Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple DRM Lawsuit Loses Last Plaintiff, but Judge Rules Against Dismissal

Posted by Soulskill on from the now-begins-the-search dept.

UnknowingFool writes: In the Apple DRM lawsuit, the last plaintiff in the case has been disqualified. However, due to the number of potential consumers affected, the judge has denied Apple's motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs' lawyers will have to find a qualified plaintiff. To recap, the suit lost both plaintiffs in the last week when Apple reported to the judge that their iPods were not eligible (iPods must be purchased between Sept 2006 and May 2009). The first plaintiff withdrew when all her iPods were found to be outside the time period. The second plaintiff produced one iPod that was not eligible but two others that were eligible; however, Apple challenged the two eligible ones as the plaintiff could not prove she purchased them. They were purchased by her ex-husband's law firm. Since one of the suit's main claims was that the price of the iPod was raised due to Apple's actions, it was important to establish that she purchased them.

At the heart of the case is that Apple's use of DRM harmed customers by raising the price of the iPod and that Apple removed other competitor's music from the iPod — namely RealPlayer's Harmony music files. Apple does not dispute that it removed RealPlayer's files, but contends it was done for security reasons as RealPlayer was able to get the music files onto the iPod by posing as Apple FairPlay files. In testimony, Steve Jobs called RealPlayer's move "a hack" and there was considerable discussion at the time."

71 comments

  1. Only in America... by pete6677 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only in America can you continue a lawsuit without a plantiff.

    1. Re:Only in America... by dprimary · · Score: 2

      That and isn't circumventing DMR illegal. Or since REAL is/was a company it ok.

    2. Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're only allowed to put music on these cassette tapes with officially branded cassette recorders. It is strictly forbidden to use another brand's recorder. Otherwise, our cassette player will erase the sections recorded by that other brand's recorder, just to make sure our brand is secure.

    3. Re:Only in America... by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Only in America can you continue a lawsuit without a plantiff.

      No, it specifically states they need a plaintiff to continue. Apple just found a laughable way to get the current plaintiffs dismissed... I'm guessing it'll take them about half an hour to find a new one.

    4. Re:Only in America... by Cinder6 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Plaintiffs didn't suffer damages" is a laughable reason?

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    5. Re:Only in America... by petermgreen · · Score: 3, Informative

      AIUI ipods are meant to play two classes of media files, non-drm files and files protected with apple drm*.

      AIUI circumventing protections on access to a copyrighted work is illegal in the US but that isn't what real did. They found a way to put their own DRM media on ipods without undrming it by convincing the ipod that the file was using apple drm.

      * Yes I know apple no longer uses drm for music sold on itunes but afaict they still use it for videos, previously purchased music that was not upgraded and some audiobooks. At one stage they were also still using it for music giveaways after they stopped using it for music sales, not sure if that is still the case.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    6. Re:Only in America... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      "Plaintiffs didn't suffer damages" is a laughable reason?

      Did you even read the summary? Much less the story?
      One was dismissed just because she didn't purchase them directly? Come on...

      Let me guess... you're posting from a Mac and have a picture of Steve Jobs hanging over your headboard?

    7. Re:Only in America... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Plaintiffs didn't suffer damages" is a laughable reason?

      Yes. No. Sort of.

      It is a fact that this has *potentially* affected N million people, and it is assumed that of those N million people, some M were truly affected. The suit was brought as a class action suit, essentially representing all those people.
      But a suit needs plaintiffs, and in this case the plaintiffs were not among those affected. Or rather, one wasn't affected, and the other was kinda-sorta not affected because she didn't actually pay for the devices herself.

      Dismissing the case based on just these 2 plaintiffs is 'laughable' in that it ignores the other N people, the other M people, and if nothing else, the other 1 person who purchased the products for that woman.
      Would it not be equally laughable to suggest that in her specific case, that person also has no standing because while they may very well have purchased the device, they gifted it away and thus cannot have been affected?

      The judge in this case made the right call - there's already been effort, time and money expended to get the case this far. Dismissing it and saying "bring another suit when you have new plaintiffs" would waste resources, not the least of which being the court's.

      The plaintiffs - or rather their counsel - should have done their homework better and ensured that the plaintiffs had standing, though.. and I think the judge made that very clear in their highly public statements.

