An illegal company? That's a new concept by me. The underlying problem here is the abuse of the word monopoly. Antitrust law is not interested in dictionary-definition monopolies, or even in economics-text definition monopolies. Antitrust law is concerned entirely with unfair trading practices, which can be found to have occurred without applying either of the conventional definitions of monopoly. They are beyond unimportant; in reality, they distract from the actual issues.
If the case is thrown out for lack of a plaintiff, I'm sure the lawyers in the case will be suitably humiliated. But if that happens, I could still only theorize on why they did not know the dates when their clients purchased their iPods. And again, if that happens, it won't change the facts of the case one iota. Apple would not be off the hook. They could readily find new plaintiffs and refile it.
