has anyone spoken to apple tech support lately? Dude its like $ its defenally getting to their heads now, They are rude as hell now before it use to be a joy phoning tech support now its a nightmare, i mean new imac freezing up with sceen condensacion and airport extreme base station with access control letting anyone log to your network, its beginning to be to much for me know
...spell-checker not working, sky falling on head...
Fact: Microsoft license out their brand of DRM to third parties.
Fact: Apple don't license out their brand of DRM to third parties.
Cheers Daniel
People do not have to use iTunes, people dont have to buy iPods and Apple is not required to license their DRM, it is their IP and they can license it or not, their choice, their research dollars.
This is America, not Cuba.
Microsoft is probably paying this guy so Apple will be forced to use Microsoft DRM.
You can't implement another store into iTunes (like you can in Windows Media Player) or you can't use your iPod just with another software (maybe with an Amazon software). You have to deal with iTunes and wuuups there is accidentally a store in it...
Variety is not what most of Apple's users ask for.
If another store wants to put songs on the iPod, they simply design their own software (like Amazon did) and it works. It's that simple. Obviously Apple has not blocked other stores from doing that... LOL!
There's *no case* here. It's all a bunch of baloney, a bunch of people looking for a problem where no problem exists...
Now, that's a laugh-a-minute. What illegal monopoly. Apple doesn't distribute all the music in the music industry. There are plenty of avenues open for all sorts of ways to get one's music on their iPod. iTunes store is simply one way.
Of course, if you define a "subset" of a market to include (maybe) all left-handed, 5-foot-5, caucasians, who own 2.5 cars, 1.5 wives (a mistress on the side), a couple of children and a half -- perhaps, by that *pre-selected* group -- Apple *might* have a monopoly! LOL!!
But, we're talking about the music market and being able to get music on your iPod by whatever means exists in the market (without arbitrary and ridiculous definitions of a "subset" of the market in order to make a non-existent case for a "monopoly") -- and in that framework -- no such monopoly exists (but only in the "whiny brats" rat-sized brains, in that try to invent "class-action-suits") ... What a bunch of losers!!
It is also absurd that Nikon and Canon have duplicated one another's efforts. They would create better products if they collaborated. The only reason that iTunes works is because of collaboration. Collaboration is a good thing, as is sharing and trading, but we have made these things illegal. We encourage predation, which is not the same as trade.
Wrong. The companies are motivated to outperform eachother through competition (or predation as you call it) which not only necessitates them to produce better products for consumers but also provides the illusion of choice keeping our instinct to rebel against oppressively singular situations at bay - handy! Without this you end up with a standardised product which has no reason to be good - Trabant anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by augur
Inflation is a man-made phenomenon. To escape inflation, people create inflation for others. Even if the person wins this suit, the costs will just get passed on to future customers; Apple won't actually pay anything. Similarly, the more Apple profits on what they sell, others will just raise their prices for the goods they sell to Apple. There is no escaping from a vicious circle. Capitalism is as absurd as these lawsuits, but it is the laws themselves that are driving, and are driven by, the absurdities.
You could argue the mechanics of capitalism exacerbate negative traits of human behaviour but naive social doctrines (Communism in particular) inevitably fail due to their unwillingness to acknowledge who and what we really are and the reason they were thought up in the first place. So we'll stick with our money-fuelled version of the Greek deceit - for now.
Whilst your posthumous observations are correct you don't seem to acknowledge the reasons & motivations behind why the situations exist and to ignore these things is to ignore human nature which would be the biggest absurdity of all
So burn your songs to a cd and rip them into the format you choose.
Sue M$ for not selling songs that are compatible.
Apple has kept prices LOWER because of their position, they don't make you pay more - they let you pay less than the big guys want to charge you.
You still pay more, for the player.
I think Apple can license PFS if they wanted to. I think the fee is reasonable too. In comparison, no one can license Fairplay, ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjwill246
While he's at it, why didn't he note that there were restrictions on the iPod, if you will? He activated his EULA without reading it? Or didn't know of the above suggestions for usage?
Come on. Do you read every EULA? I think that either means that you don't do anything with computers, or don't do anything but read EULAs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newsushi
You honestly believe she had no reason to suspect that the coffee was hot? Paper cups don't exactly shield heat very well. She held the cup in her hand for at least 5 seconds while putting in her lap. Once in her lap, the cup was (almost certainly) being held between her legs for a sufficient amount of time to feel the tremendous amount of heat leaving the cup.
