Apple Questions Plaintiff iPod Purchase Dates in Ongoing Class-Action Lawsuit

[gnasher729]

These people bought multiple iPods over a number of years despite not liking them for the way they operated?

That's the problem. They didn't. At least there is no evidence that they did.

----------

As long as the lawyers get paid, that's all that matters.

In that case, if the lawyers started a case without plaintiffs with standing and the case gets thrown out, they will _not_ get paid. Apple might even get its lawyers paid by the opponents.

 

[2010mini]

I don't get the premise of this case.....

Apple is being sued because DRM'd content from non-iTunes stores won't play on the iPod? Why would anyone expect it to? Did the terms of service of that DRM content not explicitly say it can only be used on approved devices?

I could see the issue if Apple did not let you load any music other than that purchased from iTunes on the device. Personally 90% of the music that was on my iPod was not purchased from iTunes.

Maybe I am missing the merits of this case. If so, maybe I can sue Ford for not letting me run software from BMW on my car.

 

[projectle]

A competing store marketed their DRMed music as being iPod compatible, and then when Apple found out that their DRM had been broken / stolen (whichever the case may be), they changed their algorithm via an update. The update thereby meant that the competitors songs that were purchased and loaded through a violation of Apple's intellectual property per their cryptographic algorithms and signing certificates were no longer capable of being used on an iPod as they did not validate as being a *true* purchase, per their legal requirements to limit usage to a single user under their license agreements to sell songs to end users digitally.

As a car analogy, let's say that Ford sells you a Focus.

Aftermarket reseller WYSIWYG, LTD. then buys a Focus and figures out how particular tools are made, writes manuals, and then starts making their own aftermarket parts for everything. The problem is that WYSIWYG's one they got had a manufacturing defect... It's drive shaft was incorrectly cast and would crack at high speeds, and the tachometer was mis-calibrated.

They don't know so they just make more identically to the first, and sell them on to their customers. Ford fixes the issue in their manufacturing, issues a recall, and while they are at it slightly alters the housing.



Competing school of though as a car analogy, let's say that Ford sells you a Focus.

Aftermarket reseller WYSIWYG, LTD. then buys a Focus and figures out how particular tools are made, writes manuals, and then starts making their own aftermarket parts for everything. One day they get the idea, we have every single one of these parts sitting on our shelves, why don't we just start selling our own Focuses? We can even call them Ford Focuses, by WYSIWYG and do it at a discount because why not.

Ford tells them to stop, WYSIWYG ignores them, Ford just changes their assembly line, making WYSIWYG's legacy parts no longer useful.



The problem. Here is that car analogies really do not translate into IP issues.

 

[scaredpoet]

I don't get the premise of this case.....

Apple is being sued because DRM'd content from non-iTunes stores won't play on the iPod? Why would anyone expect it to? Did the terms of service of that DRM content not explicitly say it can only be used on approved devices?

I could be wrong, but I think it was the other way around: that DRM'd content from iTunes stores would not play on other, non-Apple devices or software, without hacks (which Apple would systematically block off with regular software updates).

Though, there was never (and there couldn't be) a block for the old CD trick: Burn an audio CD in iTunes with your DRM'd music, then re-rip for DRM-free goodness you can stick on any device.

While I can see the point behind the case, and agree with it in principle, It seems like the issue's long been resolved, at least for music: iTunes purchased music no longer has DRM, and methods exist (both within and outside of Apple's ecosystem) to un-DRM any music you bought back when it was sold that way.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I don't get the premise of this case.....

Apple is being sued because DRM'd content from non-iTunes stores won't play on the iPod? Why would anyone expect it to? Did the terms of service of that DRM content not explicitly say it can only be used on approved devices?

I could see the issue if Apple did not let you load any music other than that purchased from iTunes on the device. Personally 90% of the music that was on my iPod was not purchased from iTunes.

Maybe I am missing the merits of this case. If so, maybe I can sue Ford for not letting me run software from BMW on my car.

The principal allegation is that Apple locked buyers of iTMS tracks into the iPod because they did not license FairPlay to any other manufacturer. On the bare reading of the facts, this is certainly true. The rebuttable argument is that Apple was able to artificially inflate the price of the iPod as a result of this lock-in, and also created an artificial barrier to competition to other digital media players and sellers of music downloads. That will be far more difficult to prove. The case also hinges on Apple's market share during the period in question. This was not a highly fragmented market, unlike the one you cite. Apple pretty much owned it.

