Fairly clear here: "During one of these breaks I was by myself in the office of the CTO. He came in and we chatted about the state of technology and music. I then thought to ask a question of which the answer would shed light on the real reason behind the litigation and contention technology companies share with old media companies. I asked Howie, why is it that Warner chose to sue SeeqPod? He said that they maintained a short list of companies and we were on top of that list. I then asked how we wound up on the list and at the top. This is when he mentioned that Steve Jobs had held meetings with several labels including Warner and disagreed with streaming music services like SeeqPod and that companies like ours would inhibit a deal between Apple and the labels, so they collectively decided to keep a running list of “problem” companies that need to be “addressed” by Warner. It was at this point I realized we were not in a fight with the labels but in a proxy war waged by Apple against innovative music technology companies."
Yeah, you can interpret that the way that dangero did. I think the interesting thing there is that streaming music services of that era (including Internet radio) were generally unlicensed and operating on slightly-questionable interpretations of copyright law that had them paying nothing. So, if Jobs' complaint was that there are these other companies that weren't paying a cent, and could play music anyway (including on Jobs' devices), that would "inhibit a deal" because it wouldn't be rational for Apple to pay either.
Depends, as always, what "innovative" means. Are cities against innovation in transportation? If the innovative thing is ignoring regulations that nobody else has thought to ignore, then yes, of course they are. (As with copyright, it's not obvious that the regulations are good, but they are what's on the books.)
