They owned iPods, just not from the dates listed on the suit. the Devils in the details in these kinds of things
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod Lawsuit Loses Last Plaintiff as Judge Discusses Halt Amid Search for Replacements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They owned iPods, just not from the dates listed on the suit. the Devils in the details in these kinds of things
True, but just because Apple is accused of wrongdoing by shifty lawyers who can't even manage to find a lead plaintiff doesn't mean Apple has done anything wrong.
----------
Who would pay these lawyers, if there is no case?
You could flip it also and have a valid statement. Just cause the lawyers have a plantiff doesn't make Apple guilty.
This less about what Apple did and more about the intent. We know for fact there was DRM on iTunes tracks. We know for fact that realplayer files didn't work, someone figured a hack and Apple sealed the hole. We know that itunes files didn't work on all other players as they came out of the store.
It's why that is the issue. Did Apple do these things to screw consumers or because of other factors.
It's not unlike me stabbing you in the gut and you died. Was it murder? Maybe. If I was a cold hearted psycho beeyotch that stabbed you cause I didnt like your face. But what if I have solid proof, say an irrefutable video, that you attacked me with that knife, screaming you were going to kill me and I managed to get the knife etc. Now it's self defense and I go from a murderer to a hero.
Details matter. In a class action suit, a small group are claiming a company did something to them and many others. But if it didn't happen to they group they have no legal authority to speak on behalf of fellow victims. I say give them until the close of the day Friday. If they can't produce a proven plantiff the case is done. Let someone fine another suit from scratch later if they like.
I thought your initial post was an attempt at humor but now I see that you seriously believe the nonsense. Bottom line is that you have to show that you have been harmed in order to sue. For example. Person X cuts off the arm of person Y. Unrelated person Z then sues for damages against person X but person Z has no standing so the case gets tossed. There still is a loss but unless person Y sues, there is no case.
If you read the some of the responses from the firms suing Apple it is hyperbole and gold digging. For example, Apple's counsel asks for any and all harm that the plaintiff claims is caused by Apple. The response from the plaintiff's law firm is that the question is too broad and cannot answer. Huh? You can't say that "I was specifically harmed by a, b, c, etc. and therefore my harm is the cost of songs a, b, c, etc. songs not being able to be played. In addition, there may be other harms not yet listed."
At first I thought it was a valid lawsuit but in looking at what the plaintiff's (or lack of plaintiff's) attorneys are vaguely claiming, it doesn't appear to have much to do about anything. Apple deleted songs from other sites that had cracked DRM. It did not delete songs that didn't have DRM. Music labels reportedly required Apple to only allow the playing of properly DRM'd songs and cracked songs from other vendors does not fit that description. There was a free work-around if you had DRM'd material from another vendor. Play it into a recorder or otherwise rip it to a non-DRM'd file and then copy it to your player. Where is the loss?
Last edited:
Who says Apple won't have a chance. Or that the judge won't require proof of ownership before allowing this person to be added
As for the fairness issue, it's a class action which implies a huge pool of victims, why can a different one speak for fellow victims.
Understood, it just seems like splitting hairs in terms of actual guilt, and yes I understand this is how class action lawsuits and the US legal system works in general.
Because she claims she purchased it and she was directly harmed. If her husband bought it he's the one that can claim harm. Details matter in these cases
Unless the judge decides otherwise. Which it looks like the judge will, with a limit. A very tight limit
Agreed, I think I said something akin to that in another post. The judge said there were "millions" of potential people impacted, which I don't doubt, so who out of those millions will step forward? At this point it doesn't seem to be worth the hassle.
I'll be a plantiff!!
And I will agree to settle out-of-court in exchange for a Mac Pro.
And then sue when it won't run Windows 95.
There are members on these message boards that claim that the exact problem happened to them. They should volunteer. Unless of course those claims were only as good as the previous plaintiffs'. But that would mean a forum member was lying for effect, and that can't possibly be true...
That really isn't an issue. Apple has basically admitted that yes a change to the OS did screw the loophole. So the issue comes to whether Apple had a legal right to fix the glitch etc.
Shhh I'll have to save that for years down the road. But good idea
Does anyone still remember back when there was no iTunes for Windows? I had to use MusicMatch to load songs, man was that painful.
Ahh the memories. My first iPod was (I think) the 15GB touchwheel with dock. And IIRC I waited until it came out after reading ThinkSecret.
Intent, if you want to call it that (not sure if the law does in non-criminal cases). Apple contends that their contracts with the music industry required that they not license FairPlay. So far they haven't provided any evidence of this, but if the case advances, they will have to do more than say it, they will have to supply evidence.
The question for the law isn't so much what happened to consumers, but to competitors. This is an unusual case in that California law allows consumers to claim damages from a company that is found to have competed unfairly.
So if Apple wins, will the plaintiff go after the record companies for monopolist practices?
Looking from outside the US this seems so messed up. I assume someone took some action, then said millions had the same problem then got class action. Once you prove the initial claimants were not legit it seems to me the whole thing should be dropped.
Finding one of the millions of people affected could be challenging. They are looking for someone who has an iPod from this time, still has it, and wants to be a party to this claim. So someone who thinks there is a pot of gold here for them. I imagine the lawyers offering incentives and payments to get someone to attend.
How much does the lawyers who filed the claim pay if they lose?
Finding one of the millions of people affected could be challenging. They are looking for someone who has an iPod from this time, still has it, and wants to be a party to this claim. So someone who thinks there is a pot of gold here for them. I imagine the lawyers offering incentives and payments to get someone to attend.
How much does the lawyers who filed the claim pay if they lose?
Absolutely unacceptable. Apple will challenge victoriously. Even if it takes another 4 years.
creating a music player and a music store to go with it that doesnt work with the competition's products? HOW DARE THEY? no one has ever had the audacity to do such a thing! apple has some real nerve there...
You don't say where you are from, but chances are, it's from a place where antitrust laws are stronger and more vigorously enforced than in the United States, since that's the case in just about every country in the world.
If the case is dismissed, presumably Apple can demand court costs, but that's up to the judge.