    8. Re:Only in America... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're only allowed to put music on these cassette tapes with officially branded cassette recorders. It is strictly forbidden to use another brand's recorder. Otherwise, our cassette player will erase the sections recorded by that other brand's recorder, just to make sure our brand is secure.

      Or, alternately ... had you and I employed the described hack to circumvent Apple Fair Play, we would be facing criminal charges.

      This has nothing to do with your screed, and everything to do with Real circumventing DRM.

      But, hey, don't let that stop you from blaming Apple or making it about something else.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:Only in America... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't prove they purchased the item from 8 years ago.

    10. Re:Only in America... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The plaintiffs - or rather their counsel - should have done their homework better and ensured that the plaintiffs had standing, though.. and I think the judge made that very clear in their highly public statements.

      no kidding - I expect Apple to prevail, even if it shouldn't, merely based on this very rough approximation of the attorneys' degree of diligence in the case.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    11. Re:Only in America... by Imazalil · · Score: 1

      Yes we ALL have pictures of the mightly Steve on our headboards. It's so big that I've been having a hard time making a spot for Tim Cook & Johny Ive's portraits.

      The whole suit is about Apple overcharging for iPods, so yes, a basic requirement would be to have someone who was impacted by said supposed overcharging. I know that picture of Bill Gates or maybe Larry Page over your bed is really distracting, but does that not make sense? The judge did make the right call to allow someone else that was actually affected to step in so that the whole thing didn't have to start from beginning again.

    12. Re:Only in America... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      One was dismissed just because she didn't purchase them directly? Come on...

      If your claim as a plaintiff is that you were damaged because your iPod cost more than it should have, you need to prove that you actually paid for the iPod. Again, that's the plaintiff's claim not Apple's claim.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    13. Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What... The entire case is over the fact that she paid money she shouldn't have paid in buying an iPod. If she didn't pay any money, how on earth does she have a case?

    14. Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Plaintiffs didn't suffer damages" is a laughable reason?

      Did you even read the summary? Much less the story?
      One was dismissed just because she didn't purchase them directly? Come on...

      Let me guess... you're posting from a Mac and have a picture of Steve Jobs hanging over your headboard?

      She was arguing that the price of iPods were increased due to the DRM which had an effect on her. But if she didn't purchase the iPod then she wasn't effected. I'm going to sue Honda because they raised the price of next years Accord that my friend purchased.

    15. Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're only allowed to put music on these cassette tapes with officially branded cassette recorders. It is strictly forbidden to use another brand's recorder. Otherwise, our cassette player won't know wtf it is looking at, assume the data is corrupt, and erase it in order to start over.

      FTFY.

    16. Re:Only in America... by sexconker · · Score: 0

      Only in Corporate America would you need to:
      1: Trot out a specific individual who was damaged by crimes that affected millions.
      2: Have that individual come up with documented proof of being one of those millions from many years ago.
      3: Have that individual nothing to the case because all discovery, evidence gathering, and argument will be based on the millions of victims, not the one.
      4: Pray the court issues a guilty verdict that won't even cover the damages/ill-gained profits, let alone construe actual punishment.
      5: Continue to let the corporation engage in the same or extremely similar behavior.
      6: Be thankful that you got a fraction of a fraction of the judgment, in the form of a gift card to use at the criminal's store.

    17. Re:Only in America... by sexconker · · Score: 0

      One was dismissed just because she didn't purchase them directly? Come on...

      If your claim as a plaintiff is that you were damaged because your iPod cost more than it should have, you need to prove that you actually paid for the iPod. Again, that's the plaintiff's claim not Apple's claim.

      The claim is that iPods that millions of people bought cost more than they should have because of Apple's illegal practices.
      The desire is for:
      A: The court to determine how much more those iPods cost than they should have and to award that amount to the victims.
      B: The criminal to be punished for the illegal practices.
      C: The criminal to be prevented from further engaging in said (or similar) illegal practices.

      We'll be lucky if the A happens to the tune of anything more than a $1 credit on the criminal's own store.
      B will not happen.
      C will not happen.

      If the court can rule on A based on a single principle plaintiff yet award the judgment to the entire affected, yet unquantified, class, then that tells you the court expect the lawyers to be able to:
      A: Determine the members of the affected class.
      B: Contact them.
      C: Solicit them for response ("How many iPods did you buy between X and Y?) and requisite proof ("Do you have any receipts from 8 fucking years ago even though even your fucking bank is only expected to keep records for 7 years?").

