Apple DRM Lawsuit Loses Last Plaintiff, but Judge Rules Against Dismissal 71
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."
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."
Only in America... (Score:3, Insightful)
Only in America can you continue a lawsuit without a plantiff.
Re: (Score:2)
That and isn't circumventing DMR illegal. Or since REAL is/was a company it ok.
Re: (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.
Re:Only in America... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Only in America... (Score:4, 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.
Re:Only in America... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Plaintiffs didn't suffer damages" is a laughable reason?
Re: (Score:2)
"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?
Re: (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 actua
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
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 ow
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re:Only in America... (Score:4, 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.
Re:Only in America... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
- various sources
I guess the question would be why on Earth it took this long to get to this stage :)
- The Verge
Oh. Of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]
Suit gains a plaintiff (Score:5, Insightful)
The article's behind the curve. The class has a plaintiff for the suit and it will continue. [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Great (Score:2)
What? (Score:3)
"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?
Re: (Score:2)
You got one of the cheaper ones. They went as high as $600 for the production models.
Re: What? (Score:2)
So how much were competing 160GB MP3 players in 2012?
Re: (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.
Re: (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 h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i think i spent about $500 on a 10gb model, once.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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).
So Charmingly Naive (Score:2)
Ahhh, how delightfully naive we were [slashdot.org]. 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 A
Re: (Score:3)
Ambulance Chasing (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)