apple legal
Latest
Judge dismisses Apple employee lawsuit demanding compensation for time spent in security checks
In July of 2013, Apple was hit with a lawsuit from retail employees alleging that they were not being compensated for time spent taking part in security checkouts. As an illustrative example, imagine an employee decides to break for lunch at noon. Before doing so, said employee must undergo a security and bag check to ensure that no items are being whisked out of the store. Consequently, an employee who is off the clock at noon may not be able to leave the store until, say, 12:15. The lawsuit sought backpay for affected employees and a change to Apple's protocol whereby employees would be compensated for time spent during security checks. Now comes word via AppleInsider that the case was dismissed about one week ago on account of a similar case recently presented before the U.S. Supreme Court. That case, INTEGRITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. v. BUSK, centered on temp workers at Amazon who were not compensated for time spent going through security screenings at the end of their shifts. In that suit, workers at Amazon claimed that the security process could sometimes delay their departure by upwards of 30 minutes. In a unanimous 9-0 decision handed down in early December, the Supreme Court ruled against the employees, pointing out that employers only need to pay employees for activities that encompass an "integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed." For example, Justice Clarence Thomas referenced a case where employees at a battery plant were owed compensation for the time spent showering and changing clothes after a shift because removing clothes with toxic chemicals formed an "indispensable part" of their job. Similarly, Thomas noted how employees at a meatpacking plant are owed compensation for time spent sharpening dull knives. With respect to Amazon, the Court ruled that security checks before departure are too far removed from the core job responsibilities of Amazon warehouse employees to warrant compensation. The ruling reads in part: The security screenings at issue here are noncompensable postliminary activities. To begin with, the screenings were not the "principal activity or activities which [the] employee is employed to perform." 29 U. S. C. §254(a)(1). Integrity Staffing did not employ its workers to undergo security screenings, but to retrieve products from warehouse shelves and package those products for shipment to Amazon customers. The security screenings also were not "integral and indispensable" to the employees' duties as warehouse workers. As explained above, an activity is not integral and indispensable to an employee's principal activities unless it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform those activities. The screenings were not an intrinsic element of retrieving products from warehouse shelves or packaging them for shipment. And Integrity Staffing could have eliminated the screenings altogether without impairing the employees' ability to complete their work. With that precedent fresh on the books, the lawsuit against Apple was summarily dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsop.
Judge denies request to release video of Steve Jobs deposition
Just one day after Apple emerged victorious in its iPod antitrust lawsuit, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that there was no overwhelming "public interest" in releasing videotaped deposition testimony of Steve Jobs taken a few months before his passing. Earlier in the month, a trio of news organizations -- Bloomberg, CNN, and the AP -- filed suit seeking to have video of the deposition released. Apple naturally opposed the motion, arguing that it amounted to nothing more than exploiting a dead man for no beneficial reason whatsoever. Rogers' reasoning reads in part: The Court is mindful of the public interest in the video testimony at issue and in the importance of the presumption of public access to judicial records. The Court also recognizes the public policy concern raised by defendant, namely that if releases of video depositions routinely occurred, witnesses might be reticent to submit voluntarily to video depositions in the future, knowing they might one day be publicly broadcast. If cameras in courtrooms were not currently prohibited, the argument might have less weight. However, given the lack of authority approving such a release, the concern is well-taken that under the current rules, deponents have no expectation or notice that the videos will be disseminated beyond the presentation during trial. If the video had been introduced as a trial exhibit, or if no objection had been lodged, the ruling on this motion might be different. In light of the present circumstances and the lack of legal authority justifying the Media Intervenors' request, however, the Court will not authorize the copying of the Jobs Deposition. The ruling in its entirety can be read below, courtesy of Apple Insider. Ruling Denying Media Intervenors Access to Jobs Deposition by Mikey Campbell
Apple emerges victorious in iPod antitrust lawsuit
