8 million people with iPods also purchased music from real? I doubt that.
8 million people with iPods also had music they purchased from other sources deleted from their devices because they didn’t put the music on properly? I doubt that, too.
There won’t be any punishment for these morons, will there?
Oh grow up you twit. Perfectly reasonable for the judge to hold off until the action can organise itself. The validity of the case can't be held accountable to a couple of inaccuracies. If the action can't organise itself in a reasonable time then it can be dismissed.
Seriously, you've been even more unhinged than usual recently. Calm the frick down.
Twit? The attorney's team had 10 years to 'organise' !
Look in a mirror when you toss insults related to intelligence.
It IS really strange that a suit can be filed by people who weren't eligible, and now the lawyers can carry on the suit and try to find people who qualify. I think the judge is handling it correctly for now, but how aggrieved can people be when the lawyers can't find anyone who gives a crap about this case? If the lawyer finds somebody, it'll probably be someone who really wants to be on the Jerry Springer Show, but has to settle for this trial.
Out of 8 million iPod buyers who qualify, how many could possibly even be in favor of this lawsuit? I bought a qualified iPod, and I would contact the lawyers just to tell them they're morons, and I'm glad they wasted 8 years pursuing this for nothing. I hope they are personally included in the next editions of college law books as examples of idiot lawyers.
"We" clearly doesn't include the judge. Should judges just consult the AI community whenever a case involving Apple comes up? I don't think that will fly as a legal principle.
And I didn’t think that a case proceeding when there are no plaintiffs would fly as a legal principle, but I guess logic and reason don’t mean anything to the justice department these days.
The judge cited the other 8 million complainants. Do you really think it is "reasonable time" to go through 8 million people until they find the perfect witness or plaintiff?
I never said anything of the sort. What is reasonable is whatever the judge considers to be reasonable.
8-10 years to prepare their case and they never had a class of plantiffs. How can anything other than throwing it out be the right solution? That is the right expression of merit. And have them cover Apple's legal costs.
Okay. Disbar the judge now. No one this stupid should be in charge of legal proceedings.
Probably some will want to crowbar the judge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewMe
Talk about a fishing expedition...
Shameful waste of the US court system.
It is. It all seems to have started with lawyers identifying the defendant, but the plaintiffs are nowhere to be found (actual plaintiffs, that is). On one hand, I would like to see a legal precedent set where the courts sue the lawyers who bring these frivolous suits to recover damages--not only operating expenses, but also for litigants of other cases who experienced delayed justice because of this garbage.
The judge cited a responsibility to 8 million "potentially affected" iPod owners.
She never stated they were claimants,
or that they actually were affected.
The delay in the suit is to discover whether there are the former,
the suit is to discover whether there are the latter.
By naming them as potentially affected and keeping the timeline open ended, yes, the judge is calling them complainants. Therefore they will search through 8 million until they find their complainants.
It is. It all seems to have started with lawyers identifying the defendant, but the plaintiffs are nowhere to be found (actual plaintiffs, that is). On one hand, I would like to see a legal precedent set where the courts sue the lawyers who bring these frivolous suits to recover damages--not only operating expenses, but also for litigants of other cases who experienced delayed justice because of this garbage.
This is definitely an instance when it would be helpful for Apple's lawyers to get medieval and counter sue the hell out of these scammers.
Comments
8 million people with iPods also had music they purchased from other sources deleted from their devices because they didn’t put the music on properly? I doubt that, too.
There won’t be any punishment for these morons, will there?
Oh grow up you twit. Perfectly reasonable for the judge to hold off until the action can organise itself. The validity of the case can't be held accountable to a couple of inaccuracies. If the action can't organise itself in a reasonable time then it can be dismissed.
Seriously, you've been even more unhinged than usual recently. Calm the frick down.
Twit? The attorney's team had 10 years to 'organise' !
Look in a mirror when you toss insults related to intelligence.
If he can give us the names of, say, three of them, I’ll be okay. They don’t exist, though.
The judge cited a responsibility to 8 million "potentially affected" iPod owners.
She never stated they were claimants,
or that they actually were affected.
The delay in the suit is to discover whether there are the former,
the suit is to discover whether there are the latter.
The delay in the suit is to discover whether there are the former,
the suit is to discover whether there are the latter.
We already know there aren’t.
It IS really strange that a suit can be filed by people who weren't eligible, and now the lawyers can carry on the suit and try to find people who qualify. I think the judge is handling it correctly for now, but how aggrieved can people be when the lawyers can't find anyone who gives a crap about this case? If the lawyer finds somebody, it'll probably be someone who really wants to be on the Jerry Springer Show, but has to settle for this trial.
Out of 8 million iPod buyers who qualify, how many could possibly even be in favor of this lawsuit? I bought a qualified iPod, and I would contact the lawyers just to tell them they're morons, and I'm glad they wasted 8 years pursuing this for nothing. I hope they are personally included in the next editions of college law books as examples of idiot lawyers.
We already know there aren’t.
"We" clearly doesn't include the judge. Should judges just consult the AI community whenever a case involving Apple comes up? I don't think that will fly as a legal principle.
I don't think that will fly as a legal principle.
And I didn’t think that a case proceeding when there are no plaintiffs would fly as a legal principle, but I guess logic and reason don’t mean anything to the justice department these days.
The judge cited the other 8 million complainants. Do you really think it is "reasonable time" to go through 8 million people until they find the perfect witness or plaintiff?
I never said anything of the sort. What is reasonable is whatever the judge considers to be reasonable.
Sounds tough.
If you knew how the Tuckers discuss these types of issues on TV, or in the movie theatre...
Talk about a fishing expedition...
Shameful waste of the US court system.
Okay. Disbar the judge now. No one this stupid should be in charge of legal proceedings.
Probably some will want to crowbar the judge.
Talk about a fishing expedition...
Shameful waste of the US court system.
It is. It all seems to have started with lawyers identifying the defendant, but the plaintiffs are nowhere to be found (actual plaintiffs, that is). On one hand, I would like to see a legal precedent set where the courts sue the lawyers who bring these frivolous suits to recover damages--not only operating expenses, but also for litigants of other cases who experienced delayed justice because of this garbage.
The delay in the suit is to discover whether there are the former,
the suit is to discover whether there are the latter.
We already know there aren’t.
And I happen to agree with you on the "merits",
but I'm not willing to overturn the legal system to glorify my opinion.
I never said anything of the sort. What is reasonable is whatever the judge considers to be reasonable.
Not talking about what you said. This is about the judge's reasonableness and timeliness.
The judge cited a responsibility to 8 million "potentially affected" iPod owners.
She never stated they were claimants,
or that they actually were affected.
The delay in the suit is to discover whether there are the former,
the suit is to discover whether there are the latter.
By naming them as potentially affected and keeping the timeline open ended, yes, the judge is calling them complainants. Therefore they will search through 8 million until they find their complainants.
This is definitely an instance when it would be helpful for Apple's lawyers to get medieval and counter sue the hell out of these scammers.