I think McDonald's used foam cups for coffee in that era, just like everyone else. I can't imagine drinking coffee in ordinary paper cups. When coffee cups moved to paper, I think the cups also had those insulator pads.
No one is FORCING ANYONE to purchase songs ONLY from Apple's iTunes.
The Zune is more closed than the iPod because of the subscription service.
If the judge is smart, they'll throw this sucker out.
The Zune user doesn't have to use the subscription service, they can just buy tracks if they want, and use unencrypted tracks from anyone else too. Subscription is not even an option with iPods. I don't know what iTunes fans have against subscription, it's never been required of any other device, and it's not the only option. In short, offering subscription services adds options, not remove them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliakim
Now, that's a laugh-a-minute. What illegal monopoly. Apple doesn't distribute all the music in the music industry. There are plenty of avenues open for all sorts of ways to get one's music on their iPod. iTunes store is simply one way.
I think that's in some ways saying that Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly because it didn't control all forms of fossil fuels. Even if there are alternative means, that doesn't inherently mean that there aren't certain anticompetitive things going on to help a company basically own most of the market.
Still, if I were to accept that iTunes/iPod represented a monopoly, I still would not think it was an illegal one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royboy
Thanks for posting that link, but the people who like to use the McDonalds case as an example of a sue happy nation aren't interested in knowing the facts of the case. It's much more exciting to use the McDonald case if you don't know any of the facts about the case.
I think a lot of America is overly sue happy, it's just a bad example to use to show it. Now, I think there was a lawsuit against McD's because a fat lady couldn't use the kiddie table. That's far less controversial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
I am surprised these lawyers don't sue automakers for making cars where you can only buy certain critical components from the manufacturer. Isn't that FORCING someone to buy a replacement part from only one supplier?
I think autos are actually a special case in legislation.
There are usually a lot of third party replacement parts for seemingly everything in a car. Other than batteries and other off-the-shelf components, I don't think you can buy third party replacement parts specific to Apple's products. If you accidentally break the MacBook's keyboard, I don't think there is any option but to get another Apple brand part. If the power supply blows, I think you have to go get an Apple unit.
I'm not sure the consumer ends up paying more money as this file states, probably the other way around. But nevertheless I think the pricing shouldn't be entirely up to Apple, that just feels a little to nazi for me. It's Apple's store so they should have a say in the prices they'd like to offer, but not entirely. They must loosen up and learn how to cooperate smoother. It would benefit the Apple brand long term. If they'd loosen up a bit, they could be hard and firm on other more important stuff. For instance the ring tones for iPhone... that's just REDICULOUS that it ONLY supports purchased ringtones, and not free ringtones. That's a point where if they had a smoother give and take relation, they wouldn't be too afraid to push hard on this being a free feature to use for free on non iTunes purchased tracks as it was intended.
This type of lawsuit has no freaking merits at all. It's a total waste of human resources trying to justify nothing.
Don't we have laws that can prevent this type of garbage from tying up our courts that need to spend more time on other important issues like human rights, equality and actual justice?
I read it. Doesn't matter. Complete rubish. Coffee is hot, always has been hot. Fresh coffee is brewed @ 180°F or above. This woman had an accident and was stupid to place coffee between her legs. She wasn't able to accept the consequences of her own stupidity and sued. This has become a major problem in the U.S. Much too many people are not willing to admit being stupid and blame everyone but themselves for their stupidity. Our courts are clogged with this type of behavor so the many valid lawsuits wait needlessly for justice. Get over it, you're wrong.
This idiiot in Florida is wrong, the judge should summarily throw this case out and reprimand the lawyers for filing this idiotic lawsuit.
Forgot to add that, with Apple now offering DRM free tracks this kind of negates this idiot's lawsuit out of hand.
Now, that's a laugh-a-minute. What illegal monopoly. Apple doesn't distribute all the music in the music industry. There are plenty of avenues open for all sorts of ways to get one's music on their iPod. iTunes store is simply one way.
Of course, if you define a "subset" of a market to include (maybe) all left-handed, 5-foot-5, caucasians, who own 2.5 cars, 1.5 wives (a mistress on the side), a couple of children and a half -- perhaps, by that *pre-selected* group -- Apple *might* have a monopoly! LOL!!
