They didn't turn it on since they discovered it doesn't have an AM radio tuner. They thought DRM stood for 'don't read manual'.
Ok, I'm done now.
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.
Lawyers in iPod Class Action Lawsuit Track Down New Plaintiff
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They didn't turn it on since they discovered it doesn't have an AM radio tuner. They thought DRM stood for 'don't read manual'.
Ok, I'm done now.
iPod Classic was the only model that could have 3rd party music installed. This model was not included in the case.
Maybe it's enough to prove they wasted money on an iPod thinking it would play their DRM'd library. However, I've just done a quick google and there were around 150 million iPods sold in that period. Assuming that one third of these were sold in the US (number pulled out of ass for mathematical convenience) then that $350 million equates to $7 per iPod (God I hope that's right) , which is the cost of a few songs. I hope if Apple loses, the court orders the money be paid to charity, because the idea of millions of $7 cheques being mailed out for something that happened over 5 years ago offends me on so many levels.
That's what I want to know too.
The mere fact that you mentioned "other sources" proves there was more than one digital music store.
So yeah... I'm not seeing how iTunes had a monopoly.
I've read on other forums that this case isn't really about RealNetworks or DRM at all.
It's about how Apple used their *cough* monopoly to overcharge for the iPod.
Good luck trying to figure that out. I have no idea what this case is about anymore.
In 2007 I went to Best Buy and purchased a Zune Player because I knew a few people who owned it and I actually liked the device. I got home, opened the box and went to go sync my player and realized it was a Windows only device, I had no way with my Mac to add media to it, so I put it back in the box and returned it the next day at Best Buy for a full refund and went on with my day just fine, no damage or trauma suffered.
I don't understad opportunist who comes across a situation like this and thinks "I need to sue". If the product you purchase doesn't fulfill your needs, your not obligated to keep it, most retail establishments have a decent return period.
Its about Lawyers trying to cash in, they get to keep all those unclaimed $7 checks if not cashed or claimed by x date.
I don't understad opportunist who comes across a situation like this and thinks "I need to sue". If the product you purchase doesn't fulfill your needs, your not obligated to keep it, most retail establishments have a decent return period.
Its about Lawyers trying to cash in, they get to keep all those unclaimed $7 checks if not cashed or claimed by x date.
Really stupid, stupid class action lawsuit.
Had Apple allowed third-party DRM on their iPods and this had caused a security issue, we'd instead be seeing a class action lawsuit for Apple 'neglecting to take appropriate measures to prevent security holes'.
Some people just want to get a slice of Apple's profit pie, and the fact they're even dignifying this façade of a lawsuit is a testament to America's failing legal system.
Had Apple allowed third-party DRM on their iPods and this had caused a security issue, we'd instead be seeing a class action lawsuit for Apple 'neglecting to take appropriate measures to prevent security holes'.
Some people just want to get a slice of Apple's profit pie, and the fact they're even dignifying this façade of a lawsuit is a testament to America's failing legal system.
OK, had to look this up:
The cy pres doctrine originated in the common law as a method of
fairly distributing a trust fund, the original purpose of which failed in
some respect. The term cy pres derived from the Norman French term cy
pres comme possible, which means as near as possible. Under the cy
pres doctrine, once a trust funds original purpose fails, the fund is to be
distributed to the next best use. This remedy now extends to other areas,
including the situation where funds remain after distribution in a class
action. The cy pres approach in the class action situation puts the unclaimed
portion of the fund to its next best compensation use, usually by
giving it to a third party or agency to use for court-designated purposes. It
should be emphasized that courts have claimed broad discretion in determining
how to satisfy the next best use criteria.
Forde, What Can a Court Do with Leftover Class Action Funds? Almost Anything!
The Judges Journal, vol. 35, no. 3 (Summer 1996)
From a quick skim of the article, judges don't seem to give the money to the lawyers.
Welcome to the wonderful world of American class action litigation. The absurdity of it is beyond imagination for many.
The truth of the matter is that in most CA litigations of this type the defendant would have settled the case long ago, in order to avoid the vagaries of going in front of a jury. As a "potentially affected class member" hundreds of thousands or millions of people would have already received a postcard in the mail, and been given the opportunity to opt out of the class (which almost nobody does). The named plaintiffs and their attorneys would end up getting a large (7 or 8 figure) settlement, and everyone else in the affected class would get some token, such as a $5 gift card, or credit toward a future purchase or service.
