Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

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

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
50,441
11,827



Apple is in court this week fighting a class-action lawsuit that alleges the company deliberately crippled competing music services by locking iPods and iTunes music to it own ecosystem, but as it turns out, there may be no legitimate plaintiff in the case.

The class-action suit pertains to iPods (classic, shuffle, touch, and nano) purchased between September 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009, and in a letter addressed to the judge overseeing the trial, Apple says (via The New York Times) that it has been unable to confirm the purchase dates of some of the iPods cited by the plaintiffs.

During her testimony, plaintiff Marianna Rosen claimed to have purchased an iPod touch in December of 2008, but the device's serial number indicates that it was actually purchased in July of 2009, outside of the scope of the case. The iPod touch Rosen mentioned this week also contradicts previous statements she has given stating that she only owned a 15GB iPod and a 30GB video iPod.
That is contrary to her December 16, 2010 response to Apple's Interrogatory No. 20 that, as of that date, she had purchased only "a 15 GB iPod, and a 30GB video iPod for her own use," and "an iPod Mini as a present for her sister." Attachment 2, TX 2869 at 14. In that interrogatory response, Ms. Rosen also affirmatively stated, "She has not purchased any other MP3 players."
Rosen also claimed to have purchased an iPod nano in the fall of 2007, but Apple was not able to verify the purchase and has asked for proof of purchase and a serial number.

Apple is also asking for evidence of iPod purchases made by the second plaintiff in the case, Melanie Tucker, who claims to have bought a fourth-generation iPod classic in 2004, a fifth-generation iPod classic in 2006, and a 32GB iPod touch.

According to the judge overseeing the case, if there are no viable plaintiffs, the trial could be stalled or stopped altogether. "I am concerned that I don't have a plaintiff," the judge said. "That's a problem."

Lawyers from the plaintiffs are expected to respond to Apple's request for proof of purchase by tonight.

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
 

Porco

macrumors 68040
Mar 28, 2005
3,139
6,093
I hope Apple doesn't get into trouble for deleting the plantiffs from the trial!
 
Comment

rekhyt

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2008
1,127
78
Part of the old MR guard.
I really wish Apple would use the option key a little more, and the command key a little less.

Not a fan of the option key myself.

I prefer the command key. Functions like +C and +V feel a lot more natural, rather than trying to twist your hand and move your thumb backwards to do alt/option+C.
 
Comment

furi0usbee

macrumors 68000
Jul 11, 2008
1,781
1,264
LOL @ trial lawyers. In their zeal, they forgot they needed an actual plaintiff.
 
Comment

WolfSnap

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2012
893
644
SoCal
This should get the plaintiff's case thrown out. Also, statute of limitations would prevent refiling. AND, god willing, they'll be charged with perjury and contempt of court.

This case can't be thrown out fast enough IMHO.
 
Comment

PowerBook-G5

macrumors 65816
Jul 30, 2013
1,243
1,179
The United States of America
Not a fan of the option key myself.

I prefer the command key. Functions like +C and +V feel a lot more natural, rather than trying to twist your hand and move your thumb backwards to do alt/option+C.

This. On the rare occasion when I have to use a Windows PC, the Control key is so awkward to use with one hand, like with control-C. Sorry, but how did this pertain to the article?

----------
In regards to the case, what is the "15 GB iPod" that they are referring to?

Anyway, this will probably end up with one of the following:

1) The case gets thrown out
2) Apple wins
3) Apple loses, ends up "paying pocket change" (from Apple's perspective)
 
Comment

britboyj

macrumors 6502a
Apr 8, 2009
645
667
This should get the plaintiff's case thrown out. Also, statute of limitations would prevent refiling. AND, god willing, they'll be charged with perjury and contempt of court.

It clearly shows a lack of research. This was a money grab for the plaintiff's attorney, pure and simple.
 
