Steve Jobs' videotaped testimony aired in iPod iTunes trial as lawyers try to add plaintiff

Posted:
in General Discussion edited December 2014
A videotaped deposition from late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs was viewed in court on Friday as part of the ongoing "iPod iTunes" trial, while lawyers for the class attempted to add a new plaintiff after dropping one earlier in the day.

Steve Jobs


According to in-court reports from The New York Times, Jobs appeared in the videotaped deposition wearing his trademark black turtleneck and, though in apparent poor health, offered commentary typical of his no-nonsense temperament. The video was recorded approximately six months prior to his death in 2011.

Much of Jobs' testimony was already discussed in a previous report covering a written transcript of the video, but a few new pieces of information came out in court today. As heard earlier this week, Jobs cited hackers as the main impetus for implementing FairPlay digital rights management (DRM) in iTunes.

"We would constantly be revving iTunes and iPod software, closing any -- any holes that might be in it or any problems it might have," Jobs said.

Apple contends FairPlay and subsequent iTunes updates were not a gambit to create a closed ecosystem, as argued by lawyers representing the plaintiffs, but instead a method of protecting precarious contracts with record labels already uncomfortable with an impending trend toward digital sales. That iPod users were unable to playback songs purchased from competing stores was a side-effect of a larger push for security.

Jobs said as much when plaintiffs' lead counsel Bonny Sweeney asked him whether labels complained about RealNetworks' Harmony technology, which was essentially a FairPlay workaround that let users play back on iPod tracks purchased through the RealPlayer music store.
"It doesn't really matter because in fixing holes for DRM hacks, it might screw up the Real technology anyway, as collateral damage." - Late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs.
"It doesn't really matter because in fixing holes for DRM hacks, it might screw up the Real technology anyway, as collateral damage," Jobs replied.

The case itself stems from from a prior 2005 lawsuit involving RealNetworks, which took issue with Apple's alleged tactic of using software updates to block iPod users from listening to content not purchased through iTunes. A lynchpin argument of the current class-action suit involves iTunes 7.0, an update plaintiffs claim was pushed out to break Harmony software.

Jobs could not or would not say much else on the matter, claiming he had forgotten or did not know the answers to further questions.

"I'm sorry I don't remember more of this for you, but there's been a lot of water under that bridge in seven years," Jobs said.

Also on Friday, lawyers for the plaintiffs faxed in a request to add plaintiff Jeffrey Kowalski to the case. Kowalski reportedly purchased an iPod touch in 2008, making him eligible for the suit's stipulated claimant parameters of having bought an iPod classic, iPod shuffle, iPod touch or iPod nano model between Sept. 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009.

The new plaintiff request comes in response to Apple's attempt to scuttle the suit by pointing out that the case's two original plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of having owned or purchased an iPod within the prescribed time period. On Thursday, Apple filed a letter notifying presiding Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers that multiple iPods purchased be Mariana Rosen and Melanie Tucker were not entitled for inclusion in the suit.

Tucker was subsequently withdrawn from the class, though Apple is still pursuing a motion to dismiss the case altogether.

Plaintiffs are seeking $350 million in damages from Apple's alleged misconduct, an amount that would automatically be tripled to more than $1 billion under U.S. antitrust laws.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27

    From personal experience, I don't think it's possible to simply add or remove plaintiffs. If this was possible, what's to prevent any lawsuit from adding one, two or ten-thousand people? Utter B.S.

  • Reply 2 of 27
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    From this side of the pond, the American Legal system - including lawyers, police actions, judges, the Feds et al...seems ludicrously focused on getting "the money!"
    The fact that getting the money by any means, seems to be tolerated or even to be lauded - is truly mystifying.
    Actually, I'm aghast.
  • Reply 3 of 27

    I love that photo of Jobs.

     

    Is there a statue of him at 1 Infinite Loop? If not, are there plans to erect one at the new campus? It would be a fitting tribute to one of the last major things he did at Apple.

  • Reply 4 of 27
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,547member
    "Plaintiffs are seeking $350 million..."

    I think you mean "Lawyers are seeking $350 million ..."
  • Reply 5 of 27
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Frac View Post



    From this side of the pond, the American Legal system - including lawyers, police actions, judges, the Feds et al...seems ludicrously focused on getting "the money!"

    The fact that getting the money by any means, seems to be tolerated or even to be lauded - is truly mystifying.

    Actually, I'm aghast.

    The more you look into it, the more aghast you will become. It's amazing the scams lawyers can use in these "class-action" suits. Here's one example:

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/12/05/pirates-booty-case-collapses-as-food-makers-fight-back/

  • Reply 6 of 27
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,060member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    From personal experience, I don't think it's possible to simply add or remove plaintiffs. If this was possible, what's to prevent any lawsuit from adding one, two or ten-thousand people? Utter B.S.




    I wouldn't think so, either, but that won't stop the lawyers from trying.  

  • Reply 7 of 27
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    I love that photo of Jobs.