      If the court can expect all that to be done based on the facts presented, then there is absolutely no need for a principle plaintiff at all. All members of the class are plaintiffs and if they are eligible for a piece of the judgment then they are equally eligible to:
      A: Stand as a plaintiff in court as part of the class action suit.
      B: Opt out of the class action suit and bring their own individual suit.

      There is absolutely no logical need for any single member of the class to be named as a principle plaintiff in a class action suit.

    18. Re:Only in America... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The claim is that iPods that millions of people bought cost more than they should have because of Apple's illegal practices.

      Which is why the judge did not dismiss the suit but disqualified the plaintiff. The was the OP's complaint: that the plaintiff should not have been disqualified even if she didn't technically purchase an iPod. No, that is a legitimate reason to dismiss a plaintiff: she has no standing.

      The rest of your post presupposes that Apple will be found liable.

      There is absolutely no logical need for any single member of the class to be named as a principle plaintiff in a class action suit.

      You missed the whole point of a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit; at least one person has to represent the entire class. If by your logic, millions have been affected then find it shouldn't be hard to find someone. In this case the lawyers simply didn't do their homework to make sure their plaintiffs were eligible.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    19. Re:Only in America... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Only in Corporate America would you need to
      1: Trot out a specific individual who was damaged by crimes that affected millions.

      If millions are affected how would you suppose that the millions get their day in court? Each of them filling millions of lawsuits in thousands of jurisdictions overloading the legal system? Well, thankfully in the current system, a handful of representatives are used to represent the entire class. By the way class action require at least one individual not exactly one individual.

      2: Have that individual come up with documented proof of being one of those millions from many years ago.

      Considering the suit started 10 years ago, I think if you cannot keep accurate documentation after you file a suit, the trial is the least of your concerns. The court should overlook this?

      3: Have that individual nothing to the case because all discovery, evidence gathering, and argument will be based on the millions of victims, not the one.

      Not sure what you are trying to say but the plaintiffs must establish that there was at least person suffered damages. The discovery is about both the individual and the millions.

      4: Pray the court issues a guilty verdict that won't even cover the damages/ill-gained profits, let alone construe actual punishment.

      In any lawsuit that is dependent on the host of factors including the skill of the plaintiffs. In this case, it's not starting well.

      5: Continue to let the corporation engage in the same or extremely similar behavior.

      Ok . . . so "remedies" mean nothing to you then?

      6: Be thankful that you got a fraction of a fraction of the judgment, in the form of a gift card to use at the criminal's store.

      Again that depends on the skill of the plaintiff's lawyers. Considering some class action suits are more about the lawyers getting rich than the plaintiffs getting relief, this does happen but in this case I highly doubt that the lawyers are being altruistic.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    20. Re:Only in America... by RazorSharp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You seem to be the one who needs to do a bit more reading on this case. The law firm created this suit because they wanted a huge payday from Apple -- so they used friends/family members who had iPods as their plaintiffs so they could create this class action lawsuit. Only problem is that their "plaintiffs" had the wrong iPods for their claims.

      This law firm is just attempting to extort money from Apple. It's what they do -- create class action lawsuits so they can demand large fees as part of the settlement. Oftentimes the companies that are the target of these types of suits settle out of court because it's cheaper to be extorted than to defend themselves against the lawsuit. It's no different than those scummy lawyers who advertise on TV saying, "Do you have such and such problem? Did you buy such and such between these dates? If so, you could be entitled to serious compensation!" The truth of the matter is, if they win, you'll get minor compensation (which you probably don't deserve in the first place) and the lawyers will walk away with millions.

      People tend to view corporation as villains so we tend to automatically side with the lawyers in these cases -- "serves them right" or something along those lines -- but frivolous lawsuits by scummy lawyers hurt everyone. Just look at the healthcare industry where costs continuously escalate year after year. Absurd class action suits like this one and patent troll suits hurt the tech industry, which hurts people who use technology.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    21. Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem is it's not a class action suit. according to article III of the constitution you can only sue for actual harm that was inflicted. so to sue on something you have to have standing. if no standing, no suit.

    22. Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to be fair, it was only recently that they narrowed the scope of ipods included in the suit. it could have been a doh to do otherwise, but what do I know? I'm just a pants head who has no place to keep my stuff.

    23. Re:Only in America... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Only in America can you continue a lawsuit without a plantiff."

