Apple is in court today battling a class-action suit that declares the firm intentionally paralyzed contending songs services by locking iPods and iTunes songs to it own ecosystem, however as it transforms out, there could be no legit complainant in the case.
The class-action fit refers to iPods (traditional, shuffle, touch, and also nano) bought in between September 12, 2006 as well as March 31, 2009, and also in a letter addressed to the court managing the trial, Apple says (through The New York Times) that it has actually been unable to validate the investment dates of some of the iPods cited by the plaintiffs.
During her testimony, complainant Marianna Rosen claimed to have bought an iPod touch in December of 2008, however the device’s identification number shows that it was really acquired in July of 2009, outside of the extent of the case. The iPod touch Rosen discussed today additionally contradicts previous declarations she has offered stating that she simply owned a 15GB iPod and a 30GB video clip iPod.
That is in contrast to her December 16, 2010 response to Apple’s Interrogatory No. 20 that, as of that date, she had bought only ‘a 15 GB iPod, as well as a 30GB video clip iPod for her very own use,’ as well as ‘an iPod Mini as an existing for her sibling.’ Accessory 2, TX 2869 at 14. During that interrogatory feedback, Ms. Rosen additionally affirmatively specified, ‘She has actually not bought any other MP3 players.’
Rosen additionally declared to have actually acquired an iPod nano in the fall of 2007, yet Apple was not able to confirm the investment and also has asked for proof of investment as well as a serial number.
Apple is likewise requesting for proof of iPod purchases made by the second plaintiff in the instance, Melanie Tucker, who asserts to have actually gotten a fourth-generation iPod classic in 2004, a fifth-generation iPod classic in 2006, as well as a 32GB iPod touch.
According to the court supervising the situation, if there are no viable plaintiffs, the trial can be delayed or stopped completely. ‘I am worried that I do not have a plaintiff,’ the court said. ‘That’s a trouble.’