Less than 24 hours after closing arguments were presented in Apple's iPod antitrust lawsuit, a jury ruled that Apple did not violate any antitrust laws when it took proactive measures to prevent songs downloaded from competing music services from being playable on the iPod. The jury's verdict brings an end to a trial that has been nearly 10 years in the making. The Verge adds: Delivering a unanimous verdict today, the group said Apple's iTunes 7.0, released in the fall of 2006, was a "genuine product improvement," meaning that new features (though importantly increased security) were good for consumers. Plaintiffs in the case unsuccessfully argued that those features not only thwarted competition, but also made Apple's products less useful since customers could not as easily use purchased music or jukebox software from other companies with the iPod. Throughout the trial, Apple emphasized that its efforts to keep the iPod locked down were to preserve a seamless user experience. Interestingly enough, Eddy Cue testified at trial that Apple at one point considered licensing its FairPlay DRM to competitors before ultimately determining that they "couldn't find a way to do that and have it work reliably." Apple at trial also emphasized that implementing DRM was done at the behest of record labels who reserved the right to remove their music from iTunes if someone figured out a way to circumvent it. "There are lots of hackers trying to hack into these things so that they can do things that would put us in noncompliance with the contracts we have with the music companies," Steve Jobs explained in a videotaped deposition from 2011. "We were very scared of that." Further, and as we highlighted earlier today, the iTunes 7 update at the center of the litigation introduced a slew of usability improvements across the board, thus diminishing the claim that iTunes 7 was primarily designed to thwart competing music services. With this trial now concluded, Apple can rest easy knowing that it won't have to fork over what could have been over $1 billion in damages. Though plaintiffs were suing for $350 million, a ruling that Apple willfully violated antitrust law could have potentially seen that figure tripled.
As Apple's e-book antitrust appeals process begins, one judge already questioning Judge Cote's ruling
Apple's effort to appeal the adverse judgement handed down by Judge Denise Cote began yesterday before a three-judge panel. As a quick recap, Cote, back in July of 2013, ruled that Apple illegally colluded with book publishers to artificially inflate the price of e-books across the industry. From the get go, some believed that Cote exhibited an obvious anti-Apple bias. Others, meanwhile, found it odd that the U.S. Government was going after Apple so tenaciously in the first place given Amazon's ongoing dominance in the e-book market. With the appeals case now underway, AFP reports that one judge in particular -- Judge Dennis Jacobs --- is already casting doubt on wisdom behind Cote's ruling. "What we're talking about is a new entrant who is breaking the hold of a market by a monopolist who is maintaining its hold by what is arguably predatory pricing," Jacobs said. Jacobs also took a swipe at the government's characterization of the conspiracy among the publishers, suggesting that prosecutors should have shown more leniency in light of Amazon's dominance, which has pushed conventional booksellers like Barnes & Noble close to bankruptcy. "All those people who got together, it's like the mice saying they want to put a bell on the cat," the judge said. Apple of course has always maintained that its entry into the e-book market may have temporarily raised the price of e-books in the short term but that prices eventually leveled out. Apple also maintains that its entry into the e-book market is, in fact, beneficial to all parties involved as it serves to increase competition in a decidedly one-sided market. If the appeals court overturns Cote's ruling, Apple will be off the hook. If they uphold it, Apple will have to fork over $450 million to affected users. Earlier this month, Apple executive Eddy Cue told Fortune that Apple chose to fight the DOJ instead of settling because "we feel we have to fight the truth." Is it a fact that certain book prices went up? Yes. If you want to convict us on that, then we're guilty. I knew some prices were going to go up, but hell, the whole world knew it, because that's what the publishers were saying: 'We want to get retailers to raise prices, and if we're not able to, we're not going to make the books available digitally.' At the same time, other prices went down too, because now there was competition in the market.
Former iTunes engineer testifies: iTunes updates were designed to "block 100% of non-iTunes clients"
This past Friday, as part of Apple's ongoing iPod antitrust lawsuit, former Apple engineer Rod Schultz took the stand and testified about Apple's efforts to prevent the iPod from playing music files downloaded from from competing services. The Wall Street journal reports: A former iTunes engineer testified in a federal antitrust case against Apple Friday that he worked on a project "intended to block 100% of non-iTunes clients" and "keep out third-party players" that competed with Apple's iPod. Echoing arguments previously raised at trial from the likes of Eddy Cue and Steve Jobs, Schultz said that the security oriented iTunes updates Apple implemented in the mid-2000s were less about blocking competition and more about keeping the iPod/iTunes ecosystem safe, secure, and reliable. Apple many years ago caught a lot of flack over its FairPlay DRM, but testimony delivered during this trial suggests that Apple's behavior with iTunes had more to do with complying with stringent record label contracts than with anything else. As Jobs relayed via a videotaped deposition conducted in April of 2011, Apple's music contracts were "black and white" and stipulated that record labels could pull their music from iTunes in the event that someone was able to break Apple's DRM. "We were very concerned with somebody like Real [Networks] promising customers that they would have compatibility, when in the future they might not," Jobs explained. "That's not something we could guarantee. So we could get sued by all these people." Plaintiffs are seeking US$350 million in damages on the grounds that Apple illegally stifled competition so that they could, in turn, keep the price of iPods artificially high. The jury is expected to begin deliberating sometime this week.
