro Iridescent Feature 2

iPhone 17 Pro Clear Case Leak Reveals Three Key Changes

Sunday August 31, 2025 1:26 pm PDT by
Apple is expected to unveil the iPhone 17 series on Tuesday, September 9, and last-minute rumors about the devices continue to surface. The latest info comes from a leaker known as Majin Bu, who has shared alleged images of Apple's Clear Case for the iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max, or at least replicas. Image Credit: @MajinBuOfficial The images show three alleged changes compared to Apple's iP...
iphone 16 pro ghost hand

iPhone 17 Pro: 5 Reasons Not to Upgrade This Year

Monday September 1, 2025 4:35 am PDT by
Apple will launch its new iPhone 17 series this month, and the iPhone 17 Pro models are expected to get a new design for the rear casing and the camera area. But more significant changes to the lineup are not expected until next year, when the iPhone 18 models arrive. If you're thinking of trading in your iPhone for this year's latest, consider the following features rumored to be coming to...
iPhone 17 Pro Dark Blue and Orange

iPhone 17 Release Date, Pre-Orders, and What to Expect

Thursday August 28, 2025 4:08 am PDT by
An iPhone 17 announcement is a dead cert for September 2025 – Apple has already sent out invites for an "Awe dropping" event on Tuesday, September 9 at the Apple Park campus in Cupertino, California. The timing follows Apple's trend of introducing new iPhone models annually in the fall. At the event, Apple is expected to unveil its new-generation iPhone 17, an all-new ultra-thin iPhone 17...
Apple Watch Ultra 2 Complications

Apple Watch Ultra 3 Coming Next Week: Eight Reasons to Upgrade

Thursday September 4, 2025 7:38 am PDT by
We're only days away from Apple's "Awe dropping" fall event scheduled to take place on Tuesday, September 9 – and along with the new iPhone 17 series, we're going to get a new version of the Apple Watch Ultra for the first time since 2023. By the time the Ultra 3 is unveiled, it will have been two years since the previous model arrived. The intervening period has left plenty of room for...

Top Rated Comments

Patriot24 Avatar
140 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
140 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
140 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
140 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
140 months ago
Nothing unexpected... It would have been fun to see snarky Steve Jobs but... oh well.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
macduke Avatar
140 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)