Plaintiff withdrawn in iPod antitrust lawsuit

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 42
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    starbird73 wrote: »
    I love that this case has been spinning for YEARS and this is all they have to show for it.

    In the words of Martin Lawrence, and to the plaintiff's lawyers 'you're about to be mad as hell, boy'
  • Reply 22 of 42
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    pdq2 wrote: »
    So...apparently, Plaintiff Rosen was so upset about the iPod she purchased in 2008 that she bought another in 2009?

    They really oughta toss this case.

    She thought the first one was broken. :lol:
  • Reply 23 of 42
    Ok... there were two named plaintiffs in this class-action lawsuit.

    So how many unnamed plaintiffs?

    Are there thousands of people who were affected by this? Hundreds?

    This case is mostly about RealNetworks and [I]their[/I] DRM.... did they really have a ton of customers?

    It really sounds like a scheme by some lawyers to try to get some money from Apple.
  • Reply 24 of 42
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,525member
    I wonder if Apple's attorneys knew this from the beginning and let these bozos spin their wheels for a decade.

    They're likely on retainers anyway, so it's not like it cost Apple any extra.

    Retainers from whom? I would think they took the case on the speculation that they would make a nice percentage of the judgement.

    edit: nevermind, I see you are talking about Apple's attorneys.
  • Reply 25 of 42
    pdq2pdq2 Posts: 270member

    Apple files for dismissal of lawsuit.

     

    Judge gives plaintiffs attorneys (whoever that plaintiff may be now) til Monday to respond. Can't they just plug in yet another plaintiff (having already lost two, and with the third hanging by a thread?) Apple argues precedence says "no".

  • Reply 26 of 42
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

     

    Apple files for dismissal of lawsuit.

     

    Judge gives plaintiffs attorneys (whoever that plaintiff may be now) til Monday to respond. Can't they just plug in yet another plaintiff (having already lost two, and with the third hanging by a thread?) Apple argues precedence says "no".




    No, you cannot. You'd have to start from scratch with a new case, including all new requests for evidence and so on... See you in another ten years.

  • Reply 27 of 42
    pdq2 wrote: »
    So...apparently, Plaintiff Rosen was so upset about the iPod she purchased in 2008 that she bought another in 2009?

    They really oughta toss this case.

    Exactly. The plaintiff's lawyers are so excited by the prospect of a quick settlement from uncle moneybags (Apple, Inc) that they forgot to do due diligence on their own clients.
  • Reply 28 of 42
    Quote:

    As with any repeated game, class-action lawyers are a well-defined group of players who must establish a reputation for fighting hard in every case and racking up as much expenses on the defense side as they can, in order to induce companies to come to the settlement table. That’s where they make their money, and the convenient fiction that they are suing on behalf of consumers collapses as they get down to the real negotiations, which are over the fee they will be paid without any objections from their supposed opponents across the table.

    But for the whole process to work, they still need clients. And those clients must have a case. Defense lawyers have slowly but steadily woken up to the fact that those clients often come with baggage — Bill Lerach, the founder of the predecessor to Robbins Geller, went to jail for paying his clients to appear in securities class actions — and they are digging into their backgrounds to find out if they can even serve as plaintiffs. This must strike some plaintiff lawyers as strange, since everybody knows the “client” is just a vehicle for assembling a case that often is already loaded in their computer, ready to be filed. But it’s the law, and U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers may just decide that this long-running case has met an insuperable barrier.

     

    She didn’t quite go that far in court on Thursday, saying only: “I am concerned that I don’t have a plaintiff. That’s a problem.” It’s a big problem, in fact the central problem with most class actions. 

    This isn’t the first time Robbins Geller has found itself in a fix over its supposed clients. In fact, I have written several “Whoops!” headlines over the years, including this classic from 2010. For an example involving another highly professional law firm, see this one from earlier this year.



     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/12/05/whoops-no-plaintiff-as-apple-tells-court-ipod-owner-isnt-in-class-she-represents/

     

    Looks like the lawyers at this firm should be disbarred.

  • Reply 29 of 42
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,680member
    jsmythe00 wrote: »
    ...there should be a standing law that plaintiff pays the defendants legal fees if they lose.

    There's no way a law firm would take this on if they had no clear path for a win. 10 years? How much in legal fees would they be paying for Apple's lawyers.

    This would surely stop all the bogus lawsuits

    I think we all had this discussion before.

    In any case the law firm should pay for Apple's legal fees and all court costs for this sham.
  • Reply 30 of 42

    They didn't disbar the Prenda lawyers, did they? Those guys were epic crooks, but somehow managed to stay one step ahead. They gamed the legal system good.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law
  • Reply 31 of 42
    Sometimes the legal system really sucks. Clearly this is a fabricated attempt to get money but the judge can't or won't just throw the whole thing out. This is the type of stuff that we need laws against. If a company truly did something wrong they should be held accountable. In this case we know there wasn't wrong doing. Pirated music, movies or any pirated content period shouldn't be allowed. I know I won't get much help on that one but the studios and artists get robbed. Ripping your own library should be allowed though.