Apple fires back hard at news organizations for demanding to see Steve Jobs depo video
As anticipated, Apple has taken an extremely strong stance against a request from three news organizations to see the release of a videotaped deposition of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. The deposition itself was conducted in April of 2011, a few months before Jobs passed. A motion from the news organizations involved in the request -- Bloomberg, CNN, and the AP -- argues that releasing the video is in the public interest given Jobs' position as a notable and recognizable figure of influence. Apple of course, which has a long history of being protective of Jobs' image and likeness, sees things much differently. Mincing no words, Apple lawyers categorized the request as exploitive while adding that it serves no necessary purpose. On Tuesday, reporters for The Verge were in attendance when Apple's lawyers presented their position before US district court judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Apple's lawyer Jonathan Sherman, a partner at law firm Boies, Schiller, and Flexner accused Burke and the media companies of being opportunistic during a hearing in Oakland's federal court building this evening. "The marginal value of seeing him again, in his black turtleneck - this time very sick - is small," Sherman said, contrasting that with high-profile appearances like Apple product releases, and when Jobs stumped for a new campus at a city council meeting in Cupertino. "What they they want is a dead man, and they want to show him to the rest of the world, because it's a judicial record." Burke replied by saying it was not a frivolous request, and calling the testimony "invaluable." Judge Rogers hasn't yet ruled on the issue and it'll be interesting to see where she lands on the matter.
News organizations fight to have tape of Steve Jobs video deposition released to the public
During Apple's ongoing iPod antitrust lawsuit, the plaintiffs introduced video testimony from Steve Jobs that was recorded in April 2011, a few months before his passing. Per Apple's request to the plaintiffs, Jobs' video footage has not been made public. Now comes word via CNET that a trio of news organizations -- CNN, Bloomberg, and the AP -- are petitioning to have Jobs' video deposition released to the public citing a "public interest" in the footage. "Given the substantial public interest in the rare posthumous appearance of Steve Jobs in this trial, there simply is no interest that justifies restricting the public's access to his video deposition," attorney Thomas Burke, who is representing all three media organizations, wrote in the filing Monday. Apple, meanwhile, plans to vehemently oppose the motion, though it remains unclear, at this point, what legal basis they'll put forth to keep the video free from the public eye. All told, Jobs' video testimony is about two hours long and mostly centers on Apple's contracts with record labels and the company's efforts to maintain strict control over the iPod/iTunes ecosystem. In one particularly interesting excerpt we highlighted earlier in the week, Jobs detailed many of the stipulations from record labels that accompanied Apple's iTunes Music Store contracts, one of which was that record labels reserved the right to remove their music from iTunes if they discovered anyone had hacked Apple's FairPlay DRM. The iPod lawsuit is expected to wrap up this week and, for the time being, is proceeding without a named plaintiff.
Apple iPod class action trial to continue temporarily without a plaintiff
Apple's iPod class action lawsuit will be allowed to continue without a plaintiff, reports the Associated Press. The suit took an unusual turn this week when all existing plaintiffs were disqualified for not owning an iPod covered by the suit. The last remaining plaintiff, Marianna Rosen, was dismissed on Monday with a firm scolding from Judge for not providing adequate information about her iPod purchases. With no remaining plaintiffs, Apple filed a motion for the dismissal of the suit, but that request was denied by presiding U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Saying she "has an obligation to millions of absent class members," Judge Rogers decided to allow the case to proceed temporarily without a plaintiff. Attorneys suing Apple have until Tuesday to find a new lead plaintiff who purchased an eligible iPod and was negatively impacted as alleged in the case. More than 8 million consumers purchased iPods during the 19-month period listed in the complaint so there is no shortage of potential replacements. Attorneys for the class action group claim they already have heard from several volunteers willing and ready to step in as the new lead plaintiff. For its part, Apple confirms it intends to investigate thoroughly the qualification status of any new plaintiff in the case.