But it will be ironic indeed if this case proves to have no plaintiffs.

 

[Archer1440]

During this period, I refused to use Apple music devices, instead using Sony minidisc and later, solid state devices. That proved to be a good decision from the standpoint of SQ, which was far superior to Apple devices in general, but ultimately the business failure of Sony Connect left that community high and dry.

I still have working Sony devices from that era that still sound far superior to current Apple devices. Damn shame.

 

[JAT]

The problem. Here is that car analogies really do not translate into IP issues.

That's because nobody even understands the purpose of analogies in general, let alone specific examples.

 

[cfedu]

Update 12/5 9:30 AM: Apple has now filed for dismissal of the case after discovering that Marianna Rosen's other iPods were purchased by her husband's law firm. The other plaintiff, Melanie Tucker, was withdrawn from the case on Friday. According to CNET, if the plaintiff's lawyers do not provide evidence that Rosen purchased a qualifying iPod, they could substitute a new plaintiff or expand the lawsuit to cover a wider timeframe.

Article Link: Apple Questions Plaintiff iPod Purchase Dates in Ongoing Class-Action Lawsuit

If this gets dismissed, I'm going to have a good laugh. This brings incompetence to a new level. The state should charge anyone criminally if they perjured themselves.

 

[lazyrighteye]

These people bought multiple iPods over a number of years despite not liking them for the way they operated?

Ha. Right?
My first thought reading about this was "ok... The walled garden... I can see where that could be an issue for some." But as soon as I read the plaintiffs had purchased multiple devices over multiple years... I just started shaking my head.

What a waste. Is said waste punishable in any way? If not, should be. Seems more criminal than creating an ecosystem with guardrails in place to ensure optimal performance for users.

 

[Swytch]

These people bought multiple iPods over a number of years despite not liking them for the way they operated?

exactly what i was thinking... this case should have been dismissed the minute it was filled with the report including that they bought more ipods despite having issues with the product.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Ha. Right?
My first thought reading about this was "ok... The walled garden... I can see where that could be an issue for some." But as soon as I read the plaintiffs had purchased multiple devices over multiple years... I just started shaking my head.

What a waste. Is said waste punishable in any way? If not, should be. Seems more criminal than creating an ecosystem with guardrails in place to ensure optimal performance for users.

exactly what i was thinking... this case should have been dismissed the minute it was filled with the report including that they bought more ipods despite having issues with the product.

These points aren't even remotely germane to the actual case. If the plaintiffs hadn't bought iPods they would have no standing to sue. This is Apple's argument in court.

This case is far from dismissible, obviously. It's remained viable for the years it has rattled around the court system and withstood all of Apple's motions for summary judgement. That is why it has gone to trial.

----------

if the plaintiff's lawyers do not provide evidence that Rosen purchased a qualifying iPod, they could substitute a new plaintiff or expand the lawsuit to cover a wider timeframe.

Something the judge would have to allow.

 

[rdlink]

I have to say, its not altogether implausible that someone could make a mistake on purchase dates, if you asked me when I purchased an iPod, I could probably get it within a year. Though this is a court case, it would have made more sense to get a few more plaintiffs before going class action imo.

Also, I actually agree with the merits of the lawsuit, it sucked that apple made it nearly impossible to use a rival music services songs on a music player. its akin to making a cd player that only plays sony brand CDs.

Sigh. So sad that people don't understand (or don't want to understand) what really happened. Had Apple not locked down FairPlay as much as they did the digital music rennasaince would not have happened. The music companies were not about to let Apple have 99 cent songs without it. You would have been downloading pirated songs via bit torrent for years, possibly even today.

----------

During this period, I refused to use Apple music devices, instead using Sony minidisc and later, solid state devices. That proved to be a good decision from the standpoint of SQ, which was far superior to Apple devices in general, but ultimately the business failure of Sony Connect left that community high and dry.

I still have working Sony devices from that era that still sound far superior to current Apple devices. Damn shame.

Do they sit on the same shelf as your betamax?

 

[theBB]

Also, I actually agree with the merits of the lawsuit, it sucked that apple made it nearly impossible to use a rival music services songs on a music player. its akin to making a cd player that only plays sony brand CDs.