      Except slower-than-fuck Slashdot FAILED to realize that A LEGITIMATE PLAINTIFF was found. The judge, defense, and plaintiffs have all examined her and the judge said 'one and done' which means this person was found to have legal standing for the suit, and dismissed all other potentials that the plaintiffs had lined up to stand in, just in case.

      And this was known like YESTERDAY.

      Slashdot - sucking corporate cock and letting story details languish for days out of check.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    24. Re:Only in America... by macs4all · · Score: 0

      The judge in this case made the right call - there's already been effort, time and money expended to get the case this far. Dismissing it and saying "bring another suit when you have new plaintiffs" would waste resources, not the least of which being the court's.

      Actually, that's done ALL the time; it's called a "Dismissal Without Prejudice". Usually, the "Journey's Account"-type statute in the Jurisdiction saves the suit from the effects of the running of the statute of limitations (assuming the original suit was filed "in time"). Journey's Account is an old legal doctrine (that still exists in some form in many U.S. Jurisdictions) that allows the filing of a New Case for a few years (usually 2 to 5) that "Relates Back" to the Original Case, and is treated "Nunc pro Tunc" (as if it was filed back then). It is usually used to get past a Statue of Limitations problem when a suit is filed in the wrong Court; but can be used when a suit fails for almost ANY reason.

      Class Action Suits are kind of odd; but I would bet they follow Journey's Account doctrine.

      What I can't figure out is why they can even file a Personal Damages suit EIGHT years after the original purchase.

    25. Re:Only in America... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "There is absolutely no logical need for any single member of the class to be named as a principle plaintiff in a class action suit."

      There's plenty of need. There must be a representative of the affected class. Otherwise it's just lawyers bringing suits frivolously. There must be a damaged party. This is like basic fucking court proceedings.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    26. Re:Only in America... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      What I can't figure out is why they can even file a Personal Damages suit EIGHT years after the original purchase

      The plaintiffs first filed suit January 3, 2005

      - various sources

      I guess the question would be why on Earth it took this long to get to this stage :)

      years of motions, complaints, and the recusal of a judge

      - The Verge

      Oh. Of course.

    27. Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in the case of *both* of the 'sample plaintiffs', it was proven that they *didn't* purchase the item(s) in question. That's why they were disqualified as plaintiffs.

      To sue someone for damages, you must first be able to prove that *you* were damaged.
      In this case it's not just that they couldn't prove they purchased the item from 8 years ago (it wasn't 8 years ago when the case was first filed back in 2005).
      Instead, it was proven that they *didn't* purchase the item from 8 years ago.

      The claim is that they were damaged by the artificially inflated price of the item in question. The same item that it was proven that *they* didn't purchase. You cannot be damaged by the price of something you didn't buy.

    28. Re:Only in America... by neoritter · · Score: 1

      http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

    29. Re:Only in America... by putaro · · Score: 1

      Real didn't remove the Apple DRM, though, they added it. That's not DRM circumvention. Real had the rights to distribute the music. If there was some legal issue with creating the FairPlay (gotta love them names) compatible files, Apple would have sued Real rather than just adding code to reject their files.

    30. Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Class actions aren't about making plaintiffs rich, or even about compensating them. If the suit was truly frivolous then the judge would throw it out. Just because the named plaintiffs don't have standing doesn't mean the claims are frivolous. It just means the lawyers fucked up.

    31. Re:Only in America... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      In the case the two iPods that were qualified, Apple was able to produce receipts that showed they were purchased by a credit card owned by the law firm. The plaintiff responded that she had permission to use the cards but that's not enough. The plaintiff was not able to produce a check or receipt where she paid the law firm back for the purchase which would have helped her case.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    32. Re:Only in America... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Would buying a product with the intent of suing over a known property of that product even be admissible?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    33. Re:Only in America... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Only if Apple could prove intent. I'm not saying that the judge or Apple would have let it through but it would tremendously helped the plaintiff if she could prove she "bought" the iPods and not someone else.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  2. Suit gains a plaintiff by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article's behind the curve. The class has a plaintiff for the suit and it will continue.