In videotaped deposition, Steve Jobs talks DRM and dealing with record labels
Six months before he passed away, Steve Jobs sat down for a videotaped deposition to answer questions connected to Apple's ongoing iPod antitrust class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that Apple improperly enacted measures to render songs downloaded from competing music services unplayable on the iPod. In doing so, the plaintiffs allege that Apple was able to keep iPod pricing higher than it would have ordinarily been otherwise. This past Friday, video footage from Jobs' deposition was played before the court and CNET was there to recap some of the more interesting exchanges. Jobs' take on the matter aligns with what Eddy Cue articulated on the stand earlier last week, namely that the fear of piracy amongst record labels resulted in fairly strict contracts that required DRM to be an integral part of the iTunes/iPod ecosystem. According to Jobs, Apple's contracts with record labels were "black and white." Jobs explained that the contracts, in addition to stipulating that songs needed to be laden with DRM, specified that if Apple's DRM (called FairPlay) was broken or hacked, the record labels could immediately remove their music from iTunes. No questions asked. So when RealNetworks came around in 2004 and reverse engineered FairPlay, thereby enabling music purchased on the RealPlayer Music Store to work on the iPod, Apple took immediate notice and subsequent action. Jobs was also asked about the efforts of competing digital music stores like RealNetworks, a company that developed software called Harmony that would reverse engineer Apple's FairPlay to let iPod owners put RealNetworks' music on their devices. Through iTunes updates, Apple continuously broke Harmony, an action plaintiffs say was anticompetitive because it degraded the consumer experience and was an example of Apple wielding a monopolistic position in the market. Jobs response? Harmony was undermining Apple's end-to-end product ecosystem. "We were very concerned with somebody like Real [Networks] promising customers that they would have compatibility, when in the future they might not," he said. "That's not something we could guarantee. So we could get sued by all these people." Jobs' testimony paints a picture of stringent contracts with record labels that Apple was extremely vigilant about upholding, lest the crown jewel that was the iTunes Music Store suffer an immediate blow to its song library. "There are lots of hackers trying to hack into these things so that they can do things that would put us in noncompliance with the contracts we have with the music companies," Jobs explained. "We were very scared of that." The resulting impact on competing music services is something Jobs alluded to as "collateral damage." All told, the plaintiffs at large are seeking US$350 million in damages. Whether or not the trial will reach a conclusion, though, hangs in the balance. This past Friday Apple filed a motion to dismiss the case altogether after discovering that the two named plaintiffs did not purchase iPods during the relevant time period of the case. A ruling on that motion is likely to be handed down soon.
Apple files motion to dismiss iPod antitrust lawsuit after plaintiffs' stories called into question
The iPod class action suit that went to trial this week may not run its course. As detailed by the New York Times, Apple has called into question whether or not the two named plaintiffs at issue actually purchased iPods during the relevant time period of the case. In a surprising turn on Friday, the lawyers suing Apple in the $350 million case withdrew one of the named plaintiffs after they concluded that she did not purchase an iPod between September 2006 and March 2009, the period in which Apple is accused of preventing music from competing services from playing on its iPods. What's more, it's not entirely clear that the other named plaintiff, one Mariana Rosen, purchased an iPod during the relevant time period either. Further, the iPod purchased by Rosen may have actually been purchased by her husband's law firm. As a result, the Times relays that Apple on Friday filed a motion seeking to have the case dismissed altogether. So what may end up happening here is a case that took nearly 10 years to get trial concluding with an unresolved whimper. Of course, seeing as how this is a class action suit, there are scores of other iPod owners party to the suit. As a result, lawyers for the plaintiffs are reportedly trying to get permission to position such a member as named plaintiff. With the Judge in the case reportedly noting, "I am concerned that I don't have a plaintiff", it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. A ruling on whether or not the case will be allowed to proceed may come as soon as this weekend.