But, we're talking about the music market and being able to get music on your iPod by whatever means exists in the market (without arbitrary and ridiculous definitions of a "subset" of the market in order to make a non-existent case for a "monopoly") -- and in that framework -- no such monopoly exists (but only in the "whiny brats" rat-sized brains, in that try to invent "class-action-suits") ... What a bunch of losers!!
LOL- If it were the 80's and all those CD's you bought only played on Sony CD players I guess you'd be making a lot of casette tapes to hear them on different players- LOSER! It is an illelgal monopoly. I predicted this would happen years ago- Apple's been playing with fire.
She belongs in assisted living then, for the frail and infirm, if she can't handle "life" as it is in this world. This is all too stupid for reality, only in the American legal system, which I've lived in all my life and definitely seems to be getting worse by the year...
So, rather than a report of a lawsuit that angers you, you would take away the legal rights of an American adult? She doesn't have to be very frail at all to have not been able to take off her seatbelt and jump out of the car holding her skirts away from herself, and maybe lifting up her underwear too -- get it? If this was an intrinsic thing that just came along with drinking hot coffee, that would have led to dismissal of the case. But this turned out to be a deliberate decision by the McDonald's B.O.D., and they knew very well that it scalded dozens of people a year. They'd pay off right on the spot, from a few hundred to a few thousand. This time, the old lady -- in her '70s, not an invalid -- got very badly burnt, requiring $20,000 in skin grafting and a painful convalescence. She sued, God bless her, and a jury, hearing all the facts, got angry. The judgement was reduced by the judge, although the jury's method of assigning punitive damages was pretty simple: one day's income from coffee.
After this lawsuit, they did one thing: they brought down the temperature of the coffee to below scalding. No more lawsuits. That means the system works.
Well, actually the lady who sued McDonalds was a 81 year old woman. She was burnt in the parking lot in a parked car. The coffee was served at 185 degrees, which is enough to cause 3rd degree burns in three seconds. She was hospitalized for days. The coffee was served at 20 degrees hotter then most restaurants serve their coffee, and most places serve their coffee hotter then people do at home. That particular McDonalds had over 700 complaints of people getting third degree burns from their coffee. McDonald's own witness claimed he knew the coffee was served at a dangerously hot temperature and no warnings were posted despite this knowledge. By comparison, coffee you drink at home is served around 130 degrees. The woman after appeals ended up with $780 thousand dollars. This damage reward contained two parts. The first part was to cover the plaintiff's actual damages (e.g. the hospital visit). The second part was punitive damages that were rewarded because it was found that McDonald's actions were recklessly dangerous. That was designed to deter McDonald's future bad behavior. McDonald's probably makes over a million dollars a second, so I doubt it felt any pain from the verdict.
I do not know about you, but when I order hot coffee and place it between my legs, I know I might get burnt because I have burnt myself before. I, however, wouldn't expect to get third degree burns. I also would expect the place I am buying a product from to warn me if its product was more dangerous then normal.
My point: I would hardly put this suit against Apple in the same category as the McDonald's coffee lawsuit, which was not frivolous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontlookleft
"I'm in an incompetent douche that doesn't know how to hold my coffee so it spilled on my lap and burnt me, I need to sue McDonalds.":
Yes, but coffee is SERVED at 130 to 165 degrees. I buy coffee everyday, and I have never purchased it hot enough to cause third degree burns. If it were your grandmother burnt, you would have felt differently. Nonetheless, this suit against Apple is hardly in the same category as the McDonald's lawsuit. Moreover, McDonald's has distorted the facts of that case to lobby for tort reform. Tort reform usually puts caps on liability, which unfortunately, denies people with genuine grievances adequate damages.
Apple already scored a legal victory in this case, by having the suit removed to California instead of Florida.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
I read it. Doesn't matter. Complete rubish. Coffee is hot, always has been hot. Fresh coffee is brewed @ 180°F or above. This woman had an accident and was stupid to place coffee between her legs. She wasn't able to accept the consequences of her own stupidity and sued. This has become a major problem in the U.S. Much too many people are not willing to admit being stupid and blame everyone but themselves for their stupidity. Our courts are clogged with this type of behavor so the many valid lawsuits wait needlessly for justice. Get over it, you're wrong.
This idiiot in Florida is wrong, the judge should summarily throw this case out and reprimand the lawyers for filing this idiotic lawsuit.
Forgot to add that, with Apple now offering DRM free tracks this kind of negates this idiot's lawsuit out of hand.