Comment

ronjon10

macrumors regular
Dec 9, 2009
215
27
This. On the rare occasion when I have to use a Windows PC, the Control key is so awkward to use with one hand, like with control-C. Sorry, but how did this pertain to the article?

Hilarious. I started with pcs and find the cmd-c completely awkward with 1 hand. Ctl-c is much easier for me.
 
Comment

MR-LIZARD

macrumors regular
Jan 9, 2012
101
154
UK
These people bought multiple iPods over a number of years despite not liking them for the way they operated?
 
Comment

texaggie

macrumors newbie
Dec 4, 2014
1
0
Apple Doesn't Have Cheap Attorneys :)

Prosecuting lawyers in this case should be pilloried.

This is going to be great if it turns out that there is no legitimate plaintiff in a federal case with a jury already seated; there will be sanctions assessed against those attorneys, and I have a feeling getting the case to trial cost Apple at least $50 million in attorney fees with all of the depositions that have been taken. It will be nice to see that chunk assessed to those money hungry class action attorneys. If I were the judge in this case I would hold them in contempt for an error of this magnitude.

I don't know what the statute of limitations is on the claim they are seeking damages on but I would think it would have run by now if we are talking about an event that happened 10+ years ago.
 
Comment

Nixie1972

macrumors newbie
May 19, 2010
15
3
As the suit covers purchases made after September 16, 2006 there is no way the case is running for 10+ years....
 
Comment

Zxxv

macrumors 68040
Nov 13, 2011
3,558
1,103
UK
Not a fan of the option key myself.

I prefer the command key. Functions like +C and +V feel a lot more natural, rather than trying to twist your hand and move your thumb backwards to do alt/option+C.

I'd rather have the option to do something
 
Comment

Porco

macrumors 68040
Mar 28, 2005
3,139
6,093
Not a fan of the option key myself.

I prefer the command key. Functions like +C and +V feel a lot more natural, rather than trying to twist your hand and move your thumb backwards to do alt/option+C.

Yeeeaah… you seem to have taken my signature far too literally… if you prefer something because there are options, you're essentially agreeing with its actual meaning. It's just a way of saying Apple is sometimes too quick to 'command' users how to do things and should give users more options… see? :cool:

All of which is, strictly speaking, off topic, but I guess this case does raise questions about consumer choice to some degree… though DRM on iTunes music was never really all Apple's fault. Though it's kind of funny that this case is still going on when DRM for music was abandoned years ago yet it persists on TV shows and movies etc…
 
Comment

nebo1ss

macrumors 68030
Jun 2, 2010
2,806
1,600
This is going to be great if it turns out that there is no legitimate plaintiff in a federal case with a jury already seated; there will be sanctions assessed against those attorneys, and I have a feeling getting the case to trial cost Apple at least $50 million in attorney fees with all of the depositions that have been taken. It will be nice to see that chunk assessed to those money hungry class action attorneys. If I were the judge in this case I would hold them in contempt for an error of this magnitude.

I don't know what the statute of limitations is on the claim they are seeking damages on but I would think it would have run by now if we are talking about an event that happened 10+ years ago.
The case was not filed yesterday it was filed many years ago well within the permitted timeframe.
 
Last edited:
Comment

rsocal

macrumors 6502a
Sep 22, 2008
738
0
Southern Ca
It's sad we waste this kind of time, money and tie up our courts with nonsense.

If it does turn out there was perjury committed I hope they're prosecuted!
 
Comment

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,108
It'll be back to ambulance chasing for this group of loser lawyers who are overreaching for a huge payday.
 
Comment

Caseynd

macrumors regular
Jun 17, 2008
126
51
ND, USA
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.
 
Comment

lolkthxbai

macrumors 65816
May 7, 2011
1,364
417
Bwahaha!!! Money grabbers should've thought through their case more carefully. They had 10 years to prep LOL
 
Comment

teslo

macrumors 6502a
Jun 9, 2014
929
599
option key is okay i guess... i'm a bigger fan of the ampersand.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.