Eddy Cue testifies: Apple once contemplated licensing its Fairplay DRM to competitors
With Apple's iPod class action lawsuit underway, Apple executive Eddy Cue took to the stand today and testified about Apple's implementation of DRM on iTunes music files back in the mid-2000s. Recall that the current suit alleges that Apple actively took measures to prevent songs purchased from competing music stores from playing on the iPod. What's more, Apple even went so far as to subtly remove unauthorized songs from users' iPods by instructing them to restore their device to factory settings. For its part, Apple argues that this was done to prevent malicious activity. In any event, Cue -- known as an integral part of Apple's negotiating team -- spoke today about Apple's original implementation of DRM on the iTunes Music Store. While cynics are quick to argue that Apple engaged in anti-competitive behavior, Cue relayed that Apple, in fact, wasn't keen on DRM at the outset. On the contrary, Cue emphasized a fact that has been repeated time and time again: namely that the implementation of DRM was done at the behest of music executives fearful of music piracy gone wild. Interestingly enough, The Verge reports that Apple, per Cue's testimony, at one point contemplated licensing their homegrown DRM technology, dubbed Fairplay, to the market at large. "We thought about licensing the DRM from beginning, it was one of the things we thought was the right move that because we can expand the market and grow faster," Cue told the court. "But we couldn't find a way to do that and have it work reliably." The Verge report adds some color as to why Apple didn't ultimately go down this route: As issue, Cue said, were things like interoperability with the growing multitude of MP3 players. New devices from other companies would come out, and might not work with that system. "Others tried to do this, and it failed miserably," Cue said. "One of those was Microsoft." Cue also noted that when Apple first floated the idea of the iTunes Store to record labels, that they rebuked the idea because they had their own stores with DRM systems that could be different from song to song, and from device to device. DRM-laden music on the iTunes Store was long a controversial topic as it famously, and frustratingly, prevented consumers from playing music they owned on competing devices. While there were workarounds such as burning purchased songs to a CD and uploading them back up to iTunes, the problem still annoyed many users before Apple ultimately did away with DRM restricted music in late 2009.
Old Steve Jobs emails resurface as part of iPod antitrust lawsuit
It's hard to believe that in 2014, we're still talking about the iPod as a monopoly. Hell, it's strange that we're even talking about the iPod at all. But thanks to a slow winding judicial process, a class action suit against Apple stemming from its business practices in the mid-2000s is getting underway today in California. The suit alleges that Apple took pro-active measures to prevent songs from competing music stores from being playable on the iPod. And as one might expect, some of the key evidence in the case comes from Steve Jobs himself, both in the form of old emails and a video deposition the Apple co-founder sat for back in 2011. With the trial getting underway today, a number of statements from Jobs have already emerged. Some point to Apple doing all it can to keep the iPod free from competing music stores while others are simply vintage Jobs. Here are a few of the Jobsian highlights we've seen so far. In 2003, upon learning of a music store called Music Match, Jobs emailed Apple executives to ensure that songs from that store would not be playable on the iPod. We need to make sure that when Music Match launches their download music store they cannot use iPod. Is this going to be an issue? In 2005, plaintiffs point to yet another email from Jobs, this one in response to a start-up working on a product which would have made music not purchased on the iTunes Store playable on the iPod. In an email to Jeff Robbin -- of SoundJam MP fame -- Jobs wrote that Apple "may need to change things here." The New York Times, which has seen many of the documents in question, adds that Robbin and the iTunes team were quick to "develop a stronger security system to prevent unauthorized third parties from injecting content into iPods." Apple, of course, contends that the reason they were so vigilant about keeping an eye on files from other music stores is security. Whether you buy that argument or not, that's what Apple is selling. But back to Jobs because, well, he wasn't your typical CEO. The Times further relays that during Jobs' 2011 video deposition, the Apple co-founder was asked about RealNetworks and their involvement in the music download market. A transcript of the deposition included Ms. Sweeney questioning him about RealNetworks, a company that had come up with a way to allow songs sold in its store to play on iPods and other media players. Mr. Jobs responded "I don't remember" to many of the questions. But when asked whether he was familiar with RealNetworks, he replied bluntly, "Do they still exist?" As the trial progresses, we can likely expect to see quite a few more entertaining quips from Jobs emerge.
