'iPod iTunes' anti-trust lawsuit loses last standing plaintiff [update: motion to dismiss denied]

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 48
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,166member
    8 million people with iPods also purchased music from real? I doubt that.
  • Reply 22 of 48
    Originally Posted by Entropys View Post

    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?

  • Reply 23 of 48
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    Prove a monopoly existed. There wasn't one.
  • Reply 24 of 48
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post





    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.

  • Reply 25 of 48
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by wigby View Post

    The judge cited the other 8 million complainants.

    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.

  • Reply 26 of 48
    Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

    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. 

  • Reply 27 of 48
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,927member
    So this entire episode is just a case of lawyers drumming up business for each other under the thin guise of protecting public interest!
  • Reply 28 of 48
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member

    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.

  • Reply 29 of 48
    Evil lawyers. The Devil's advocates. Talk about fraudulently creating plaintiffs to sue Apple.
  • Reply 30 of 48
    arlorarlor Posts: 532member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    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.

  • Reply 31 of 48
    Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

    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.

  • Reply 32 of 48
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wigby View Post





    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.

  • Reply 33 of 48

    Sounds tough.

     

    If you knew how the Tuckers discuss these types of issues on TV, or in the movie theatre...

  • Reply 34 of 48
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,365member

    Talk about a fishing expedition...

     

    Shameful waste of the US court system. 

  • Reply 35 of 48
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,294member
    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.
  • Reply 36 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    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 View Post

     

    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.

  • Reply 37 of 48
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

    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.

  • Reply 38 of 48
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

     

     

    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.

  • Reply 39 of 48
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

     

    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.

  • Reply 40 of 48
    Probably some will want to crowbar the judge.


    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.