iPod owners notified of class-action antitrust suit against Apple's iTunes

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Some customers who purchase an iPod between 2006 and 2009 began receiving notice this week that they are members of a pending class-action lawsuit accusing Apple of creating a monopoly with the iTunes Music Store.

Members of the class include customers who bought iPod classic, iPod shuffle, iPod touch and iPod nano models between Sept. 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009. No ruling has been made on the case and a settlement has not been reached, but e-mails began going out this week to inform iPod owners of the ongoing dispute, and refer them to ipodlawsuit.com for more information.

The complaint dates back to July 2004, when RealNetworks released a work-around dubbed "Harmony" that allowed songs purchased from its music store to be transferred onto the iPod. Apple released a statement accusing RealNetworks of adopting "the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break the iPod," and warning customers it was "highly likely" that Real's Harmony technology would not work with future version of the iPod software.

Later that year, Apple issued an update to its iPod software that disabled Harmony and prevented users from transferring songs from the service. RealNetworks admitted to investors in 2005 that the Harmony technology had put the company at risk to a lawsuit from Apple.

Then, in early 2005, Thomas Slattery filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the company had violated federal antitrust laws and california's unfair competition law by requiring that customers use an iPod to listen to music purchased via the iTunes Music Store.

Lawsuit


The complaint has dragged on for more than 7 years now, and last year Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd in San Jose, Calif., even authorized limited questioning of Apple's then-chief-executive Steve Jobs. In the 7 years since the suit was filed, Apple has negotiated with music labels for a more open iTunes Music Store, and songs sold there are now provided without digital rights management software, which restricts how files can be used.

Early this month, a pair of settlement conferences were held in the class-action suit, known as "The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation." However, no settlement could be reached during those discussions.

The court then held a case management conference on May 2, in which the case and any disputes until Aug. 31, 2012, are referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.

Judge James Ware also declared that Apple has a right to file a motion for summary judgment to address issues which have not yet been raised before the court. Both Apple and the plaintiff have admitted to the court that an "outstanding expert" report has not yet been served by the plaintiffs.

"in light of this, the Court finds no reason to deny the Defendant the ability to challenge that expert report once it becomes available, and to file any appropriate motion for summary judgment resulting from disclosures made in that expert report," Judge Ware wrote. "Accordingly, on or before May 20, 2012, the parties shall meet and confer and stipulate to a suitable schedule with respect to any further disruptive motions that any party may seek to file."

As for those who have been notified that they are a class member, customers have the right to do nothing and remain a part of the class, or they can ask to be excluded to get out of the lawsuit and receive no benefits from it. Those who wish to be excluded must send an "Exclusion Request," as detailed on the lawsuit's official website.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 70
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member


    Is it just me thinking it's a bit retarded?

  • Reply 2 of 70
    techboytechboy Posts: 183member


    Awesome? What exactly do they hope to win here?

  • Reply 3 of 70
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,801member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Techboy View Post


    Awesome? What exactly do they hope to win here?



     


    Very good question...what is the point of this?

  • Reply 4 of 70
    waybacmacwaybacmac Posts: 309member


    I thought nothing could be dumber than the fiasco of patent lawsuits...I was wrong.

  • Reply 5 of 70
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    macxpress wrote: »
    Very good question...what is the point of this?

    Nothing more than lawyers being lawyers. Since unemployment is so high I bet worker's comp claims are also down. Gotta collect a paycheck for something...
  • Reply 6 of 70
    mechanicmechanic Posts: 805member


    what a stupid lawsuit.  its more than retarded its a waste of the courts time.

  • Reply 7 of 70
    brutus009brutus009 Posts: 356member


    If I receive this email, I'll opt out.  I think iTunes did good things for the music industry.

  • Reply 8 of 70
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    The complaint alleges that you can not play songs that weren't bought on iTunes. That is total nonsense. You can play songs that you buy just about anywhere. In a few cases, you might have an extra step or two, but I don't know of any songs that you can buy that can't be played on an iPod.

    Ridiculous lawsuit. I hope Apple sues them to recover their legal expenses.
  • Reply 9 of 70
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,801member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



    The complaint alleges that you can not play songs that weren't bought on iTunes. That is total nonsense. You can play songs that you buy just about anywhere. In a few cases, you might have an extra step or two, but I don't know of any songs that you can buy that can't be played on an iPod.

    Ridiculous lawsuit. I hope Apple sues them to recover their legal expenses.


    If you can get your music into iTunes you can play it there as well as sync it with your iPod. It doesn't matter if its a CD, extracted off Youtube, or stolen from someplace. Of course Apple wouldn't make you only purchase from the iTunes Music Store. Then they may have some kind of case if Apple did in fact do that, but we all know they haven't. 


     


    I wish Apple would fight back on these stupid lawsuits and maybe, just maybe greedy lawyers would go elsewhere. When it starts costing the lawyers more money than they're taking in it will no longer be worth it to them and they'll take their ball and go play somewhere's else. 