Eddy Cue: Apple didn't settle e-book antitrust lawsuit because "we feel we have to fight for the truth"
Going head to head with the DOJ over antitrust allegations has been nothing short of a headache for Apple. If you recall, Apple was taken to task for allegedly conspiring with publishers to artificially inflate the price of e-books across the board. Though Apple could have settled the issue out of court, Tim Cook said that Apple wanted its day in court because it had done nothing wrong. For Apple, Tim Cook said a few months back, it was a matter of principle. As it turns out, a principled stance doesn't come cheap, or easy for that matter. Apple ended up losing its case, and in the process, was slapped with a number of punishments, including an external anti-trust monitor they desperately tried to get rid of but must keep on the payroll for two years. Further, if Apple's upcoming appeal falls through, they'll have to fork over $450 million to affected class members. Speaking on the matter to Fortune, Apple executive and key negotiator Eddy Cue reiterated why Apple chose not to settle, instead opting for what turned out to be a thorny legal battle. Echoing previous statements made by Tim Cook, Cue explained that for Apple's it's a simple matter of right and wrong. We feel we have to fight for the truth. Luckily, Tim feels exactly like I do, which is: You have to fight for your principles no matter what. Because it's just not right. As for the irrefutable fact that the price of some e-books increased following Apple's deal with publishers, Cue notes that it wasn't the result of some secretive conspiratorial agreement, but rather something that the publishers were open about wanting. Is it a fact that certain book prices went up? Yes. If you want to convict us on that, then we're guilty. I knew some prices were going to go up, but hell, the whole world knew it, because that's what the publishers were saying: 'We want to get retailers to raise prices, and if we're not able to, we're not going to make the books available digitally.' At the same time, other prices went down too, because now there was competition in the market. Again, Apple ultimately lost the legal battle when Judge Denise Cote ruled that Apple colluded with publishing houses to increase the price of e-books. Apple's appeal is slated to begin on December 15. If Cote's ruling is overturned, Apple will be in the clear. If the ruling is upheld, Apple will be on the hook for the full $450 million.
iPod antitrust lawsuit set to kick off tomorrow
The iPod's glory days are long gone, but plaintiffs certainly have long memories. Add a slow-moving judicial system into the equation and what we have, in a broad sense, is an upcoming anti-trust trial regarding Apple's ancient efforts to restrict music purchased on the iTunes Music Store to the iPod. The original claim against Apple goes all the way back to 2005 and is rooted in Apple's previous efforts to lock DRM-laden music tracks to Apple MP3 players exclusively. The lawsuit additionally alleges that Apple in the mid-2000s took measures to prevent the iPod from playing songs purchased from competing music stores. Apple, of course, would eventually do away with music-based DRM in 2009, but the lawsuit soldiered on. And so, here we are in 2014 with a trial set to kick off regarding issues that have long since been rendered irrelevant. CNET reports: The case involves two plaintiffs, Melanie (Tucker) Wilson and Marianna Rosen. Both are consumers who purchased audio downloads and iPods directly from Apple. They argue they paid more for iPods than they would have paid if Apple hadn't violated antitrust regulations. In a 2010 filing, the plaintiffs said they "suffered injury" to their property "in the form of overcharges." ... The plaintiffs say because music from other stores wouldn't work with iTunes and iPods, customers were forced to buy more music directly from iTunes. When it came time for consumers to buy new music players, they had to buy iPods because of all the iTunes music they owned. Because demand was higher for iPods, the prices increased, causing consumers to overpay for Apple's music players, they say. The trial will get underway tomorrow and, interestingly enough, will feature deposition and video testimony from Steve Jobs. In one potentially eyebrow-raising email highlighted by the New York Times, Jobs in 2003 emailed Apple executives and expressed concern that songs from a rival music service would be playable on the iPod. "We need to make sure that when Music Match launches their download music store they cannot use iPod," Jobs said at the time. "Is this going to be an issue?" Apple contends that many of the strict barriers it put up around its iPod/iTunes kingdom were put into place a) at the behest of music labels and b) to ensure a safe and functional user experience. All told, the plaintiffs are seeking $350 million in damages. CNET has a comprehensive overview of all the pertinent facts and issues of the case that's certainly worth a look.