    Maybe next we will see former Palm Pre owners suing Apple because Apple kept plugging the holes in iPhone OS that allowed them to sync their phone with iTunes. Anyone remember that?
  • Reply 32 of 42
    fracfrac Posts: 480member

    They didn't disbar the Prenda lawyers, did they? Those guys were epic crooks, but somehow managed to stay one step ahead. They gamed the legal system good.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law

    I followed the twists and turns of the Prenda Law case over at Ars....and I'm still shaking my head. Did they really not even censor the lawyers?
    Truly shocked if so.:\
  • Reply 33 of 42
    This is pretty comical but not really funny. What a F&^&ing waste of time. And it is ALLLLL about the lawyers.
  • Reply 34 of 42
    davidwdavidw Posts: 967member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post



    Ok... there were two named plaintiffs in this class-action lawsuit.



    So how many unnamed plaintiffs?



    Are there thousands of people who were affected by this? Hundreds?



    This case is mostly about RealNetworks and their DRM.... did they really have a ton of customers?



    It really sounds like a scheme by some lawyers to try to get some money from Apple.

     

    There are about 8 million plaintiffs. The about how many iPods Apple sold while they were selling music with FairPlay DRM.

     

    At first I also thought this case was about Real not being able to sell their music to iPod owners. But the Real deleted music incident is just being used to show that Apple was maintaining a monopoly in the MP3 player market with their iPod and the download digital music market with iTunes. With the help of the record labels imposed DRM requirements. But there's no money in proving that a company has a monopoly because having a monopoly is not illegal. What's illegal is abusing your monopoly with anti competitve behavior.

     

    Which brings us to purchasers of iPods when Apple was still selling music with FairPlay DRM. Those are the dates presented in the suit. The lawyers are saying that since Apple had a monopoly in the MP3 player market, they abused that monopoly by overpricing their iPods. Thus purchasers of iPods during this period was harmed becasue they had to pay more than what they would have had to pay, if Apple did not have a monopoly. That's why the date of purchase is important in this suit. It's not about using an iPod and being affected by the Real deleted files incident during this period becasue that would include all the people that bought iPods since it was first sold and people that got iPods as gifts. You are only a plaintiff if you bought an "over priced" iPod during this period. And Apple sold about 8 million iPods during this period. 

     

    But you're right about this being a scheme by some lawyers to get money from Apple.

  • Reply 35 of 42
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

    There are about 8 million plaintiffs. The about how many iPods Apple sold while they were selling music with FairPlay DRM.



    Not even close to relevant.

  • Reply 36 of 42
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,680member
    davidw wrote: »
    There are about 8 million plaintiffs. The about how many iPods Apple sold while they were selling music with FairPlay DRM.

    At first I also thought this case was about Real not being able to sell their music to iPod owners. But the Real deleted music incident is just being used to show that Apple was maintaining a monopoly in the MP3 player market with their iPod and the download digital music market with iTunes. With the help of the record labels imposed DRM requirements. But there's no money in proving that a company has a monopoly because having a monopoly is not illegal. What's illegal is abusing your monopoly with anti competitve behavior.

    Which brings us to purchasers of iPods when Apple was still selling music with FairPlay DRM. Those are the dates presented in the suit. The lawyers are saying that since Apple had a monopoly in the MP3 player market, they abused that monopoly by overpricing their iPods. Thus purchasers of iPods during this period was harmed becasue they had to pay more than what they would have had to pay, if Apple did not have a monopoly. That's why the date of purchase is important in this suit. It's not about using an iPod and being affected by the Real deleted files incident during this period becasue that would include all the people that bought iPods since it was first sold and people that got iPods as gifts. You are only a plaintiff if you bought an "over priced" iPod during this period. And Apple sold about 8 million iPods during this period. 

    But you're right about this being a scheme by some lawyers to get money from Apple.

    But Apple never had a monopoly in MP3 players or MP3 music.

    And there aren't 8 MM plaintiffs. Most of those don't care about DRM.
  • Reply 37 of 42
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,799member

    You'd need to reasonably prove that all 8 million were potential customers of other services, and thereby suffered damages.  Seems unlikely.

  • Reply 38 of 42
    davidwdavidw Posts: 967member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

     

    You'd need to reasonably prove that all 8 million were potential customers of other services, and thereby suffered damages.  Seems unlikely.


     

    "If you purchased one of the listed iPod models directly from Apple between September 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009, a class action suit may affect your rights." .....

     

     

    "The lawsuit claims that the software updates caused iPod prices to be higher than they otherwise would have been." 

     

     

    If the lawyers can prove that Apple had monopoly status in either the MP3 market or download digital music market because of their DRM, the only requirement, to be part of this class action suit is that you bought an iPod during the time Apple maintained their FairPlay DRM.  The suit is about Apple supposily over charging for an iPod because of any alleged monopoly status, not whether the DRM affected an iPod user's music purchasing selection. Otherwise the purchase date wouldn't matter, as all iPod owners, at the time, would have been be affected. Apple sold 8 million iPods in this time period. The damages they suffered is supposily that they had to pay more for an iPod than they should have. 

  • Reply 39 of 42
    davidwdavidw Posts: 967member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    But Apple never had a monopoly in MP3 players or MP3 music.



    And there aren't 8 MM plaintiffs. Most of those don't care about DRM.

     

    Common sense tells you that, but the lawyers in this suit will still try to convince the jury otherwise. That's the only reason why the DRM is part of the case. The lawyers are saying that Apples' DRM in their iPods and iTunes purchased music  gave them monolopy power. This suit is not about iPod users being affected by the DRM, it's about iPod PURCHASERS supposily over paying for an iPod during the time Apple maintained their DRM. Apple sold 8 million iPods during this time. 

  • Reply 40 of 42

    They'll probably go buy some new clients.  Other slimy lawyers have done this before, and have gone to jail for it.

Sign In or Register to comment.