Sidebar Sidebar
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

But the judge said she has an obligation to the "millions of absent class members"
Click to expand...
-- That are apparently impossible to find....

It isn't just a case of finding someone who bought an iPod. It is someone who bought an iPod and also purchased music through Real.

I am guessing proof of purchase of said song from Real is also needed, correct?

On top of that, Apple didn't do anything wrong, Real did by hacking a legitimate, enforceable copy-right protection, then selling something they had no claim to sell, and couldn't control. Which begs the question, shouldn't THEY be on trial for false advertising?
 
ThisIsNotMe said:
Its pretty disgusting that trail lawyers can actively seek out plaintiffs DURING a trail.
Click to expand...
Only amongst the current plaintiffs, promoting one to "lead", since it is a class action. I, for instance, can't suddenly become a plaintiff. Although, I think I did buy iPods in the required timeframe. But the 5 songs I purchased at iTunes never really bothered me, esp not after I "upgraded" them when the DRM went away. And never even considered using Real.
 
JAT said:
Only amongst the current plaintiffs, promoting one to "lead", since it is a class action. I, for instance, can't suddenly become a plaintiff. Although, I think I did buy iPods in the required timeframe. But the 5 songs I purchased at iTunes never really bothered me, esp not after I "upgraded" them when the DRM went away. And never even considered using Real.
Click to expand...

If you signed an affidavit representing that you bought an iPod during the period then you too could become a plaintiff because you'd be a member of the class. What bothered you or what you considered is immaterial.
 
IJ Reilly said:
If you signed an affidavit representing that you bought an iPod during the period then you too could become a plaintiff because you'd be a member of the class. What bothered you or what you considered is immaterial.
Click to expand...

Ok, figured it was closed by now. And it's not immaterial to me. Ethics. Morals. I don't need someone else to tell me I wasn't harmed by this series of events.
 
starbird said:
-- That are apparently impossible to find....
Click to expand...

If you can't find somebody who bought an iPod during the years in question then you'd probably have a problem locating your backside with both hands.

I suspect the judge in this case will permit the attorneys to find their backsides but if there's any good news for Apple in all this it's that these attorneys have not been very careful to date and that doesn't bode well for them going forward.

----------
JAT said:
Ok, figured it was closed by now. And it's not immaterial to me. Ethics. Morals. I don't need someone else to tell me I wasn't harmed by this series of events.
Click to expand...

No, if Apple loses at trial anyone who bought an iPod during the time in question could file for however much money is decided by the court. I can see why you would not be interested in being a plaintiff, but the reason isn't because you would not be eligible.
 
This case is 10 years in the making, and the lawyers can't even find plaintiffs that were truly affected by the "issue"?
The judge should just throw the case out just on principle.
 
TWSS37 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, I was almost convicted for killing someone with a gun, but fortunately my lawyer split hairs about the fact that I never had a gun, that I wasn't near the place where the murder was supposed to happen, and the fact that the supposed murder victim is still alive and was never shot. Apart from that, I was totally, absolutely guilty. :D

If Apple is accused of hurting customers, then requiring that the plaintiff actually shows a genuine customer who can at least claim legitimately that they _might_ be hurt isn't exactly splitting hairs.
 
gnasher729 said:
Well, I was almost convicted for killing someone with a gun, but fortunately my lawyer split hairs about the fact that I never had a gun, that I wasn't near the place where the murder was supposed to happen, and the fact that the supposed murder victim is still alive and was never shot. Apart from that, I was totally, absolutely guilty. :D

If Apple is accused of hurting customers, then requiring that the plaintiff actually shows a genuine customer who can at least claim legitimately that they _might_ be hurt isn't exactly splitting hairs.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, it's only splitting hairs if you absolutely hate Apple and want to see them be punished for imagined offenses. :)
 
gnasher729 said:
Well, I was almost convicted for killing someone with a gun, but fortunately my lawyer split hairs about the fact that I never had a gun, that I wasn't near the place where the murder was supposed to happen, and the fact that the supposed murder victim is still alive and was never shot. Apart from that, I was totally, absolutely guilty. :D

If Apple is accused of hurting customers, then requiring that the plaintiff actually shows a genuine customer who can at least claim legitimately that they _might_ be hurt isn't exactly splitting hairs.
Click to expand...

Well my point was how the person got the iPod, through her husband's cc from his business. So in your example, it would be more like you actually did have the gun, but you didn't acquire it the way you had initially stated.
 
