Wondering on what you are basing your opinion about length of time a major tech corporation in a market rife with possible litigants, should hold records? What is the proper time, assuming you have some legal understanding of civil lawsuits?
In this case it could turn out to be a billion dollar idea to keep records stored at virtually no cost re their operating expenses. Hmm, do I take your approach or theirs?..Hmmm. lemme see, here...? Do we let you get near the legal department or not? Hmmm...
Storing 9+ years of in depth information (as opposed to general sales figures) is far from "virtually no cost" as there's quite a significant cost to a company the size of Apple in keeping that close of tabs on their customers. That is, unless they plan on selling that data in which case that becomes an asset.
As far as how long should a company hold onto records? While there are always exceptions, the general rule is as long as required by law and not a day longer.
I believe 7 years is generally considered the norm for retaining financial records, not so sure about sales records, but they might be considered part and parcel. So 9 years seems a bit excessive. Still, if it gets a lawsuit tossed out, then maybe they'll be keeping these records indefinitely from now on...
The lawsuit may lack a plaintiff, but the class action attorneys would clearly be the beneficiaries. Meanwhile, while everyone who can prove they owned an old iPod will get a pittance on the order of a 49¢ discount on a song download.
The lawsuit may lack a plaintiff, but the class action attorneys would clearly be the beneficiaries. Meanwhile, while everyone who can prove they owned an old iPod will get a pittance on the order of a 49¢ discount on a song download.
Apart from the "class action" requiring real plaintiffs to represent the "class".
My guess is Apple's lawyers new this and waited for the trial to start. Once it starts, and you don't have a plaintiff, the case is screwed and done. If Apple's legal brought it up before trial, they may have been able to substitute plaintiffs.
How old is this case. I bet Apple's lawyers were sitting on this for a long time, biding their time. Plaintiffs' lawyers have to be throwing up right about now. All those lost hours and $ flushed down the drain on something very basic.
Storing 9+ years of in depth information (as opposed to general sales figures) is far from "virtually no cost" as there's quite a significant cost to a company the size of Apple in keeping that close of tabs on their customers. That is, unless they plan on selling that data in which case that becomes an asset.
As far as how long should a company hold onto records? While there are always exceptions, the general rule is as long as required by law and not a day longer.
"Apple said it researched the serial numbers of plaintiff Mariana Rosen's iPod and found the device was purchased in July 2009. Court documents show Rosen bought a 15GB iPod and a 30GB "video iPod" for personal use, as well as an iPod mini as a gift.
The second plaintiff, Melanie Tucker, is asserting a 32GB iPod touch purchased in 2010, a 20GB iPod purchased in April 2005 and an "iPod video."
Rosen's are only five years and it looks like all they might have kept was the serial number and purchase date. If she bought them all on the same order, that order might have included her name. One of Tucker's purchases was only four years old while at least one was nine years old. When did Real die? I thought it was dead long before 2009/2010 so where would these two people have bought the Real music from?
Of course, I'm sure the lawyers have reams of other plantiffs they could include in their class action lawsuit. If so, they better start finding them and checking when their iPods were purchased.
Where's the old (I forget his name) troll -- who bad-mouthed Apple at every opportunity -- then justified his comments by posting images of the 9 (or so) different iDevices he owned, but was criticizing?
Storing 9+ years of in depth information (as opposed to general sales figures) is far from "virtually no cost" as there's quite a significant cost to a company the size of Apple in keeping that close of tabs on their customers. That is, unless they plan on selling that data in which case that becomes an asset.
As far as how long should a company hold onto records? While there are always exceptions, the general rule is as long as required by law and not a day longer.
Once they were sued they were obligated to maintain potentially relevant information until the close of proceedings.
Wondering on what you are basing your opinion about length of time a major tech corporation in a market rife with possible litigants, should hold records? What is the proper time, assuming you have some legal understanding of civil lawsuits?