The fact that Apple is going scorched earth on this one is a little unusual for the typical CA suit. If they were to lose on verdict they might end up offering a $5 iTunes gift card in post verdict settlement discussions.
I am all for Apple winning this frivolous ambulance chasing case but hear me out...
It can't be as simple as manufacturer X charges Y amount for product Z while manufacturers A B and C charged D (an amount less than Y) for their products which conceptually do the same as product Z, that would just be called free market and/or capitalism.
By 2005 Apple had a significant share of the market for MP3 players, though there were plenty of competitors, and if the only way you could buy digitally distributed music at the time for an iPod was to buy it through iTunes (DRM), unless you removed the DRM of the original source which wasn't as simple as just using iTunes to sync music, it could create a "captive" audience which Apple could "exploit" by charging more for the iPod knowing their consumers could lose their "investment" in their music library purchased through iTunes, again the users could remove the DRM from the iTunes songs and then put the music on another device.
Also if during that time period competitors found workarounds or loopholes that could allow the competitors to sync their DRM music to an iPod which would likely have no negative impact to the performance of the iPod and Apple went about closing those flaws (FairPlay DRM), remember non-DRM or tracks ripped from other media types weren't affected but we all know tracks can be ripped wrong and cause issues, to keep their "captive" audience captive in their closed ecosystem, even if they were "forced" by a contract with the music industry, would that not be wrong of a company to do?
When did the acronym SNAFU become the noun "snafu" and completely lose its meaning?
SNAFU = Situation Normal, All F****** Up
It's used to imply that something you might normally consider shocking/awful/unbelievable has now become normal because your expectations of normality have adapted to your circumstances.
A bomb exploding in an American city is an atrocity or an abomination, but a bomp exploding in Baghdad is a daily occurence and therefore SNAFU!
The question I didn't see answered is did the new plaintiff lose third party songs from her iPod? If not then now can she be a plaintiff in the case if she was not harmed by the actions of Apple?
SNAFU SNAFU?
SNAFU SNAFU?
Are you saying that definition is the correct one, or that is a 'new' definition that you don't like?
Given that it says "appears" all Apple might need is to find out the confirmed purchase date. It it turns out it was just before the right dates, game over.
Which is why I'm surprised the judge didn't require the lawyers to prove she qualifies before she could be introduced as witness or plantiff
----------
That's the model creation date. Your serial is what would confirm when that unit was bought or acquired (if it was a swap part).
Ambulance Chasing
They're having to work too hard to justify this case. It should be simply thrown out. It has become, perhaps always was, a case about making lawyers rich, and fully employed, rather than solving any societal problem or righting any wrong.
Too many lawyer syndrome.
They're having to work too hard to justify this case. It should be simply thrown out. It has become, perhaps always was, a case about making lawyers rich, and fully employed, rather than solving any societal problem or righting any wrong.
Too many lawyer syndrome.
Here are the two claims copied directly from the lawsuit:
- The lawsuit claims that Apple violated federal and state laws by issuing software updates in 2006 for its iPod that prevented iPods from playing songs not purchased on iTunes.
- The lawsuit claims that the software updates caused iPod prices to be higher than they otherwise would have been.
In claim 1... notice that this case only talks about third-party music syncing to iPods... not your iTunes music playing on other devices. Therefore... the whole iTunes "lock-in" and "captive audience" argument isn't being directly addressed.
This case is not about Apple's lock-in... it's about locking-out third party music stores.
Do closed systems automatically trigger antitrust violations? Should every store be forced onto every device?
Apple didn't think so... and frankly I don't either. Apple's claim to fame is that they control the entire experience... the software, the hardware, the store, the media. Apple can't deliver a great experience if they let other cooks into the kitchen.
Using an example from today... should third-party app stores be forced onto my iPhone? Hell no!
But is forbidding third-party stores an antitrust violation? In my opinion... no.
In claim 2... they say Apple was overcharging for iPods.
This was Apple's iPod lineup in early 2005:
$99 - iPod Shuffle 512MB
$149 - iPod Shuffle 1GB
$199 - iPod Mini 4GB
$249 - iPod Mini 6GB
$299 - iPod 20GB
$349 - iPod U2 20 GB
$349 - iPod Photo 30GB
$449 - iPod Photo 60GB
The lawsuit is claiming that these prices were higher than they would have been because Apple implemented a software update that disallowed third-party music stores. The lawsuit is an attempt for the plaintiffs to recover money after buying these "overpriced" iPods.
How the hell can they prove what iPod prices would have been?