Isn't it more akin to Kindle not being compatible with books bought from Nook or Google or Apple? Should we waste money on suing Amazon, too?

In any case, I think Sony should have the right to sell CD players that only plays Sony brand CDs. If you think that restriction is ridiculous, you have the right to buy a player made by somebody else.

Besides, in the long run, it worked out better that iPods were not compatible with encrypted songs from other stores. It forced the publishers to allow unencrypted song sales to introduce more rigorous competition between stores and that has been ultimately better for the consumers.

 

[KUguardgrl13]

I could be wrong, but I think it was the other way around: that DRM'd content from iTunes stores would not play on other, non-Apple devices or software, without hacks (which Apple would systematically block off with regular software updates).

Though, there was never (and there couldn't be) a block for the old CD trick: Burn an audio CD in iTunes with your DRM'd music, then re-rip for DRM-free goodness you can stick on any device.

While I can see the point behind the case, and agree with it in principle, It seems like the issue's long been resolved, at least for music: iTunes purchased music no longer has DRM, and methods exist (both within and outside of Apple's ecosystem) to un-DRM any music you bought back when it was sold that way.

As I've read it, the case is arguing against both: the fact that the iPod can only play iTunes-purchased or ripped music (not music purchased from a third party) and that iTunes purchases can only be loaded onto an iPod (not a third party device).

I equate it to video game consoles. PS4s can't play Wii U games and vise versa. Video gaming has been that way for several generations of consoles. So hard core gamers do their research and purchase the console or consoles that are capable of playing the games they want to play.

Why would you buy an iPod if you didn't want to purchase iTunes music, and why would you buy iTunes music knowing you couldn't play it on any other device?

I'm waiting for the App Store vs Google Play trial now.

 

[cfedu]

As I've read it, the case is arguing against both: the fact that the iPod can only play iTunes-purchased or ripped music (not music purchased from a third party) and that iTunes purchases can only be loaded onto an iPod (not a third party device).

I equate it to video game consoles. PS4s can't play Wii U games and vise versa. Video gaming has been that way for several generations of consoles. So hard core gamers do their research and purchase the console or consoles that are capable of playing the games they want to play.

Why would you buy an iPod if you didn't want to purchase iTunes music, and why would you buy iTunes music knowing you couldn't play it on any other device?

I'm waiting for the App Store vs Google Play trial now.

Not that I really disagree, but at the end of the day the video game analogy does not even make sense. ITunes users could always burn the musuc to disc, be it a virtual or physical and than rip it to get rid of the DRM.

I could see have doing this would be a pain in the butt if you had a very large collection, but buying thousands songs without reading the terms of service if kinda stupid.

 

[TimelessOne]

As I've read it, the case is arguing against both: the fact that the iPod can only play iTunes-purchased or ripped music (not music purchased from a third party) and that iTunes purchases can only be loaded onto an iPod (not a third party device).

I equate it to video game consoles. PS4s can't play Wii U games and vise versa. Video gaming has been that way for several generations of consoles. So hard core gamers do their research and purchase the console or consoles that are capable of playing the games they want to play.

Why would you buy an iPod if you didn't want to purchase iTunes music, and why would you buy iTunes music knowing you couldn't play it on any other device?

I'm waiting for the App Store vs Google Play trial now.

The problem with the video game console argument people keep stupiditly using is I can give you technical reason at why a 360 game will not work on say a PS. Follow by the entire stupidity argument falls apart is they are not blocking 3rd parties from making games for the respective systems.

The video game argument does not work.

Simple fact is this shows yet again that Apple can not play nice with anyone.
Remember the rules are different when you are top dog in a market compared to a smaller player.

----------

Not that I really disagree, but at the end of the day the video game analogy does not even make sense. ITunes users could always burn the musuc to disc, be it a virtual or physical and than rip it to get rid of the DRM.

I could see have doing this would be a pain in the butt if you had a very large collection, but buying thousands songs without reading the terms of service if kinda stupid.

back during that time there was a limited number of times the DRM music could even be burnt to a cd.