In this case it could turn out to be a billion dollar idea to keep records stored at virtually no cost re their operating expenses. Hmm, do I take your approach or theirs?..Hmmm. lemme see, here...? Do we let you get near the legal department or not? Hmmm...
Storing 9+ years of in depth information (as opposed to general sales figures) is far from "virtually no cost" as there's quite a significant cost to a company the size of Apple in keeping that close of tabs on their customers. That is, unless they plan on selling that data in which case that becomes an asset.
As far as how long should a company hold onto records? While there are always exceptions, the general rule is as long as required by law and not a day longer.
Why do you believe the information is valuable to other people, but is valueless for Apple? Understanding the customers in your ecosystem for the entire duration of their life there seems pretty valuable. Also, these are not boxes of old school paper records. Keeping the data online in their massive data centers probably isn't that much of a cost as compared to their overall cost of operations, but they can do some pretty good data mining to understand their customer trends.
I believe 7 years is generally considered the norm for retaining financial records, not so sure about sales records, but they might be considered part and parcel. So 9 years seems a bit excessive. Still, if it gets a lawsuit tossed out, then maybe they'll be keeping these records indefinitely from now on...
That is what you need for the IRS. If you want to data mine your customer history for insight, you keep it as long as you can which in this day and age will be forever.
My guess is Apple's lawyers new this and waited for the trial to start. Once it starts, and you don't have a plaintiff, the case is screwed and done. If Apple's legal brought it up before trial, they may have been able to substitute plaintiffs.
How old is this case. I bet Apple's lawyers were sitting on this for a long time, biding their time. Plaintiffs' lawyers have to be throwing up right about now. All those lost hours and $ flushed down the drain on something very basic.
I doubt it. They didn't know the serial number of the iPod touch because it was not provided until today in court. Also, some of the other issues came up because of their testimony today. It looks like they dug into the serial number they got and hit the mother load when they went back through the documents from 2010 and started validating the data. Even if this doesn't end up making the case go away because they can dig up some records, it is sure fun knowing they are sweating 10 years of effort on the plaintiffs council right about now.
Storing 9+ years of in depth information (as opposed to general sales figures) is far from "virtually no cost" as there's quite a significant cost to a company the size of Apple in keeping that close of tabs on their customers. That is, unless they plan on selling that data in which case that becomes an asset.
As far as how long should a company hold onto records? While there are always exceptions, the general rule is as long as required by law and not a day longer.
"Apple said it researched the serial numbers of plaintiff Mariana Rosen's iPod and found the device was purchased in July 2009. Court documents show Rosen bought a 15GB iPod and a 30GB "video iPod" for personal use, as well as an iPod mini as a gift.
The second plaintiff, Melanie Tucker, is asserting a 32GB iPod touch purchased in 2010, a 20GB iPod purchased in April 2005 and an "iPod video."
Rosen's are only five years and it looks like all they might have kept was the serial number and purchase date. If she bought them all on the same order, that order might have included her name. One of Tucker's purchases was only four years old while at least one was nine years old. When did Real die? I thought it was dead long before 2009/2010 so where would these two people have bought the Real music from?
Of course, I'm sure the lawyers have reams of other plantiffs they could include in their class action lawsuit. If so, they better start finding them and checking when their iPods were purchased.
It isn't about the age. The problem with Ms. Wilson (Later Tucker) is that she only admitted to own iPods that were not claimed to have caused Injury to the plaintiffs. Although she later added an iPod touch that was purchased outside the claims period.
So all in all they really don't have plaintiffs at this point. What is even more interesting... If Apple was so terrible during the claims period, why did these people keep buying iPods after that time? I guess Apple wasn't that bad after all.
It isn't about the age. The problem with Ms. Wilson (Later Tucker) is that she only admitted to own iPods that were not claimed to have caused Injury to the plaintiffs. Although she later added an iPod touch that was purchased outside the claims period.
