One should be careful about buying into the initial narrative put out by the lawyers at the start of a trial.
As expected, the case seems to be more about some lawyers looking for a pay day as opposed to people actually being harmed. Apparently the plaintiffs in the case didn't actually own the iPods in question, much less lose any music.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/judge...&mg=reno64-wsj
Here is the pertinent quote from the article.
===================================
A federal judge Thursday questioned whether any of the plaintiffs in a long-running antitrust suit against Apple Inc. had actually bought the iPods at issue in the case.
“What am I supposed to do if I don’t have a plaintiff?” asked a concerned U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers after the jury left the courtroom at the end of Thursday’s proceedings.
Judge Rogers said that in a letter submitted to her late Wednesday night, Apple’s lawyers said there is no evidence that the plaintiffs’ two class representatives purchased the models of iPods focused on in the trial.
Judge Rogers’ comments raised the prospect that the 10-year-old case, in which the plaintiffs are seeking $350 million in damages, could end quickly in Apple’s favor.
“I am concerned that I don’t have a plaintiff,” Judge Rogers told a stunned gallery. “That is a problem.”
The judge urged attorneys to submit filings suggesting next moves. “I’m not interested in waiting,” Judge Rogers said.
================================