While itunes had DRM I would refuse to pay any real money to iTMS as Apple inablility to play nice with anyone else.
It is the same reason if I buy a ditigal movie the iTunes offer is an automatic no go and refused to be even consider as it only works threw iTunes or an Apple product. Compare that to say Google or Amazon that pretty much works on almost everything and they offer tools to get on other products. Amazon is higher just because it works on more stuff but Google is getting there.

 

[KUguardgrl13]

The problem with the video game console argument people keep stupiditly using is I can give you technical reason at why a 360 game will not work on say a PS. Follow by the entire stupidity argument falls apart is they are not blocking 3rd parties from making games for the respective systems.

The video game argument does not work.

Simple fact is this shows yet again that Apple can not play nice with anyone.
Remember the rules are different when you are top dog in a market compared to a smaller player.

There's a reason I used Nintendo for my video game analogy. They will never license Mario, Zelda, or Pokémon to the other console makers (because of they did, they'd go the way of Sega and Atari). They also used proprietary connectors and game cartridges/disks up until recently (the disks are a standard size, the connectors are still proprietary). PlayStation uses standard inputs like micro USB. PS and Xbox have also always used a standard disk size. But you still can't play those disks in the other system. Sure, there are third party game makers, but they still have to make and sell separate disks for each platform. For my analogy, the record companies sold different music files for each online music store (iTunes, Napster, Windows Media Player, Real Player, etc). Plus what about PC gaming? A CD-ROM or DVD-ROM could be played in any computer running the appropriate specs and OS.

My point is that Apple is not the only company who tries to create a walled garden. They just have less of an excuse. And honestly it's not relevant anymore with the removal of DRM. I can buy music from Amazon and easily transfer it to iTunes and sync to my iPod or iPhone. And then there's Spotify which takes the music store away from the hardware or software maker altogether.

 

[gnasher729]

The principal allegation is that Apple locked buyers of iTMS tracks into the iPod because they did not license FairPlay to any other manufacturer. On the bare reading of the facts, this is certainly true. The rebuttable argument is that Apple was able to artificially inflate the price of the iPod as a result of this lock-in, and also created an artificial barrier to competition to other digital media players and sellers of music downloads. That will be far more difficult to prove. The case also hinges on Apple's market share during the period in question. This was not a highly fragmented market, unlike the one you cite. Apple pretty much owned it.

But it will be ironic indeed if this case proves to have no plaintiffs.

If you legally download music, with or without DRM, you don't automatically the right to make copies. You'd have to look at the license terms. And the licence terms from Apple's iTunes store would reflect what terms Apple negotiated with the record companies. I haven't checked the terms for ages, but at some point they said that you could play the music on your Mac and on some number of iPods. So if say a Zune could have played music with FairPlay, you wouldn't have had a license (unless Microsoft arranged a license with the record companies that allowed it).

As far as the market is concerned, first current marketshare doesn't make a monopoly if it is easy for others to enter the market, second I doubt that "downloadable music" is a legitimate market, and not just "music". After all, there are comparisons between CD sales and online sales all the time, so I doubt either can be taken legitimately as a separate market. If I want some music, I'm free to check whether I download it or buy it on a CD; it's quite interchangeable, so it's one market.

 

[TimelessOne]

There's a reason I used Nintendo for my video game analogy. They will never license Mario, Zelda, or Pokémon to the other console makers (because of they did, they'd go the way of Sega and Atari). They also used proprietary connectors and game cartridges/disks up until recently (the disks are a standard size, the connectors are still proprietary). PlayStation uses standard inputs like micro USB. PS and Xbox have also always used a standard disk size. But you still can't play those disks in the other system. Sure, there are third party game makers, but they still have to make and sell separate disks for each platform. For my analogy, the record companies sold different music files for each online music store (iTunes, Napster, Windows Media Player, Real Player, etc). Plus what about PC gaming? A CD-ROM or DVD-ROM could be played in any computer running the appropriate specs and OS.

My point is that Apple is not the only company who tries to create a walled garden. They just have less of an excuse. And honestly it's not relevant anymore with the removal of DRM. I can buy music from Amazon and easily transfer it to iTunes and sync to my iPod or iPhone. And then there's Spotify which takes the music store away from the hardware or software maker altogether.

It is relevant as while they do not do drm any more it was used to put them as number one and to kill competition during those early days to prevent other players from entering the market.