Judge allows class action suit against Apple over disappearing iMessages to proceed
Judge Lucy Koh -- who you might remember from her time officiating Apple and Samsung's patent trials -- ruled on Tuesday that a class action lawsuit against Apple over missing text messages can proceed. The problem at issue arises when iPhone users abandon ship and hop on over to an Android phone or any other non-iOS device. In such a scenario, some users discovered that messages from other iPhone users weren't going through, even though the sender's would get a "Delivered" receipt in their Messages app. The underlying cause is that iMessages should have been forwarded to the new device but, instead, were being routed to what was ostensibly a still active iMessage account. While this scenario has been a longstanding problem for some, a few solutions -- such as disassociating one's number from its corresponding Apple ID and deactivating iMessage altogether -- helped alleviate the problem for many. It's worth noting that the ultimate key to prevention, according to Apple, is to deactivate iMessage before switching to a non-iOS device. Addressing the issue head-on, Apple yesterday released a web-based tool that enables users to deregister their number from Apple's iMessage database entirely. Nonetheless, a frustrated Android user who initially sued Apple over the matter in May of 2014 has now been given the green light to proceed with a planned class action. Reuters reports: Apple was ordered to face a U.S. federal lawsuit claiming it failed to tell consumers that its messaging system would block them from receiving text messages if they switched to Android-based smartphones from iPhones. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California said Apple must face plaintiff Adrienne Moore's claim that the message blocking interfered with her contract with Verizon Wireless for wireless service, which she kept after switching in April to a Samsung Galaxy S5 from an iPhone 4. By inhibiting the plaintiff's receipt of text messages after switching to a competing device, Apple stands accused of violating California's unfair competition laws. In a statement on the matter, Apple said: Apple takes customer satisfaction extremely seriously, but the law does not provide a remedy when, as here, technology simply does not function as plaintiff subjectively believes it should. For more details as to the legal nuts and bolts, TechCrunch yesterday posted Judge Koh's full ruling alongside Apple's failed motion which sought to dismiss the suit altogether.
Apple set to go to trial in November over FairPlay DRM and iTunes lock-in
The year isn't 2007 so you might be surprised to learn that Apple, in 2014, still has a pending legal class action suit regarding iPods and the FairPlay DRM that used to shroud every song sold on iTunes. The lawsuit dates all the way back to 2004 and alleges that Apple in the mid-2000s illegally used DRM to lock in users to the Apple ecosystem by making the cost of switching prohibitively high. The plaintiffs in the case are seeking $350 million in damages. Ars Technica reports: Last week, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers gave the green light (PDF) to sending a long-running antitrust lawsuit against Apple to trial. Plaintiffs in the case say that Apple used its FairPlay DRM system to "lock in" its customers and make it costly to switch to technology built by competitors, like Real Networks. They describe how Apple kept updating iTunes to make sure songs bought from Real's competing digital music store couldn't be used on iPods. As a result of this lock-in, Apple was able to overcharge its customers to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. With Judge Rogers finding Apple's recent effort to have the case dismissed unpersuasive, the case is slated to go to trial on November 17.
Judge allows Apple class action lawsuit over Breaking Bad "Season Pass" to continue
Last September, Apple was hit with a class action lawsuit after one user discovered that the US$22.99 he shelled out via iTunes for a "Season Pass" of Breaking Bad season 5 only covered the season's first 8 episodes. In light of that, Apple did the right thing and told affected users that they'd be entitled to a full $22.99 refund. Nonetheless, a judge this week issued a ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed with the plaintiff asserting a claim of false advertising -- which, in my opinion, is exceedingly bizarre given that A.) there are no damages to speak of and B.) the root of the problem lies with AMC and Sony, not Apple. Here's a brief recap of how this problem came to be. As a Breaking Bad fan who was borderline-obsessed with the show, I'll proudly admit that I've listened to every episode of the official Breaking Bad podcast -- all 62 episodes. As a result, I know a thing or two about a thing or two and distinctly recall show creator Vince Gilligan saying that the final 16 episodes were meant, in his eyes and in the eyes of the writing staff, to comprise a single season. At the same time, Gilligan didn't want to rush to finish his masterpiece too quickly. Figuring out how to end the Emmy award-winning show was no small task, and Gilligan and his team wanted to take their time with the final eight episodes to ensure that they were befitting of the series. Hence, there was a production delay between filming the first eight and second eight episodes. Looking to capitalize on the delay, the decision to treat the final 16 episodes as two distinct seasons was made by AMC and Sony, not Apple. Specifically, the "Breaking Bad" listings on iTunes were based on how Sony wanted them viewed. What's also strange is that the plaintiff in the original lawsuit wasn't suing for millions, but rather just for $20, just a simple refund. And yet, with Apple granting refunds to affected users who felt duped, the lawsuit is slogging on regardless. via Gigaom