So all in all they really don't have plaintiffs at this point. What is even more interesting... If Apple was so terrible during the claims period, why did these people keep buying iPods after that time? I guess Apple wasn't that bad after all.
Thinking that there was something wrong with the iPod Ms. Wilson / Tucker had, she bought iPod after iPod, hoping that each new one would be able to play 17 Real songs she owned...but alas, Apple's monopolistic business practices related to not playing competitors DRM locked file formats, she ended up using each iPod as a paperweight.
I read through Apple's letter and supporting documents. Basically of the iPods that the plaintiffs finally entered into evidence, none were purchased within in the purchase window in the plaintiffs. Apple is asking that the plaintiffs supply the serial numbers of the remaining iPods purchased by the lead plaintiffs so they too can be checked for eligibility. If none of the iPods were purchased in the purchase window, I can see the suit being tossed.
That said, the supporting documents included with Apple's letter make it look like the plaintiffs attorneys are pretty full of themselves. They really didn't provide any detail on how their lead plaintiffs were harmed save for a lot of hyperbole. If this gets tossed due to none of the plaintiffs having elligible iPods, I hope that the judge gives Apple costs plus. Having plaintiffs in good standing is lawsuit 101. Sheesh!
Storing 9+ years of in depth information (as opposed to general sales figures) is far from "virtually no cost" as there's quite a significant cost to a company the size of Apple in keeping that close of tabs on their customers. That is, unless they plan on selling that data in which case that becomes an asset.
I believe it is just a simple case of Apple having something in place to identify a model based on the serial number. Unless I am missing something here.
I'll ignore your not-so-subtle attempts at trolling.
Dirty lawyer scumbags. They should be given the death penalty by the judge. As the lawyer joke goes, they are best left deep in the ocean where the other sharks swim.
I believe it is just a simple case of Apple having something in place to identify a model based on the serial number. Unless I am missing something here.
I'll ignore your not-so-subtle attempts at trolling.
1) Thanks for sharing your 'belief' without any verifiable facts included...
2) The records are clearly more then matching a model to a serial number. Apple matched a consumers name, date of purchase, and model to a serial number. That's the minimum that we know.
3) It's a sad day when fact is regarded as trolling while beliefs are passed off as truth.
Comments
Wondering on what you are basing your opinion about length of time a major tech corporation in a market rife with possible litigants, should hold records? What is the proper time, assuming you have some legal understanding of civil lawsuits?
In this case it could turn out to be a billion dollar idea to keep records stored at virtually no cost re their operating expenses. Hmm, do I take your approach or theirs?..Hmmm. lemme see, here...? Do we let you get near the legal department or not? Hmmm...
Storing 9+ years of in depth information (as opposed to general sales figures) is far from "virtually no cost" as there's quite a significant cost to a company the size of Apple in keeping that close of tabs on their customers. That is, unless they plan on selling that data in which case that becomes an asset.
As far as how long should a company hold onto records? While there are always exceptions, the general rule is as long as required by law and not a day longer.
I believe 7 years is generally considered the norm for retaining financial records, not so sure about sales records, but they might be considered part and parcel. So 9 years seems a bit excessive. Still, if it gets a lawsuit tossed out, then maybe they'll be keeping these records indefinitely from now on...
DISBAR THE LAWYERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS. Actually PUNISH people.
The lawsuit may lack a plaintiff, but the class action attorneys would clearly be the beneficiaries. Meanwhile, while everyone who can prove they owned an old iPod will get a pittance on the order of a 49¢ discount on a song download.
The lawsuit may lack a plaintiff, but the class action attorneys would clearly be the beneficiaries. Meanwhile, while everyone who can prove they owned an old iPod will get a pittance on the order of a 49¢ discount on a song download.
Apart from the "class action" requiring real plaintiffs to represent the "class".
Otherwise you could just sue anyone for anything.
