Class action lawsuit against Apple - iPod Software updates - 2006 thru 2009

[BradM]

Interesting... While I'm not a fan of iTunes, it would seem simple to me: if you don't like how they do things, don't buy one.

Claimant ID: 0011741343
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Case No. C-05-00037-JW
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
TO: All Persons or Entities in the United States Who Purchased One of the Listed Ipod Models Directly from Apple Between September 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009 (the “Class”).
Please Read this Notice Carefully and in its Entirety.
Your Rights May Be Affected by Proceedings in this Litigation.
This Notice has been sent to you pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you that you have been identified as a potential member of the Class described above so that you can decide whether to remain a Class Member or to exclude yourself or your company from the Class. If you want to stay in this Class Action, you need not do anything now, and you will be bound by the Court’s rulings in the lawsuit. If you do not want to participate in this Class Action or have your rights affected by it, you must request exclusion as described in this Notice by July 30, 2012.
This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
This Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court about the merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted by any party to this litigation. The Court has not decided whether Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) has done anything wrong. Apple has not been ordered to pay any money. There has been no settlement.
I.****SUMMARY OF THE LITIGATION
Apple sells iPods directly to customers through its online and retail stores and directly to Apple authorized resellers. The lawsuit claims that Apple violated federal and state laws by issuing software updates in 2006 for its iPod that prevented iPods from playing songs not purchased on iTunes. The lawsuit claims that the software updates caused iPod prices to be higher than they otherwise would have been. Apple denies that it did anything wrong and asserts that the software updates challenged by Plaintiffs improved its products, were good for consumers, and had no effect on iPod prices. The Court has not yet decided whether Plaintiffs or Apple is correct.
On November 22, 2011, the Court allowed the case to proceed as a class action for all persons and entities that purchased certain iPod models between September 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009. The specific models of iPods covered by the Class Definition can be found at www.ipodlawsuit.com.
The Court appointed Plaintiffs as Class representatives, appointed Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel, and directed that this Notice be sent to potential Class Members informing them of the pending litigation.
II.***EXAMINATION OF PAPERS
This Notice is just a summary and does not describe all of the details of the litigation. For more details about the matters discussed in this Notice, you may desire to review certain documents related to the litigation. Several documents, including the Complaint, Apple’s Answer to the Complaint and the Court’s Order certifying the Class are available for review at www.ipodlawsuit.com. The documents filed in the case may also be inspected during business hours at the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, or by visiting the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) website at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/index.html.
Additional information can also be obtained from the Notice Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc. by calling 1-877-760-8875.
III.**TO REQUEST EXCLUSION FROM THE LITIGATION
You have to decide whether to stay in the Class or ask to be excluded by July 30, 2012.
You do not need to do anything to be a member of the Class and to participate in any recovery the Plaintiffs may obtain for the Class and you will not incur any cost for doing so. As a Class Member, you will be represented by Plaintiffs and Class Counsel. However, if you choose, you may enter an appearance through your own counsel, at your expense. If you remain a member of the Class, you may not be permitted to pursue an individual action against Apple regarding the subject matter of this litigation.
If you do not want to remain a Class Member, if you do not want to be bound by what the Court does, or if you want to retain your right to pursue your own independent action against Apple for the claims in this case at your own expense, you must ask to be excluded from this Class Action. To ask to be excluded (which is the same as removing yourself from the Class or “opting-out”), you must send an “Exclusion Request” in the form of a letter sent by mail, to the Notice Administrator at Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 8038, Faribault, MN 55021-9438 stating that you want to be excluded from In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation. Your “Exclusion Request” should include your name and address. To be valid, your letter asking to be excluded from the Class must be signed and postmarked no later than July 30, 2012.
If you properly submit a timely request to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by what the Court does and will not be eligible to receive any benefits that Plaintiffs may ultimately obtain in the case through judgment or settlement. You will, however, retain whatever legal rights you may have against Apple with regard to the claims that are the subject of this litigation.
DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
Dated: March 29, 2012 BY ORDER OF THE COURT
Honorable Chief Judge James Ware
United States District Court
for the Northern District of California

 

[Gert Sorensen]

On another note: It has been alleged that Apple caused consumers to be charged too much for e-books, due to their use of the iStore and a proprietary format for the e-books (if I recall correctly). That might indicate to the sceptical that Apple do have a tendency to make this kind of decisions

 

[Marc]

<snip> if you don't like how they do things, don't buy one. <snip>

I agree. The same of which can be said about every product. Personally I haven't bought anything from Sears in over 6 years because of all the problems I had (such as when I bought a stove from them).

The iPod issue actually started in 2004: Requiring customers use an iPod to listen to music purchased from the iTunes store

It should be noted that Apple now sells DRM free music *and* will play any .mp3 file. I have never bought music for my iPhone (which is an iPod with a cell phone), for example, from Apple. All my ripped songs play well. It should also be noted that the RIAA was the party responsible for requiring DRM on its music. Microsoft also had the same problem with DRM and would only play music with their DRM so Apple isn't the only one who had problems with the RIAA over DRM on their music. From that time period: Ballmer finally admits the obvious: Zune's DRM is Microsoft's future

While we don't see the RIAA mentioned in these suits, it was the RIAA which made Microsoft and Apple put DRM on it's music and confine the music the devices would play to each's different DRM "protected" music.

As to the ebook fiasco, Apple is accused of colluding with book sellers in price fixing. Justice Dept. files suit against Apple, publishers over e-book pricing - The latest is: Apple to DOJ on e-book antitrust lawsuit: Bring it on

If we start listing all the tech lawsuits here, this sub-forum will become overloaded. Think about it. Remember Sony and it's "rootkit" DRM?

For those wanting to follow such issues I recommend reading TechDirt daily. I do.