Loser pay systems would make it so poor people couldn't sue anybody even if they did have a case. People who complain about the american judicial system, should complain about judges. Judges have the power to dismiss frivolous lawsuits, but often do not. For instance, that pants case.
Judges also have the power to award attorney fees in frivolous lawsuits, and often do. That, however, is rarely reported.
I also do not know Florida law, so I have no way of knowing if the guys iPod iTunes suit has merit or not. If it does, well then, take the matter up with Florida.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aestival
It never ceases to amaze me how the US system (no automatic payment by loser for winning side's legal expenses) encourages people to sue for being stupid. Not only can you do what he claims you can't do, but it's not even very challenging. The upside to such idiocy is that as the US economy slowly collapses and the US dollar becomes increasingly worthless, the rest of us will get to enjoy a lot more Made in USA labelled goods, which will be a pleasant change from Made in China.
Comments
I predict this ending in a settlement in which Apple sends out $5 iTunes gift cards to all the members of the plaintiff class...
And perpetuate the tie-in they're complaining about!
Apple is getting bigger and they certainly have a monopoly in this field.
So I wish em luck
has anyone spoken to apple tech support lately? Dude its like $ its defenally getting to their heads now, They are rude as hell now before it use to be a joy phoning tech support now its a nightmare, i mean new imac freezing up with sceen condensacion and airport extreme base station with access control letting anyone log to your network, its beginning to be to much for me know
...spell-checker not working, sky falling on head...
Fact: Microsoft license out their brand of DRM to third parties.
Fact: Apple don't license out their brand of DRM to third parties.
Cheers Daniel
People do not have to use iTunes, people dont have to buy iPods and Apple is not required to license their DRM, it is their IP and they can license it or not, their choice, their research dollars.
This is America, not Cuba.
Microsoft is probably paying this guy so Apple will be forced to use Microsoft DRM.
Nice!
McD
Hej I actually agree with the class-action.
Apple is getting bigger and they certainly have a monopoly in this field.
So I wish em luck
There is no monopoly, people can buy a different music player. Music players are not necessary like electricity, heat, food or a phone service.
They are big because they are doing what the VERY VAST majority of the people want.
Read a dictionary and look it up before you make 1/2 @#@ statements like that.
I hate idiots.
You can't implement another store into iTunes (like you can in Windows Media Player) or you can't use your iPod just with another software (maybe with an Amazon software). You have to deal with iTunes and wuuups there is accidentally a store in it...
Variety is not what most of Apple's users ask for.
If another store wants to put songs on the iPod, they simply design their own software (like Amazon did) and it works. It's that simple. Obviously Apple has not blocked other stores from doing that... LOL!
There's *no case* here. It's all a bunch of baloney, a bunch of people looking for a problem where no problem exists...
The"point" is that it's an illegal monopoly.
Now, that's a laugh-a-minute. What illegal monopoly. Apple doesn't distribute all the music in the music industry. There are plenty of avenues open for all sorts of ways to get one's music on their iPod. iTunes store is simply one way.
Of course, if you define a "subset" of a market to include (maybe) all left-handed, 5-foot-5, caucasians, who own 2.5 cars, 1.5 wives (a mistress on the side), a couple of children and a half -- perhaps, by that *pre-selected* group -- Apple *might* have a monopoly! LOL!!
But, we're talking about the music market and being able to get music on your iPod by whatever means exists in the market (without arbitrary and ridiculous definitions of a "subset" of the market in order to make a non-existent case for a "monopoly") -- and in that framework -- no such monopoly exists (but only in the "whiny brats" rat-sized brains, in that try to invent "class-action-suits") ... What a bunch of losers!!
It is also absurd that Nikon and Canon have duplicated one another's efforts. They would create better products if they collaborated. The only reason that iTunes works is because of collaboration. Collaboration is a good thing, as is sharing and trading, but we have made these things illegal. We encourage predation, which is not the same as trade.
Wrong. The companies are motivated to outperform eachother through competition (or predation as you call it) which not only necessitates them to produce better products for consumers but also provides the illusion of choice keeping our instinct to rebel against oppressively singular situations at bay - handy! Without this you end up with a standardised product which has no reason to be good - Trabant anyone?
Inflation is a man-made phenomenon. To escape inflation, people create inflation for others. Even if the person wins this suit, the costs will just get passed on to future customers; Apple won't actually pay anything. Similarly, the more Apple profits on what they sell, others will just raise their prices for the goods they sell to Apple. There is no escaping from a vicious circle. Capitalism is as absurd as these lawsuits, but it is the laws themselves that are driving, and are driven by, the absurdities.