  • Reply 10 of 70
    djames4242djames4242 Posts: 651member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post


    If I receive this email, I'll opt out.  I think iTunes did good things for the music industry.



     


    I got my email a few days ago. Unfortunately, I suspect that opting out doesn't mean much, only that the lawyers will get to hang on to your settlement portion. If that's the case, I'd rather get the payout - it'll probably amount to just enough for me to buy a couple of tracks from the iTunes store. That way at least some of that money goes back to where it belongs.

  • Reply 11 of 70
    kozchriskozchris Posts: 209member


    You have to do nothing to stay in the class but if you want to opt out you have to send a letter. I think that should be illegal. You should have to request to be in the class. 


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post


    If I receive this email, I'll opt out.  I think iTunes did good things for the music industry.


  • Reply 12 of 70
    jollypauljollypaul Posts: 328member


    I bought an iPod classic in that time period. I had no idea I had been wronged until the tasseled loafers of justice told me. Gimme money Apple! Gimme, gimme, gimme!

  • Reply 13 of 70


    This should have been thrown out as Apple only applies its DRM when requested to by the record labels themselves.


     


    Apple is not the one that decides on the level of DRM lock-in.


     


    DRM is at fault here, not Apple.


     


    You can play an MP3 regardless of its origin.


     


    I imagine it wasn't thrown out because there is a class of lawyers who are facing unemployment due to the increase in the speed of ambulances.

  • Reply 14 of 70
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member
    This is a stupid lawsuit. The only limitation for others was what type of file format. The iTunes application was a default launch to organize the data, but if you wanted to purchase songs elsewhere, there were no limitations. the iTunes application was developed to be able to organize and manage the device, but the iTunes Music Store was thrown in to allow for an easy way to buy content if the user wants to buy content, but it wasn't mandatory that they HAVE to buy content from the iTunes Music Store.

    If the judge doesn't throw this case out, then there is a crooked judge. This TOTALLY frivolous. Who is behind this lawsuit anyway?
  • Reply 15 of 70
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    msbpodcast wrote: »
    This should have been thrown out as Apple only applies its DRM when requested to by the record labels themselves.

    Apple is not the one that decides on the level of DRM lock-in.

    DRM is at fault here, not Apple.

    You can play an MP3 regardless of its origin.

    I imagine it wasn't thrown out because there is a class of lawyers who are facing unemployment due to the increase in the speed of ambulances.
    Even if it was Apple who decided on DRM for the iTS it still doesn't make sense because 1) there is nothing illegal about protecting content, and 2) DRM on the iTS has nothing to do with the iTunes app or iPod as each can take a great many DRM-free content using various codecs and containers. On top of that Apple has no monopoly in the music distribution business and even if you only counted the online segment of music distribution it's not illegal to have a monopoly, it's only illegal to abuse one.
  • Reply 16 of 70
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Techboy View Post


    Awesome? What exactly do they hope to win here?





    The plaintiffs will get $1 itunes gift cards while the lawyers will get $100,000K.

  • Reply 17 of 70
    wally626wally626 Posts: 72member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post




    The plaintiffs will get $1 itunes gift cards while the lawyers will get $100,000K.



    If the plaintiffs lawyers win they are going to collect a lot more than $100,000 each, probably in the millions. If they lose they just wasted 7 yrs. When the suit was originally filed there was some merit to it as Apple was restricting what could be played on a iPod and how iTunes songs could be played on third party devices. There were work arounds at the time such as burning to disk and re-importing but it did makes things more complex. 


     


    The reason to drop out of the suit is not because you think Apple is right but to reserve your right to file a separate law suit. Might as well stay in and get your free iTunes song if they win.

  • Reply 18 of 70
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,597member
    djames4242 wrote: »
    I got my email a few days ago. Unfortunately, I suspect that opting out doesn't mean much, only that the lawyers will get to hang on to your settlement portion. If that's the case, I'd rather get the payout - it'll probably amount to just enough for me to buy a couple of tracks from the iTunes store. That way at least some of that money goes back to where it belongs.

    It might be worth the effort to send the judge a certified letter letting him know that you are qualified to participate and therefor you are letting him know that you are against any kind of settlement and that this is a ridiculous and frivolous lawsuit.
  • Reply 19 of 70
    ghostface147ghostface147 Posts: 1,629member


    If I can get free iTunes music from this, sounds good to me.  

  • Reply 20 of 70
    milkmagemilkmage Posts: 152member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kozchris View Post


    You have to do nothing to stay in the class but if you want to opt out you have to send a letter. I think that should be illegal. You should have to request to be in the class. 


     



     


    it's not a matter of legality.. it's the DEFINITION of class action.


     


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action


    In law, a class action, a class suit, or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued.




    it's NOT class action, again, by DEFINITION, if you don't have a group.

Sign In or Register to comment.