Apart from the "class action" requiring real plaintiffs to represent the "class".
Otherwise you could just sue anyone for anything.
Fun fact: In the US you can sue anyone for anything.
How old is this case. I bet Apple's lawyers were sitting on this for a long time, biding their time. Plaintiffs' lawyers have to be throwing up right about now. All those lost hours and $ flushed down the drain on something very basic.
Storing 9+ years of in depth information (as opposed to general sales figures) is far from "virtually no cost" as there's quite a significant cost to a company the size of Apple in keeping that close of tabs on their customers. That is, unless they plan on selling that data in which case that becomes an asset.
As far as how long should a company hold onto records? While there are always exceptions, the general rule is as long as required by law and not a day longer.
"Apple said it researched the serial numbers of plaintiff Mariana Rosen's iPod and found the device was purchased in July 2009. Court documents show Rosen bought a 15GB iPod and a 30GB "video iPod" for personal use, as well as an iPod mini as a gift.
The second plaintiff, Melanie Tucker, is asserting a 32GB iPod touch purchased in 2010, a 20GB iPod purchased in April 2005 and an "iPod video."
Rosen's are only five years and it looks like all they might have kept was the serial number and purchase date. If she bought them all on the same order, that order might have included her name. One of Tucker's purchases was only four years old while at least one was nine years old. When did Real die? I thought it was dead long before 2009/2010 so where would these two people have bought the Real music from?
Of course, I'm sure the lawyers have reams of other plantiffs they could include in their class action lawsuit. If so, they better start finding them and checking when their iPods were purchased.
Yeah ...
Where's the old (I forget his name) troll -- who bad-mouthed Apple at every opportunity -- then justified his comments by posting images of the 9 (or so) different iDevices he owned, but was criticizing?
DaHarder.
Once they were sued they were obligated to maintain potentially relevant information until the close of proceedings.
Wondering on what you are basing your opinion about length of time a major tech corporation in a market rife with possible litigants, should hold records? What is the proper time, assuming you have some legal understanding of civil lawsuits?
In this case it could turn out to be a billion dollar idea to keep records stored at virtually no cost re their operating expenses. Hmm, do I take your approach or theirs?..Hmmm. lemme see, here...? Do we let you get near the legal department or not? Hmmm...
Storing 9+ years of in depth information (as opposed to general sales figures) is far from "virtually no cost" as there's quite a significant cost to a company the size of Apple in keeping that close of tabs on their customers. That is, unless they plan on selling that data in which case that becomes an asset.
As far as how long should a company hold onto records? While there are always exceptions, the general rule is as long as required by law and not a day longer.
Why do you believe the information is valuable to other people, but is valueless for Apple? Understanding the customers in your ecosystem for the entire duration of their life there seems pretty valuable. Also, these are not boxes of old school paper records. Keeping the data online in their massive data centers probably isn't that much of a cost as compared to their overall cost of operations, but they can do some pretty good data mining to understand their customer trends.
I believe 7 years is generally considered the norm for retaining financial records, not so sure about sales records, but they might be considered part and parcel. So 9 years seems a bit excessive. Still, if it gets a lawsuit tossed out, then maybe they'll be keeping these records indefinitely from now on...
That is what you need for the IRS. If you want to data mine your customer history for insight, you keep it as long as you can which in this day and age will be forever.
My guess is Apple's lawyers new this and waited for the trial to start. Once it starts, and you don't have a plaintiff, the case is screwed and done. If Apple's legal brought it up before trial, they may have been able to substitute plaintiffs.
How old is this case. I bet Apple's lawyers were sitting on this for a long time, biding their time. Plaintiffs' lawyers have to be throwing up right about now. All those lost hours and $ flushed down the drain on something very basic.