    1. Re:Suit gains a plaintiff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      It should just be thrown out.

    2. Re:Suit gains a plaintiff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article's behind the curve.

      Don't worry, Slashdot will hear about it tomorrow (and again on Friday)

    3. Re:Suit gains a plaintiff by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Why should it be thrown out? As stated they have a plaintiff, and the last plaintiff was thrown out over something stupid (she did not buy it, but she was the registered user)

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    4. Re:Suit gains a plaintiff by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Especially because it would just waste the court's time. If people do exist in the purported class (i.e. some people actually did buy an iPod between those dates), then all throwing out the suit would do is lead to a new suit, with different plaintiffs, being refiled. Might as well save the court's time and just keep the current docket open.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    5. Re:Suit gains a plaintiff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should it be thrown out? As stated they have a plaintiff, and the last plaintiff was thrown out over something stupid (she did not buy it, but she was the registered user)

      Because it's a waste of time. Apple's hardware is always overpriced. Adding DRM didn't cause Apple to suddenly charge a premium for their product. They overcharge because that's what Apple does. They consider themselves above regular folks and their products a premium. You pay the Apple tax or you don't buy it.

    6. Re:Suit gains a plaintiff by thaylin · · Score: 1

      That is not what this is about... This is about them forcing people who had 3rd party music to factory reset to get rid of the 3rd party music.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    7. Re:Suit gains a plaintiff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is so weird to see so many DRM apologists here. I wasn't a believer in the idea that apple fanbois exist, at least not among the technical crowd. But the comments in this thread has got me reevaluating.

    8. Re:Suit gains a plaintiff by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      Just because we think the suit should continue to it's end doesn't mean we support DRM. Or even that we think the plaintiff should win. There is precedent to be set in this case, and continuing the suit to set it may well be a better outcome then getting it dismissed on a technicality.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
  3. Great by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Now they are going to come looking for me.

  4. Outdated before making it to Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is old, outdated news. There's already a new plaintiff and the lawsuit is proceeding.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/billion-dollar-trial-against-apple-loses-all-plaintiffs-then-gets-a-new-one/

    1. Re: Outdated before making it to Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad somebody else noticed.

  5. what about bennett? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is two day old news. there is a new plaintiff as of yesterday.

  6. Steve Jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who care what Jobs thought, we still have Woz...

  7. What? by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2

    "At the heart of the case is that Apple's use of DRM harmed customers by raising the price of the iPod"

    A couple of years ago I received an iPod Classic as a gift. At the time, the price was $259, which I consider to be ridiculous. Does this meant they were even more expensive previously?

    1. Re:What? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      You got one of the cheaper ones. They went as high as $600 for the production models.

    2. Re: What? by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      A couple of years ago I received an iPod Classic as a gift. At the time, the price was $259, which I consider to be ridiculous. Does this meant they were even more expensive previousl

      So how much were competing 160GB MP3 players in 2012?

    3. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about 160gb, but I got a 64GB no-name (inside it was stamped Memorex), for $99.99, Apple hardware has always been some of the most expensive ever released to the market,

    4. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are completely full of shit.

    5. Re: What? by Imazalil · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't tried to price out a Vertu phone back in the day, or even today. Even the more down-to-earth Cowon players were always more expensive than Apple (in my neck of the woods).

      BTW, your no-name player was $1.56 per gig, Apple's 'most expensive ever' was $1.62 per gig.

    6. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's see...
       
      160/260 = 62 cents a gig
       
      64/100 = 64 cents a gig
       
      I guess either you got robbed or you don't know what most expensive means in terms of capacity... or both.
       
      In any case, Apple's hardware has the outward appearance of being a better grade of hardware and for the most part it is a better class of hardware. Maybe not the best but if you really go out and look at real premium hardware Apple generally isn't as expensive as most people claim.
       
      And a bit of a yarn; I have a head unit that supports the 30pin Apple connector. I had a 80gb iPod (gen 5) fail that was over 1000 days out of warranty. Restoring the iPod didn't help. It seemed to be playing according to the screen but there was no audio from either the 30 pin connector or the headphone jack. I did a bit of Googling for it and found a ton of other people with the same problem. I contacted Apple and even as out of date as the unit was they replaced if free of charge citing a manufacturing defect. I didn't even have to ask, I told the kid on the phone what my iPod was doing and he offered to replace it without even going into some legalistic spiel. The other side of the coin is having a 2500 USD HP laptop fail on me 4 days after the end of warranty and having HP tell me to shove off. I had the same laptop repaired under warranty 6 months prior for the same issue, thermal degradation of the system board.
       