You could argue the mechanics of capitalism exacerbate negative traits of human behaviour but naive social doctrines (Communism in particular) inevitably fail due to their unwillingness to acknowledge who and what we really are and the reason they were thought up in the first place. So we'll stick with our money-fuelled version of the Greek deceit - for now.
Whilst your posthumous observations are correct you don't seem to acknowledge the reasons & motivations behind why the situations exist and to ignore these things is to ignore human nature which would be the biggest absurdity of all
Think.
You first
McD
So burn your songs to a cd and rip them into the format you choose.
Sue M$ for not selling songs that are compatible.
Apple has kept prices LOWER because of their position, they don't make you pay more - they let you pay less than the big guys want to charge you.
You still pay more, for the player.
I think Apple can license PFS if they wanted to. I think the fee is reasonable too. In comparison, no one can license Fairplay, ever.
While he's at it, why didn't he note that there were restrictions on the iPod, if you will? He activated his EULA without reading it? Or didn't know of the above suggestions for usage?
Come on. Do you read every EULA? I think that either means that you don't do anything with computers, or don't do anything but read EULAs.
You honestly believe she had no reason to suspect that the coffee was hot? Paper cups don't exactly shield heat very well. She held the cup in her hand for at least 5 seconds while putting in her lap. Once in her lap, the cup was (almost certainly) being held between her legs for a sufficient amount of time to feel the tremendous amount of heat leaving the cup.
I think McDonald's used foam cups for coffee in that era, just like everyone else. I can't imagine drinking coffee in ordinary paper cups. When coffee cups moved to paper, I think the cups also had those insulator pads.
No one is FORCING ANYONE to purchase songs ONLY from Apple's iTunes.
The Zune is more closed than the iPod because of the subscription service.
If the judge is smart, they'll throw this sucker out.
The Zune user doesn't have to use the subscription service, they can just buy tracks if they want, and use unencrypted tracks from anyone else too. Subscription is not even an option with iPods. I don't know what iTunes fans have against subscription, it's never been required of any other device, and it's not the only option. In short, offering subscription services adds options, not remove them.
Now, that's a laugh-a-minute. What illegal monopoly. Apple doesn't distribute all the music in the music industry. There are plenty of avenues open for all sorts of ways to get one's music on their iPod. iTunes store is simply one way.
I think that's in some ways saying that Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly because it didn't control all forms of fossil fuels. Even if there are alternative means, that doesn't inherently mean that there aren't certain anticompetitive things going on to help a company basically own most of the market.
Still, if I were to accept that iTunes/iPod represented a monopoly, I still would not think it was an illegal one.
Thanks for posting that link, but the people who like to use the McDonalds case as an example of a sue happy nation aren't interested in knowing the facts of the case. It's much more exciting to use the McDonald case if you don't know any of the facts about the case.
I think a lot of America is overly sue happy, it's just a bad example to use to show it. Now, I think there was a lawsuit against McD's because a fat lady couldn't use the kiddie table. That's far less controversial.
I am surprised these lawyers don't sue automakers for making cars where you can only buy certain critical components from the manufacturer. Isn't that FORCING someone to buy a replacement part from only one supplier?
I think autos are actually a special case in legislation.
There are usually a lot of third party replacement parts for seemingly everything in a car. Other than batteries and other off-the-shelf components, I don't think you can buy third party replacement parts specific to Apple's products. If you accidentally break the MacBook's keyboard, I don't think there is any option but to get another Apple brand part. If the power supply blows, I think you have to go get an Apple unit.
Don't we have laws that can prevent this type of garbage from tying up our courts that need to spend more time on other important issues like human rights, equality and actual justice?
People who constantly bring up the McDonald' coffee burns incident need to read this page:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
I read it. Doesn't matter. Complete rubish. Coffee is hot, always has been hot. Fresh coffee is brewed @ 180°F or above. This woman had an accident and was stupid to place coffee between her legs. She wasn't able to accept the consequences of her own stupidity and sued. This has become a major problem in the U.S. Much too many people are not willing to admit being stupid and blame everyone but themselves for their stupidity. Our courts are clogged with this type of behavor so the many valid lawsuits wait needlessly for justice. Get over it, you're wrong.