    Is there a statue of him at 1 Infinite Loop? If not, are there plans to erect one at the new campus? It would be a fitting tribute to one of the last major things he did at Apple.
    Ok I'm sorry but that's just creepy.
  • Reply 8 of 27
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Ok I'm sorry but that's just creepy.

    I don't agree there should be a statue but I don't see statues as being creepy. Is there even a city in the world that doesn't have a statue of someone who is dead?
  • Reply 9 of 27
    plovellplovell Posts: 779member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    From personal experience, I don't think it's possible to simply add or remove plaintiffs. If this was possible, what's to prevent any lawsuit from adding one, two or ten-thousand people? Utter B.S.




    This is a class-action suit so there may be some different rules that apply. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know, but I suspect you may be right. The lawyers probably had two "leads" in case of a problem but now they find there are issues with both. Oops.

     

    Courts take a dim view of

    1. their time being wasted

    2. lawyers not doing their homework.

    It would not surprise me if the Judge dismisses this case, maybe with prejudice, just to teach the lawyers that they need to do better preparation of their cases.

  • Reply 10 of 27
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    From personal experience, I don't think it's possible to simply add or remove plaintiffs. If this was possible, what's to prevent any lawsuit from adding one, two or ten-thousand people? Utter B.S.


    I have no idea about that but it’s already a class-action...

  • Reply 11 of 27
    rogifan wrote: »
    I love that photo of Jobs.

    Is there a statue of him at 1 Infinite Loop? If not, are there plans to erect one at the new campus? It would be a fitting tribute to one of the last major things he did at Apple.
    Ok I'm sorry but that's just creepy.

    The world is better off for urban planners who don't share your aesthetic sensibilities.
  • Reply 12 of 27
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,499member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Ok I'm sorry but that's just creepy.

    How so? We aren't talking of a statue with Jobs on a prancing stallion with a flaming sword in his hand. If done with taste it could be nice.
  • Reply 13 of 27
    hillstoneshillstones Posts: 1,490member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    From personal experience, I don't think it's possible to simply add or remove plaintiffs. If this was possible, what's to prevent any lawsuit from adding one, two or ten-thousand people? Utter B.S.


    It is obvious you are not an attorney.  Lawsuits are filed against DOES 1-100, or more.  They can also be amended.  This allows parties to be added once identified, or dismissed.  Motions can be filed by either side at any time, even during trial, and they are heard before the jury enters a courtroom, if they occur during a trial.  The motions can add or dismiss a plaintiff, or raise issue towards an expert witness or evidence.  Since the one plaintiff could not prove she owned an iPod during the time period, the attorney can, and did, dismiss her.

  • Reply 14 of 27
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,491member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post





    How so? We aren't talking of a statue with Jobs on a prancing stallion with a flaming sword in his hand. If done with taste it could be nice.

    How about Jobs on a unicorn?

  • Reply 15 of 27
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    From personal experience, I don't think it's possible to simply add or remove plaintiffs. If this was possible, what's to prevent any lawsuit from adding one, two or ten-thousand people? Utter B.S.


     

    I saw a report where some law professor said it could be allowed by the judge. I certainly hope that doesn't happen. It would seem that there is a problem in doing so. It isn't like one of them died and you wanted to replace their interest. What this means is that this entire case has been pushed and directed in the interest of people not in the class. To me that taints all of the proceedings to date as not in the interest of the actual class. The class was basically hijacked by people with no standing. I don't see how that stands even if the judge allows it. Seems like a pretty good item for appeal if it is allowed.

  • Reply 16 of 27
    Soooo... No plaintiff exists.

    Therefore, the lawyers must manufacture one?

    Okayyy.

    Didn't know that was legal.

    Some dirty lawyers grubbing for money from a successful company. Nothing else to see here.

    The lawyers may as well enter their firm as the plaintiff.
  • Reply 17 of 27
    Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

    How so? We aren't talking of a statue with Jobs on a prancing stallion with a flaming sword in his hand. If done with taste it could be nice.

     

    I want a robotic Steve Jobs statue that will occasionally jump down off its podium and chase people for no reason.

  • Reply 18 of 27
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,391member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    rogifan wrote: »
    Ok I'm sorry but that's just creepy.

    I don't agree there should be a statue but I don't see statues as being creepy.

    There's one in Hungary that I think is a bit creepy:


    1000

    Is there even a city in the world that doesn't have a statue of someone who is dead?

    Good point. Which made me remember this line: "There has never been a statue erected to honour an analyst."
  • Reply 19 of 27
    From personal experience, I don't think it's possible to simply add or remove plaintiffs. If this was possible, what's to prevent any lawsuit from adding one, two or ten-thousand people? Utter B.S.

    To remove a plaintiff, swipe their name from right to left, then tap "Trash".

    To add a new plaintiff, tap the "+" button.

    :D
  • Reply 20 of 27
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,022member

    Steve Jobs is dead. Dragging him from the grave, by using a video with selective quotes and context,  in order to trash and tarnish the company, is such a filthy, classless, shit-faced tactic. 

Sign In or Register to comment.