Judge rebuffs Apple's effort to secure sales ban on infringing Samsung products
Samsung and Apple may have settled all of their international legal disputes, but the two tech giants are still busy duking it out here in the States. The latest news from the ongoing Apple/Samsung legal saga is that Judge Lucy Koh recently rejected Apple's efforts to secure a product ban against Samsung smartphones. A report from Bloomberg adds that Apple's attempt to attain an injunction was rebuffed even after Apple proffered a "narrowly tailored" ban to the Court. Apple tried to make its latest sales ban request more viable by targeting specific infringing features in nine Samsung devices, and by offering what it called a "sunset period" to give its Suwon, South Korea-based competitor a chance to design around the features before any ban was enforced, according to a court filing. To date, Apple has successfully litigated two patent infringement cases against Samsung, netting over $1 billion in damages in the process. With Samsung appealing, however, Apple hasn't yet received a dime from Samsung. On top of that, Apple's efforts to secure a product ban against Samsung products that are selling well hasn't yet been successful in the long run.
Shareholder sues Apple directors and estate of Steve Jobs over anti-poaching agreements
Patently Apple directs us to a rather ridiculous class action lawsuit filed by an Apple shareholder against Apple directors and the estate of Steve Jobs. The lawsuit stems from the no-poaching agreements Apple tacitly entered into with a number of other big-time tech companies in the mid-2000s. While the actual Silicon Valley employees affected by the allegations are already engaged in a class action suit against Apple and others, this particular suit is bizarre to the extent that the plaintiff has no connection to any party involved, save for his collection of Apple shares. The lawsuit reads in part: This is a shareholder derivative action seeking to remedy the wrongdoing committed by Apple's senior directors and officers who have caused millions of dollars in damages to Apple and its shareholders. Plaintiff asserts claims under federal law for violations of Section 14(a) of the SEC Act of 1934... and under state law for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, and breach of the duty of honest services. As opposed to affected class members currently involved in ongoing litigation over the very same matter, it's a strain to comprehend just where the plaintiff's damages lie. Apple's stock is near an all-time high and the Apple brand is no more tarnished than it's been by any other lawsuit. I wouldn't be surprised to see this case dismissed rather quickly. AppleInsider has posted the full 77 page complaint which you can view below. Shareholder Derivative Complaint
Judge Lucy Koh rejects proposed settlement stemming from Apple's anti-poaching class action lawsuit
Judge Lucy Koh today rejected a proposed settlement agreement that Apple and a number of other prominent high-tech companies entered into as a result of a class-action suit stemming from anti-poaching agreements entered into during the mid-2000s. Under terms of the initial settlement agreement, Apple, along with Adobe, Google, and Intel, agreed to collectively fork over approximately $324 million to members of the class. In a ruling on the matter issued earlier today, Koh argues that the proposed figure is far too low. Koh's ruling, which MacRumors uploaded here, reads in part: The Court finds the total settlement amount falls below the range of reasonableness. The Court is concerned that Class members recover less on a proportional basis from the instant settlement with the Remaining Defendants than from the Settled Defendants a year ago, despite the fact that the case has progressed consistently in the Class's favor since then. Counsel's sole explanation for this reduced figure is that there are weaknesses in Plaintiff's case such that the Class faces a substantial risk of non-recovery. However, that risk existed and was even greater when Plaintiffs settled with the Settled Defendants a year ago, when class certification had been denied. While $324 million certainly sounds like a lot, once lawyers get their cut, administrative fees are taken care of, and the remaining pot is divided up amongst the plaintiffs, each member of the class would only be eligible to receive $3,573. With plaintiffs initially seeking $3 billion, Koh indicated about six weeks ago that she wasn't sure the proposed settlement was "fair to the class." With her recent ruling now in the books, Koh articulates that "the remaining defendants should, at a minimum, pay their fair share as compared to the settled defendants..."