      This is why I stick with Apple hardware where and when I can. Granted, this isn't a scientific finding but in an age where customer service is a sad joke it helps keep customers loyal.
       
      Oh, and if anyone from HP is reading this... my rMBP is doing great. Thanks for beating down an ex-loyal customer... best laptop I've ever owned.

    7. Re: What? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      They were slightly less expensive if I recall. Back then the tradeoff was convenience or cost. With Apple's ecosystem things were seamless and worked with minimal effort but was more expensive. Other competing ecosystems were not as user friendly but they were cheaper. Since Amazon used MP3 their music system actually fit in best with using an iPod compared to others. All iTunes needed to know was which directory you kept your Amazon music and it would sync to it.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seen the price of the classic now they have been discontinued? it's gone up.

    9. Re:What? by xombo · · Score: 1

      i think i spent about $500 on a 10gb model, once.

    10. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are obviously either a 1%er or belong to the upper upper middle class to have purchased that at that price and hold yourself so casually about it. I'm an HTML administrator engineer for 10 years and don't even have an iSheep product. I'll stick with my Droid open source.

    11. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm op. I was 15 when I bought it with my own money working at a cafe.

  8. Why does purchase data matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This appears to be an issue with iTunes and not the iPod. So if I purchased an iPod before 2006 and used iTunes after 2006 would I not see the issue?
    I'm confused why the purchase data matters as long as it was before the "bug" was introduced to iTunes.

    1. Re:Why does purchase data matter? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      If you read the summary, the plaintiff's claim that the damage done was that consumers had to pay more for iPods due to the DRM during a certain time period. Therefore it is important that the plaintiff must have purchased said iPod during the time period.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  9. So Charmingly Naive by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    Ahhh, how delightfully naive we were. Here's the tinfoil hat pessimist's prediction, from that discussion:

    More likely, Apple will release a iPod update with COOL NEW FEATURES L@@K which oh yeah, btw, breaks compatibility with real-purchased songs. So then your iPod will not play your Real purchased library, until Real reverse-engineers it again, and who knows how long that'd take. So you'd have perhaps hundreds of dollars of songs on your iPod that you couldn't get to for an indefinite period of time; and Apple would just shrug their shoulders when you complain.

    Silly boy, they won't just stop playing competitors' music, they'll burn the crops and sow the fields with salt! Errr, got a little overexcited there. They'll delete the files!

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    1. Re:So Charmingly Naive by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      Yes they'll delete files. At the heart of the problem was that RealPlayer took advantage of a bug that allowed their files to mimic FairPlay. If RealPlayer can do it, others can. So if they close the bug, they need to remove the files as Apple cannot be sure of the origin. Also if the files are useless, they are taking up space. However if you used the iPod as a storage device, it accepted the files but not a music file to be played.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  10. Ambulance Chasing by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Ambulance Chasing

    They're having to work too hard to justify this case. It should be simply thrown out. It has become, perhaps always was, a case about making lawyers rich, and fully employed, rather than solving any societal problem or righting any wrong.

    Too many lawyer syndrome.

    1. Re:Ambulance Chasing by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      At this point it's actually in Apple's interest to have the case resolved in their favor rather than dismissed. If the problem was that there wasn't a plaintiff, then another suit can be brought by another firm and another plaintiff which may take another 10 years. By this point most of the money has already been spent on the lawsuit. It was the same with SCO v IBM. IBM wanted it to go to trial so that they could make an example of SCO.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  11. Re:Why does purchase date matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My bad, I did in fact not read the summary. I was thinking the suit was over paying for music lost due to iTunes not the cost of the player. So now that I actually read the summary and linked article the argument is that once they had an iPod they could not switch to another music player and take their music with them. From the article

    "people had to stay with the iPod and buy higher-priced ones rather than cheaper, alternative music players"

    So it would seem to me that unless they bought a second (Higher priced) iPod to replace or upgrade the existing then they did actually pay more because they were not forced to buy the first one.

  12. Re:Why does purchase date matter? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    So it would seem to me that unless they bought a second (Higher priced) iPod to replace or upgrade the existing then they did actually pay more because they were not forced to buy the first one.

    Well the lawsuit has to place so many conditions. While it is true that FairPlay files on worked on iPods, users could have transcoded their files to MP3 with some loss of fidelity. Also the plaintiffs did not disclose the fact that the iPod didn't play PlaysForSure files either (and some players didn't).

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.