As for the video game argument again I can point to technical reason at why a 360 game will not work on a playstation or a wii control will not work on others.
It is the fact that the os and hardware of those system require different complies and code modifations.
Also the rules are different when you are number one that you did nothing illegal or abusing to get there or stay there.

Apple does not play nice with others and I would go as far as in many ways apple is far from an ethical company. .

 

[IJ Reilly]

If you legally download music, with or without DRM, you don't automatically the right to make copies. You'd have to look at the license terms. And the licence terms from Apple's iTunes store would reflect what terms Apple negotiated with the record companies. I haven't checked the terms for ages, but at some point they said that you could play the music on your Mac and on some number of iPods. So if say a Zune could have played music with FairPlay, you wouldn't have had a license (unless Microsoft arranged a license with the record companies that allowed it).

As far as the market is concerned, first current marketshare doesn't make a monopoly if it is easy for others to enter the market, second I doubt that "downloadable music" is a legitimate market, and not just "music". After all, there are comparisons between CD sales and online sales all the time, so I doubt either can be taken legitimately as a separate market. If I want some music, I'm free to check whether I download it or buy it on a CD; it's quite interchangeable, so it's one market.

Licensing terms make for an interesting point, but as I've said many times already, Apple is going to have to demonstrate in court (assuming the trial continues) that these terms were not of their own making. I suspect that they will resist mightily the disclosing the contents of their private negotiations with the music companies. They may not have a choice in the end.

Monopoly is the wrong term to be using, but I doubt very much if Apple would be able to refute the idea of digital downloads being a legitimate definition of a market, since this is the very market they were hoping to create.

 

[rekhyt]

I know we're going way off topic here... but really, how do you use the shift key? Do you use your thumb on that too?

I bet we'd get an earful if you had to use vi, hands contorted and all.

I touch type.

I use my left pinky for the shift key. Never used the right shift key once, for some reason. Odd.

Thing is, if I use the alt/option key, I use my left thumb, not my left pinky finger.

 

[gnasher729]

Monopoly is the wrong term to be using, but I doubt very much if Apple would be able to refute the idea of digital downloads being a legitimate definition of a market, since this is the very market they were hoping to create.

You don't have different markets if the goods can be substituted for each other. Dishwashers and washing machines are different markets: If I need a dishwasher I can't buy a washing machine and use it as a dishwasher. Downloads and CDs are the same market: If I download a record, I'm not going to buy the CD anymore, and if I have the CD, I'm not going to buy a download. Therefore, no separate markets.

Licensing terms make for an interesting point, but as I've said many times already, Apple is going to have to demonstrate in court (assuming the trial continues) that these terms were not of their own making.

By default, you have _no rights at all_ to make copies of music that you bought. So if Apple didn't negotiate for you to get you the right to play the music on a non-Apple device, they didn't do anything to hurt their competitors. They just didn't spend time and money on helping their competitors.

 

[Caseynd]

By default, you have _no rights at all_ to make copies of music that you bought. So if Apple didn't negotiate for you to get you the right to play the music on a non-Apple device, they didn't do anything to hurt their competitors. They just didn't spend time and money on helping their competitors.

Actually you can make copies of music you purchased under "Fair Use"
"Fair use is only one of many limitations, exceptions, and defenses to copyright infringement. For instance, the Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal, using certain technologies, to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use."

 

[ckurt25]

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]

Update 12/5 9:30 AM: Apple has now filed for dismissal of the case after discovering that Marianna Rosen's other iPods were purchased by her husband's law firm. The other plaintiff, Melanie Tucker, was withdrawn from the case on Friday. According to CNET, if the plaintiff's lawyers do not provide evidence that Rosen purchased a qualifying iPod, they could substitute a new plaintiff or expand the lawsuit to cover a wider timeframe.

Article Link: Apple Questions Plaintiff iPod Purchase Dates in Ongoing Class-Action Lawsuit

I wonder, is it the husband's law firm that is representing her?

 

[gnasher729]

Actually you can make copies of music you purchased under "Fair Use"
"Fair use is only one of many limitations, exceptions, and defenses to copyright infringement. For instance, the Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal, using certain technologies, to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use."

If you read the article carefully, "Fair Use" does exactly _not_ allow you to make a copy of a CD you bought or a record that you downloaded, for private use. The Audio Home Recording Act on the other hand disallows copying of any music with DRM.