I doubt it. They didn't know the serial number of the iPod touch because it was not provided until today in court. Also, some of the other issues came up because of their testimony today. It looks like they dug into the serial number they got and hit the mother load when they went back through the documents from 2010 and started validating the data. Even if this doesn't end up making the case go away because they can dig up some records, it is sure fun knowing they are sweating 10 years of effort on the plaintiffs council right about now.
Storing 9+ years of in depth information (as opposed to general sales figures) is far from "virtually no cost" as there's quite a significant cost to a company the size of Apple in keeping that close of tabs on their customers. That is, unless they plan on selling that data in which case that becomes an asset.
As far as how long should a company hold onto records? While there are always exceptions, the general rule is as long as required by law and not a day longer.
"Apple said it researched the serial numbers of plaintiff Mariana Rosen's iPod and found the device was purchased in July 2009. Court documents show Rosen bought a 15GB iPod and a 30GB "video iPod" for personal use, as well as an iPod mini as a gift.
The second plaintiff, Melanie Tucker, is asserting a 32GB iPod touch purchased in 2010, a 20GB iPod purchased in April 2005 and an "iPod video."
Rosen's are only five years and it looks like all they might have kept was the serial number and purchase date. If she bought them all on the same order, that order might have included her name. One of Tucker's purchases was only four years old while at least one was nine years old. When did Real die? I thought it was dead long before 2009/2010 so where would these two people have bought the Real music from?
Of course, I'm sure the lawyers have reams of other plantiffs they could include in their class action lawsuit. If so, they better start finding them and checking when their iPods were purchased.
It isn't about the age. The problem with Ms. Wilson (Later Tucker) is that she only admitted to own iPods that were not claimed to have caused Injury to the plaintiffs. Although she later added an iPod touch that was purchased outside the claims period.
So all in all they really don't have plaintiffs at this point.
What is even more interesting... If Apple was so terrible during the claims period, why did these people keep buying iPods after that time? I guess Apple wasn't that bad after all.
It isn't about the age. The problem with Ms. Wilson (Later Tucker) is that she only admitted to own iPods that were not claimed to have caused Injury to the plaintiffs. Although she later added an iPod touch that was purchased outside the claims period.
So all in all they really don't have plaintiffs at this point.
What is even more interesting... If Apple was so terrible during the claims period, why did these people keep buying iPods after that time? I guess Apple wasn't that bad after all.
Thinking that there was something wrong with the iPod Ms. Wilson / Tucker had, she bought iPod after iPod, hoping that each new one would be able to play 17 Real songs she owned...but alas, Apple's monopolistic business practices related to not playing competitors DRM locked file formats, she ended up using each iPod as a paperweight.
That said, the supporting documents included with Apple's letter make it look like the plaintiffs attorneys are pretty full of themselves. They really didn't provide any detail on how their lead plaintiffs were harmed save for a lot of hyperbole. If this gets tossed due to none of the plaintiffs having elligible iPods, I hope that the judge gives Apple costs plus. Having plaintiffs in good standing is lawsuit 101. Sheesh!
Hey! I bought an iPod touch back in Oct '08.
Maybe they could send me the paperwork to file, and I could roll it into a tight ball and send it back to them...with lube.
Storing 9+ years of in depth information (as opposed to general sales figures) is far from "virtually no cost" as there's quite a significant cost to a company the size of Apple in keeping that close of tabs on their customers. That is, unless they plan on selling that data in which case that becomes an asset.
I believe it is just a simple case of Apple having something in place to identify a model based on the serial number. Unless I am missing something here.
I'll ignore your not-so-subtle attempts at trolling.
I believe it is just a simple case of Apple having something in place to identify a model based on the serial number. Unless I am missing something here.
I'll ignore your not-so-subtle attempts at trolling.
1) Thanks for sharing your 'belief' without any verifiable facts included...
2) The records are clearly more then matching a model to a serial number. Apple matched a consumers name, date of purchase, and model to a serial number. That's the minimum that we know.
3) It's a sad day when fact is regarded as trolling while beliefs are passed off as truth.