This idiiot in Florida is wrong, the judge should summarily throw this case out and reprimand the lawyers for filing this idiotic lawsuit.
Forgot to add that, with Apple now offering DRM free tracks this kind of negates this idiot's lawsuit out of hand.
Now, that's a laugh-a-minute. What illegal monopoly. Apple doesn't distribute all the music in the music industry. There are plenty of avenues open for all sorts of ways to get one's music on their iPod. iTunes store is simply one way.
Of course, if you define a "subset" of a market to include (maybe) all left-handed, 5-foot-5, caucasians, who own 2.5 cars, 1.5 wives (a mistress on the side), a couple of children and a half -- perhaps, by that *pre-selected* group -- Apple *might* have a monopoly! LOL!!
But, we're talking about the music market and being able to get music on your iPod by whatever means exists in the market (without arbitrary and ridiculous definitions of a "subset" of the market in order to make a non-existent case for a "monopoly") -- and in that framework -- no such monopoly exists (but only in the "whiny brats" rat-sized brains, in that try to invent "class-action-suits") ... What a bunch of losers!!
LOL- If it were the 80's and all those CD's you bought only played on Sony CD players I guess you'd be making a lot of casette tapes to hear them on different players- LOSER! It is an illelgal monopoly. I predicted this would happen years ago- Apple's been playing with fire.
She belongs in assisted living then, for the frail and infirm, if she can't handle "life" as it is in this world. This is all too stupid for reality, only in the American legal system, which I've lived in all my life and definitely seems to be getting worse by the year...
So, rather than a report of a lawsuit that angers you, you would take away the legal rights of an American adult? She doesn't have to be very frail at all to have not been able to take off her seatbelt and jump out of the car holding her skirts away from herself, and maybe lifting up her underwear too -- get it? If this was an intrinsic thing that just came along with drinking hot coffee, that would have led to dismissal of the case. But this turned out to be a deliberate decision by the McDonald's B.O.D., and they knew very well that it scalded dozens of people a year. They'd pay off right on the spot, from a few hundred to a few thousand. This time, the old lady -- in her '70s, not an invalid -- got very badly burnt, requiring $20,000 in skin grafting and a painful convalescence. She sued, God bless her, and a jury, hearing all the facts, got angry. The judgement was reduced by the judge, although the jury's method of assigning punitive damages was pretty simple: one day's income from coffee.
After this lawsuit, they did one thing: they brought down the temperature of the coffee to below scalding. No more lawsuits. That means the system works.
I do not know about you, but when I order hot coffee and place it between my legs, I know I might get burnt because I have burnt myself before. I, however, wouldn't expect to get third degree burns. I also would expect the place I am buying a product from to warn me if its product was more dangerous then normal.
My point: I would hardly put this suit against Apple in the same category as the McDonald's coffee lawsuit, which was not frivolous.
"I'm in an incompetent douche that doesn't know how to hold my coffee so it spilled on my lap and burnt me, I need to sue McDonalds.":
Apple already scored a legal victory in this case, by having the suit removed to California instead of Florida.
I read it. Doesn't matter. Complete rubish. Coffee is hot, always has been hot. Fresh coffee is brewed @ 180°F or above. This woman had an accident and was stupid to place coffee between her legs. She wasn't able to accept the consequences of her own stupidity and sued. This has become a major problem in the U.S. Much too many people are not willing to admit being stupid and blame everyone but themselves for their stupidity. Our courts are clogged with this type of behavor so the many valid lawsuits wait needlessly for justice. Get over it, you're wrong.
This idiiot in Florida is wrong, the judge should summarily throw this case out and reprimand the lawyers for filing this idiotic lawsuit.
Forgot to add that, with Apple now offering DRM free tracks this kind of negates this idiot's lawsuit out of hand.
Judges also have the power to award attorney fees in frivolous lawsuits, and often do. That, however, is rarely reported.
I also do not know Florida law, so I have no way of knowing if the guys iPod iTunes suit has merit or not. If it does, well then, take the matter up with Florida.
It never ceases to amaze me how the US system (no automatic payment by loser for winning side's legal expenses) encourages people to sue for being stupid. Not only can you do what he claims you can't do, but it's not even very challenging. The upside to such idiocy is that as the US economy slowly collapses and the US dollar becomes increasingly worthless, the rest of us will get to enjoy a lot more Made in USA labelled goods, which will be a pleasant change from Made in China.