Mikey Campbell
In what could prove to be a major development in a class-action lawsuit involving Apple's iPod and iTunes, new court documents filed on Thursday reveal Apple is questioning whether a class even exists.
A letter from Apple to presiding Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers notes both plaintiffs named in the case have not produced evidence showing they owned an iPod purchased within the suit's effective September 2006 to March 2009 time period, reports The New York Times. The filing was entered at midnight and has been sealed from public viewing.
Apple is accused of creating a monopoly with FairPlay digital rights management (DRM), the iPod and the iTunes Music Store. As stipulated by plaintiffs, the class includes individuals and businesses who bought iPod classic, iPod shuffle, iPod touch or iPod nano models between Sept. 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009.
In its letter to Judge Gonzales Rogers, Apple said it researched the serial numbers of plaintiff Mariana Rosen's iPod and found the device was purchased in July 2009. Court documents show Rosen bought a 15GB iPod and a 30GB "video iPod" for personal use, as well as an iPod mini as a gift.
The second plaintiff, Melanie Tucker, is asserting a 32GB iPod touch purchased in 2010, a 20GB iPod purchased in April 2005 and an "iPod video."
"I am concerned that I don't have a plaintiff," Judge Gonzales Rogers said. "That's a problem."
The jurist plans to look into the matter independently, while plaintiffs' attorney Bonny Sweeney said she had not seen the documents provided by Apple and would respond later Thursday.
In its case against Apple, the class is seeking $350 million in damages, an amount that could be tripled to over $1 billion under U.S. antitrust laws.
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
AppleInsider Staff
Chip Loder
Malcolm Owen
61 Comments
"I am concerned that I don't have a plaintiff," Judge Gonzales Rogers said. "That's a problem." [B][I]Yee-sus Marta![/I][/B] Via Gruber: [QUOTE]WSJ: ‘Apple Deleted Rivals’ Songs from Users’ iPods’ ? This strikes me as a terribly misinformed article. This had nothing to do with rival music stores’ music files, and everything to do with rival music stores’ DRM. The plaintiffs in this class action suit are, from what I’ve read, deliberately blurring the lines to conflate the two. Apple: [LIST] [*] Only ever supported one DRM format: FairPlay. They never licensed FairPlay to other device makers or music stores, and never supported any other DRM format in iTunes or on iPods. [*] Always supported non-DRM music — in MP3 and AAC formats — on both iTunes and iPods. [*] Included DRM on iTunes Music Store tracks at the insistence of the record labels. As famously made clear in Steve Jobs’s “Thoughts on Music” open letter in 2007, Apple wanted to sell DRM-free music tracks, and, once the record labels allowed them to, they did just that. [*] The thing with Real Networks is that they backwards-engineered FairPlay in 2004, and Apple responded by closing the loopholes Real exploited. If Real had sold DRM-free MP3 files, Apple wouldn’t have done anything. Amazon’s music store has always sold music in plain no-DRM MP3 format, and those files have always worked perfectly with iTunes and iPods. [*] [/LIST] http://daringfireball.net [/QUOTE]
These were two stooges that Real picked up (probably paid) to file this... what a surprise..
Throw the book at the involved law firm. This is an abuse of the legal system (even more so than ever) if true.
Details details
This is going to get tossed out.