If anything... iPod prices always got lower over time while adding more capacity and features.
The first iPod was 5GB for $400
But when this lawsuit was filed... you could get a 30GB iPod for $350
Didn't they notice that?
I don't understand how issuing a software update to block third-party music stores caused prices to be higher.
Guess what... Apple DID block third-party music stores and prices actually got LOWER.
Given the struggle the plaintiff attorneys had, not even finding a representative plaintiff before trial (!), this is an unusually blatant shakedown, unusually so, even by class action standards. Natural result of having too many rent-seeking lawyers and not enough real work for them to do.
$350 in damages, Apple should just pay it and move on, Tim could probably find it down the back of his couch!
I mean really this is ridiculous, how much per person will $350 amount to anyway?
Don't people have free will, no one told them to spend a higher price on an Apple product, if they didn't like it go else where.
I mean really this is ridiculous, how much per person will $350 amount to anyway?
Don't people have free will, no one told them to spend a higher price on an Apple product, if they didn't like it go else where.
Time to unearth a classic:
What do you call a dozen class action lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ... ocean ?
What do you call a dozen class action lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ... ocean ?
But wouldn't you go home and right away try to sync. Then return it when you discovered that wouldn't work
That's fascinating. Apple never marketed the iPod as an MP3 player. Apple never, ever sold music in MP3 format and still doesn't. But then, all iPods ever built will play music in MP3 format without any problems. iTunes itself has functionality built in to convert music from any format that it understands and that isn't DRM protected into MP3 format, so that it can be put onto MP3 CDs, or memory sticks that some cars can play, or MP3 DVDs that my £29 DVD player played, or just to put them onto MP3 players which often didn't support the AAC format.
The iPod is primarily intended as an AAC player. And if it had a strong market position in the AAC player market, that's because all the manufacturers trusting Microsoft and its "PlayForSure" program didn't dare putting AAC compatibility into their players, because they were afraid of Microsoft.
----------
And anyway, the whole idea behind DRM is that the music can't just be copied.
----------
I would say that a device with better capabilities is better and can be sold for more than an otherwise identical device with less capabilities. So the argument they make is really nonsense. If you could have easily played DRM'd music from other stores, the iPod would have been worth more. My iPod is worth more to me because it can play music that comes from CDs, audiobooks from a variety of different stores, and some music that I downloaded from Amazon.
Seriously, does anyone say "Hey, this is great, the iPod protects me from these awful third-party stores, so I'm going to pay more for it"?
----------
No, it won't be thrown out. It will go to court. Then the first question that the judge looks at is "if all the facts that the plaintiffs claim were actually true, would Apple be guilty"? If the answer is "no", then the case is dismissed. That would happen if everything that Apple is accused of are actually things that Apple was allowed to do. The next question after that is "which of the facts that the plaintiffs claim are actually true", and when that is decided, the question is whether the facts that are assumed true are enough.
I got news for you. It's short term memory that goes as we age. Long term memory sticks better.
I'm in my 70s. I can certainly remember unboxing my unenhanced Mac 512k on the kitchen table in 1985.
Most of us who are this age can also remember stuff from World War II days. Maybe you don't realize it's your elders' short term memory that goes first. That's what makes it harder for us to learn new languages as we age, or for that matter to remember where we put the car keys. But as my nephew says, as long as I remember what my car keys are for when I find the damn things, I'm good to go. Anyway my keys hang on a hook just inside the door!
I probably don't have the receipt for that first Mac any more (although I have the Mac!) since I bought it at 47th St Photo and have long since dumped house-cluttering paper items I don't need.
Certainly I could fish out the receipts for all my iPods, since they were bought online. Why would I do that though? This lawsuit never made sense to me. Sounded like suing over a toaster that wasn't designed to accommodate bagels or something. Typical nose-out-of-joint late-to-party nonsense. Duh, buy a bagel toaster. Invent one...
Maybe I don't understand the premise of the suit (aside from the plaintiff's legal representatives hoping to make a buck). I have no problem with people suing, say a mining company for willful negligence of safety standards and stuff like that. I don't get these lawsuits that seem like "green with envy, wanna piece of the action." I could be wrong since I am just a lay person with no clue how lawyers justify turning some of these seemingly trivial beefs into cold, hard cash for themselves. I do actually try not to think at least half these suits are just a racket, but I find that difficult.
Don't be too pedantic now we're likely on the same side but my mistake for calling it a MP3 player, is PMP (Portable Media [digital audio] Player) better since it doesn't define the encoding or file container used?