Apple Questions Plaintiff iPod Purchase Dates in Ongoing Class-Action Lawsuit

ipod_classic_handApple is in court this week fighting a class-action lawsuit that alleges the company deliberately crippled competing music services by locking iPods and iTunes music to it own ecosystem, but as it turns out, there may be no legitimate plaintiff in the case.

The class-action suit pertains to iPods (classic, shuffle, touch, and nano) purchased between September 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009, and in a letter addressed to the judge overseeing the trial, Apple says (via The New York Times) that it has been unable to confirm the purchase dates of some of the iPods cited by the plaintiffs.

During her testimony, plaintiff Marianna Rosen claimed to have purchased an iPod touch in December of 2008, but the device's serial number indicates that it was actually purchased in July of 2009, outside of the scope of the case. The iPod touch Rosen mentioned this week also contradicts previous statements she has given stating that she only owned a 15GB iPod and a 30GB video iPod.
That is contrary to her December 16, 2010 response to Apple's Interrogatory No. 20 that, as of that date, she had purchased only "a 15 GB iPod, and a 30GB video iPod for her own use," and "an iPod Mini as a present for her sister." Attachment 2, TX 2869 at 14. In that interrogatory response, Ms. Rosen also affirmatively stated, "She has not purchased any other MP3 players."
Rosen also claimed to have purchased an iPod nano in the fall of 2007, but Apple was not able to verify the purchase and has asked for proof of purchase and a serial number.

Apple is also asking for evidence of iPod purchases made by the second plaintiff in the case, Melanie Tucker, who claims to have bought a fourth-generation iPod classic in 2004, a fifth-generation iPod classic in 2006, and a 32GB iPod touch.

According to the judge overseeing the case, if there are no viable plaintiffs, the trial could be stalled or stopped altogether. "I am concerned that I don't have a plaintiff," the judge said. "That's a problem."

Lawyers from the plaintiffs are expected to respond to Apple's request for proof of purchase by tonight.

Update 12/5 9:30 AM: Apple has now filed for dismissal of the case after discovering that Marianna Rosen's other iPods were purchased by her husband's law firm. The other plaintiff, Melanie Tucker, was withdrawn from the case on Friday. According to CNET, if the plaintiff's lawyers do not provide evidence that Rosen purchased a qualifying iPod, they could substitute a new plaintiff or expand the lawsuit to cover a wider timeframe.



Top Rated Comments

(View all)
Avatar
60 months ago
I hope Apple doesn't get into trouble for deleting the plantiffs from the trial!
Rating: 25 Votes
Avatar
59 months ago
These people bought multiple iPods over a number of years despite not liking them for the way they operated?
Rating: 8 Votes
Avatar
60 months ago
LOL @ trial lawyers. In their zeal, they forgot they needed an actual plaintiff.
Rating: 7 Votes
Avatar
60 months ago
Awkward.
Rating: 3 Votes
Avatar
59 months ago

This should get the plaintiff's case thrown out. Also, statute of limitations would prevent refiling. AND, god willing, they'll be charged with perjury and contempt of court.


It clearly shows a lack of research. This was a money grab for the plaintiff's attorney, pure and simple.
Rating: 3 Votes
Avatar
60 months ago

I really wish Apple would use the option key a little more, and the command key a little less.


Not a fan of the option key myself.

I prefer the command key. Functions like +C and +V feel a lot more natural, rather than trying to twist your hand and move your thumb backwards to do alt/option+C.
Rating: 2 Votes
Avatar
60 months ago
This should get the plaintiff's case thrown out. Also, statute of limitations would prevent refiling. AND, god willing, they'll be charged with perjury and contempt of court.

This case can't be thrown out fast enough IMHO.
Rating: 2 Votes
Avatar
59 months ago

I have to say, its not altogether implausible that someone could make a mistake on purchase dates, if you asked me when I purchased an iPod, I could probably get it within a year. Though this is a court case, it would have made more sense to get a few more plaintiffs before going class action imo.

Also, I actually agree with the merits of the lawsuit, it sucked that apple made it nearly impossible to use a rival music services songs on a music player. its akin to making a cd player that only plays sony brand CDs.


Sigh. So sad that people don't understand (or don't want to understand) what really happened. Had Apple not locked down FairPlay as much as they did the digital music rennasaince would not have happened. The music companies were not about to let Apple have 99 cent songs without it. You would have been downloading pirated songs via bit torrent for years, possibly even today.

----------

During this period, I refused to use Apple music devices, instead using Sony minidisc and later, solid state devices. That proved to be a good decision from the standpoint of SQ, which was far superior to Apple devices in general, but ultimately the business failure of Sony Connect left that community high and dry.

I still have working Sony devices from that era that still sound far superior to current Apple devices. Damn shame.


Do they sit on the same shelf as your betamax? ;)
Rating: 2 Votes
Avatar
59 months ago
Bwahaha!!! Money grabbers should've thought through their case more carefully. They had 10 years to prep LOL
Rating: 1 Votes
Avatar
59 months ago
A competing store marketed their DRMed music as being iPod compatible, and then when Apple found out that their DRM had been broken / stolen (whichever the case may be), they changed their algorithm via an update. The update thereby meant that the competitors songs that were purchased and loaded through a violation of Apple's intellectual property per their cryptographic algorithms and signing certificates were no longer capable of being used on an iPod as they did not validate as being a *true* purchase, per their legal requirements to limit usage to a single user under their license agreements to sell songs to end users digitally.

As a car analogy, let's say that Ford sells you a Focus.

Aftermarket reseller WYSIWYG, LTD. then buys a Focus and figures out how particular tools are made, writes manuals, and then starts making their own aftermarket parts for everything. The problem is that WYSIWYG's one they got had a manufacturing defect... It's drive shaft was incorrectly cast and would crack at high speeds, and the tachometer was mis-calibrated.

They don't know so they just make more identically to the first, and sell them on to their customers. Ford fixes the issue in their manufacturing, issues a recall, and while they are at it slightly alters the housing.



Competing school of though as a car analogy, let's say that Ford sells you a Focus.

Aftermarket reseller WYSIWYG, LTD. then buys a Focus and figures out how particular tools are made, writes manuals, and then starts making their own aftermarket parts for everything. One day they get the idea, we have every single one of these parts sitting on our shelves, why don't we just start selling our own Focuses? We can even call them Ford Focuses, by WYSIWYG and do it at a discount because why not.

Ford tells them to stop, WYSIWYG ignores them, Ford just changes their assembly line, making WYSIWYG's legacy parts no longer useful.



The problem. Here is that car analogies really do not translate into IP issues.
Rating: 1 Votes
[ Read All Comments ]