As Apple's antitrust case enters its final stages, a former engineer has revealed the firm deliberately blocked rivals' music from its iPods (pictured) After just a few hours of deliberation, a jury in California has found in favour of Apple in a billion-dollar class-action lawsuit over the price of its iPod music players. The eight-member jury in U.S. District Court rejected a claim by attorneys for consumers and iPod resellers, who argued that Apple's use of restrictive software froze out competing makers of portable music players. Apple had argued that the software provided necessary security protection. However, the jury said Apple's iTunes 7.0, released in the fall of 2006, was a 'genuine product improvement,' meaning that new features were good for consumers . Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they plan to appeal. 'We're glad we got this to the jury,' said attorney Bonny Sweeney, who had argued on behalf of the estimated 8 million consumers who purchased iPods from 2006 to 2009. But she asserted that a ruling by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, kept the jury from considering the full effect of the iTunes software update that was the focus of the trial. The case was filed nearly ten years ago and dates to a time when Apple used anti-piracy software that prevented its iPods from playing songs that were downloaded from online outlets that competed with Apple's iTunes stores. 'We thank the jury for their service and we applaud their verdict,' Apple said in a statement. 'We created iPod and iTunes to give our customers the world's best way to listen to music. 'Every time we've updated those products — and every Apple product over the years — we've done it to make the user experience even better.' As Apple's billion-dollar antitrust case entered its final stages, a former engineer earlier this week claimed the tech giant deliberately blocked rivals' music from its iPods. Rod Schultz, who worked as a senior software engineer at Apple between 2006 and 2008, said he worked on a project 'intended to block 100 per cent of non-iTunes clients.' The project was also set up to 'keep out third-party players' that competed with Apple's iPod, according to the Wall Street Journal. Mr Schultz was subpoenaed by the prosecution to prove Apple restricted rival music on its iPods, which ultimately pushed up the prices of the devices. Apple is accused of abusing its monopoly position in the digital music player market, and only earlier this month lawyers claimed the firm deliberately deleted rivals' song from iPods. The case went to trial in California last month, after being filed a decade ago. Plaintiffs are claiming Apple's restrictive software froze out competitors and allowed it to sell iPods at inflated prices. They are seeking $350 million (£224m) in damages, which could be tripled if the jury finds Apple broke federal anti-trust law. Apple stopped using the particular software in question in 2009, which means the lawsuit only covers iPod models bought between September 2006 and March 2009. Mr Schultz, who worked on Digital Rights Management (DRM), security and data encryption for iTunes and iPods during this time at the firm, said he was an 'unwilling witness' and was not happy about discussing his work, codenamed Candy. Apple, and Mr Schultz, claimed the aim of the project was to improve iTunes and protect its users from malware and other threats caused by downloading non-iTunes music. They added it was not the firm's intention to stifle competition. Earlier in the trial, the prosecution told the court that  Apple deleted songs from iPods that had been bought from rival music stores. Each time an Apple user with non-iTunes music tried to sync their devices, between 2007 and 2009, the tech firm  urged them to restore the players to factory settings. Apple is accused of abusing its monopoly position in the digital music player market, and only earlier this week lawyers claimed the firm deliberately deleted rivals' song from iPods. The case went to trial in California last month, after being filed a decade ago . Plaintiffs claim Apple's restrictive software froze out competitors and allowed to sell iPods at inflated prices. Apple stopped using the particular software in question in 2009, which means the lawsuit only covers iPod models bought between September 2006 and March 2009. A timeline of Apple releases is pictured . Apple is accused of abusing its monopoly position in the digital music player market, and only earlier this week lawyers claimed the firm deliberately deleted rivals' song from iPods. The case went to trial in California this month, after being filed a decade ago. Plaintiffs are claiming that Apple's restrictive software froze out competitors and allowed Apple to sell iPods at inflated prices. They are seeking $350 million (£224m) in damages, which could be tripled if the jury finds Apple broke federal anti-trust law. Apple stopped using the particular software in question in 2009, which means the lawsuit only covers iPod models bought between September 2006 and