And......

bbeagle said:
Because it was a BUSINESS purchase, not a PERSONAL purchase. The business bought the iPod, not her. Therefore it is not HER iPod. So, SHE is automatically disqualified.

The business can't be added to the class action lawsuit - unless the BUSINESS shows it was harmed. The BUSINESS undoubtedly was not harmed by music on a device that was unplayable, unless it was a music business.

Actually, since this case started NOBODY can be ADDED to the class action lawsuit, so since SHE was disqualified, and the BUSINESS was not already on the class action lawsuit list, the BUSINESS can't be added.
Click to expand...

the business her husband has is a law office!!!!!!
 
Porco said:
Yes, they should make a movie out of this …and they could put that movie exclusively on the iTunes store, with its DRM so no-one can play it on non-Apple devices (or a computer with iTunes installed… and the name of the movie could be 'Didn't We Just Leave This Party?!' :p:D
Click to expand...

Yes, just as VW came out with an engine that won't work in my Corvette. It must be time to go after GM.
 
What a bunch of B/S. Same old same old. Lawyers trying to make millions for themselves, while the so called "Plaintiffs" get a few dollars for the pain and suffering of not being able to load songs on their iPods from other sources than iTunes. The case should be thrown out. In fact most class action cases should be thrown out.
 
Nunyabinez said:
This is an example of the many things that are wrong with our legal system. The tort system is there to protect people who have been harmed and in theory is a good thing.

When you have a judge holding a case open while attorneys go and search for for a victim you have turned the whole system on its head. If real damage was done I don't think you would have trouble locating a victim.
Click to expand...

It's a class action, which means there may be 1,000,000 "victims" who will each get an iTunes credit for $10 as compensation but the noble lawyers who battled for them will get to bill Apple for $10,000,000.

Forgive my lack of enthusiasm :rolleyes:

Hey, the court should make the law firm get paid in iTunes credit too!
 
Who is the guilty one?

TWSS37 said:
Just because a lead plaintiff cannot be found it does not mean that Apple isn't guilty of what is being charged
Click to expand...

There is no case. RealNetworks is to blame, they reverse-engineered Apple's DRM and made users believe that they could trick their iPods into playing unsupported formats. The deleted songs never should have been playing on iPods in first place. Too bad that class-action lawyers can squeeze out much more $$$ from Apple than from their competitors.
 
TWSS37 said:
Just because a lead plaintiff cannot be found it does not mean that Apple isn't guilty of what is being charged
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If there is no plaintiff, there is no case. You don't get to accuse someone of something without being able to prove it (and "everybody knows" doesn't count).
 
gnasher729 said:
Well, I was almost convicted for killing someone with a gun, but fortunately my lawyer split hairs about the fact that I never had a gun, that I wasn't near the place where the murder was supposed to happen, and the fact that the supposed murder victim is still alive and was never shot. Apart from that, I was totally, absolutely guilty. :D

If Apple is accused of hurting customers, then requiring that the plaintiff actually shows a genuine customer who can at least claim legitimately that they _might_ be hurt isn't exactly splitting hairs.
Click to expand...

Apple is not accused of hurting customers.
 
Amacfa said:
Shun me as a fanboy, Apple really is a company that tries to do the right thing, and succeeds most of the time.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure, releasing a 2014 Mac mini with soldered RAM for no reason is doing "the right thing". Releasing an iPhone with only 1 GB RAM to maximize profits (or drive iPad Air 2/iPhone 6s sales) is doing "the right thing". Not fixing out of warranty 2011 MBPs that failed because of a defective GPU is doing "the right thing". Maybe for their profits :rolleyes:

I like Apple products, but I don't believe they are out to do the right thing for the consumer all or even most of the time. Apple is profit driven just like the others.
 
charlituna said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. You do have to find a plaintiff that downloaded paid music from RealNetworks and then had it deleted from their iPod because your plaintiff has to be able to show that they were harmed. If the plaintiff was not harmed, where is the case?
 
jcmeyer5 said:
Seems to me that the lawyers are the ones pushing this case... not consumers. Blood sucking leeches!
Click to expand...

Reminds me of those commercials. "If you have ever taken xyz medication, you may be eligible for compensation blah blah blah". Just fishing for people to back their attempt at making money.
 
mikef07 said:
WTF are you talking about?


IT IS A CLASS ACTION SUIT WHERE THE PLAINTIFFS (AND CLASS) ARE SAYING THEY WERE HARMED.

Apple is accused of harming customers.
Click to expand...

What plaintiff? ..... Those mythical plaintiffs were harmed so much that they don't give a crap about it, they can't be bothered with the whole thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back