March 2009. Earlier in the trial, the prosecution told the court that  Apple deleted songs from iPods that had been bought from rival music stores. Each time an Apple user with non-iTunes music tried to sync their devices, between 2007 and 2009, the tech firm  urged them to restore the players to factory settings. And the lawyers claimed this was a deliberate move to wipe the rival files, and cause the users' music libraries to 'blow up.' But Apple insisted the move was a legitimate security measure. And the lawyers claimed this was a deliberate move to wipe the rival files, and cause the users' music libraries to 'blow up.' But Apple insisted the move was a legitimate security measure. The court case was almost dismissed earlier this month when the judge disqualified one of the claimants because her iPod wasn't bought during the time period detailed in the case. The other claimant withdrew her claims. But 65-year-old Massachusetts business consultant Barbara Bennet read about the floundering case online and volunteered to represent consumers in the suit. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has repeatedly shown impatience with the attorneys for not doing a better job of vetting the original named claimant in the case, who are supposed to represent the 'class of affected consumers'. 'We shouldn't have been here in the first place,' Rogers said as attorneys on both sides debated how to proceed Tuesday morning. A video testimony of late Apple boss Steve Jobs was played earlier in the trial, filmed six months before his death in 2011. In the testimony, Mr Jobs defended the software and said: 'We were very scared' of the prospect that hackers could break Apple's security system. He added that this might jeopardise Apple's contracts with music recording companies that didn't want their songs to be pirated. 'We would get nasty emails from the labels,' he added. Judge Rogers said she plans to send the case to the jury for deliberations early next week. A video testimony of late Apple boss Steve Jobs (pictured) was played earlier in the trial. In the testimony, Mr Jobs defended the software and said: 'We were very scared' of the prospect hackers could break Apple's security system because it might jeopardise Apple's contracts with music recording companies .
Apple insists the move was a legitimate security measure to protect users .
Lawsuit was filed a decade ago and covers September 2006 to March 2009 .
Claimants are seeking $350 million (£223 million) in damages, which could be tripled under antitrust laws .
As Apple's antitrust case enters its final stages, a former engineer has revealed the firm deliberately blocked rivals' music from its iPods (pictured) After just a few hours of deliberation, a jury in California has found in favour of Apple in a billion-dollar class-action lawsuit over the price of its iPod music players. The eight-member jury in U.S. District Court rejected a claim by attorneys for consumers and iPod resellers, who argued that Apple's use of restrictive software froze out competing makers of portable music players. Apple had argued that the software provided necessary security protection. However, the jury said Apple's iTunes 7.0, released in the fall of 2006, was a 'genuine product improvement,' meaning that new features were good for consumers . Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they plan to appeal. 'We're glad we got this to the jury,' said attorney Bonny Sweeney, who had argued on behalf of the estimated 8 million consumers who purchased iPods from 2006 to 2009. But she asserted that a ruling by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, kept the jury from considering the full effect of the iTunes software update that was the focus of the trial. The case was filed nearly ten years ago and dates to a time when Apple used anti-piracy software that prevented its iPods from playing songs that were downloaded from online outlets that competed with Apple's iTunes stores. 'We thank the jury for their service and we applaud their verdict,' Apple said in a statement. 'We created iPod and iTunes to give our customers the world's best way to listen to music. 'Every time we've updated those products — and every Apple product over the years — we've done it to make the user experience even better.' As Apple's billion-dollar antitrust case entered its final stages, a former engineer earlier this week claimed the tech giant deliberately blocked rivals' music from its iPods. Rod Schultz, who worked as a senior software engineer at Apple between 2006 and 2008, said he worked on a project 'intended to block 100 per cent of non-iTunes clients.' The project was also set up to 'keep out third-party players' that competed with Apple's iPod, according to the Wall Street Journal. Mr Schultz was subpoenaed by the prosecution to prove Apple restricted rival music on its iPods, which ultimately pushed up the prices of the devices. Apple is accused of abusing its monopoly position in the digital music player market, and only earlier this month lawyers claimed the firm deliberately deleted rivals' song from iPods. The case went to trial in California last month, after being filed a decade ago. Plaintiffs are claiming Apple's restrictive software froze out competitors and allowed it to sell iPods at inflated prices. They are seeking $350 million (£224m) in damages, which could be tripled if the jury finds Apple broke federal anti-trust law. Apple stopped using the particular software in question in 2009, which means the lawsuit only covers iPod models bought between September 2006 and March 2009. Mr Schultz, who worked on Digital Rights Management (DRM), security and data encryption for iTunes and iPods during this time at the firm, said he was an 'unwilling witness' and was not happy about discussing his work, codenamed Candy. Apple, and Mr Schultz, claimed the aim of the project was to improve iTunes and protect its users from malware and other threats caused by downloading non-iTunes music. They added it was not the firm's intention to stifle competition. Earlier in the trial, the prosecution told the court that  Apple deleted songs from iPods that had been bought from rival music stores. Each time an Apple user with non-iTunes music tried to sync their devices, between 2007 and 2009, the tech firm  urged them to restore the players to factory settings. Apple is accused of abusing its monopoly position in the digital music player market, and only earlier this week lawyers claimed the firm deliberately deleted rivals' song from iPods. The case went to trial in California last month, after being filed a decade ago . Plaintiffs claim Apple's restrictive software froze out competitors and allowed to sell iPods at inflated prices. Apple stopped using the particular software in question in 2009, which means the lawsuit only covers iPod models bought between September 2006 and March 2009. A timeline of Apple releases is pictured . Apple is accused of abusing its monopoly position in the digital music player market, and only earlier this week lawyers claimed the firm deliberately deleted rivals' song from iPods. The case went to trial in California this month, after being filed a decade ago. Plaintiffs are claiming that Apple's restrictive software froze out competitors and allowed Apple to sell iPods at inflated prices. They are seeking $350 million (£224m) in damages, which could be tripled if the jury finds Apple broke federal anti-trust law. Apple stopped using the particular software in question in 2009, which means the lawsuit only covers iPod models bought between September 2006 and March 2009. Earlier in the trial, the prosecution told the court that  Apple deleted songs from iPods that had been bought from rival music stores. Each time an Apple user with non-iTunes music tried to sync their devices, between 2007 and 2009, the tech firm  urged them to restore the players to factory settings. And the lawyers claimed this was a deliberate move to wipe the rival files, and cause the users' music libraries to 'blow up.' But Apple insisted the move was a legitimate security measure. And the lawyers claimed this was a deliberate move to wipe the rival files, and cause the users' music libraries to 'blow up.' But Apple insisted the move was a legitimate security measure. The court case was almost dismissed earlier this month when the judge disqualified one of the claimants because her iPod wasn't bought during the time period detailed in the case. The other claimant withdrew her claims. But 65-year-old Massachusetts business consultant Barbara Bennet read about the floundering case online and volunteered to represent consumers in the suit. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has repeatedly shown impatience with the attorneys for not doing a better job of vetting the original named claimant in the case, who are supposed to represent the 'class of affected consumers'. 'We shouldn't have been here in the first place,' Rogers said as attorneys on both sides debated how to proceed Tuesday morning. A video testimony of late Apple boss Steve Jobs was played earlier in the trial, filmed six months before his death in 2011. In the testimony, Mr Jobs defended the software and said: 'We were very scared' of the prospect that hackers could break Apple's security system. He added that this might jeopardise Apple's contracts with music recording companies that didn't want their songs to be pirated. 'We would get nasty emails from the labels,' he added. Judge Rogers said she plans to send the case to the jury for deliberations early next week. A video testimony of late Apple boss Steve Jobs (pictured) was played earlier in the trial. In the testimony, Mr Jobs defended the software and said: 'We were very scared' of the prospect hackers could break Apple's security system because it might jeopardise Apple's contracts with music recording companies .
are seeking $350 million (£224m) in damages, bought between September 2006 and March 2009. Mr after being filed a decade ago. Plaintiffs are (£224m) in damages, which could be tripled if the move was a legitimate security measure. And the