Steve Jobs, chief of Apple, talked about the iPod Nano in 2007 in San Francisco. IPods are at the center of a case accusing the company of illegal practices.Credit Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Updated, 4:58 p.m. | OAKLAND, Calif. — A class-action lawsuit against Apple that has been nearly a decade in the making could hinge on a single iPod purchased by a New Jersey woman in 2008.
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.
That leaves one named plaintiff. And Apple said in a letter filed with the court late Wednesday night that it checked the serial number of an iPod Touch bought by that woman, Marianna Rosen, and found that it was bought in July 2009, months after the period in question. The company on Friday filed a motion asking that the case be dismissed altogether on the grounds that the iPods purchased by the two plaintiffs were not bought during that time period.
“Ms. Rosen’s trial testimony with regard to her alleged purchase of the two iPods in 2007 and 2008 was not credible,†Apple said in its filing. Apple also attached a receipt showing that the iPod Touch was purchased by Ms. Rosen’s husband’s law firm, not the plaintiff herself.
Outsiders may be providing a solution. on Friday afternoon, a Michigan man named Jeffrey Kowalski contacted the judge. He said he bought an iPod Touch around May 2008.
Bonny Sweeney, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, told Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, the federal judge overseeing the case, that there was another iPod Touch that Ms. Rosen bought in 2008. She said she would fully respond to Apple’s letter on Saturday. The judge has not yet ruled on Apple's motion.
The trial proceeded Friday morning with testimony by Jeff Robbin, the head of Apple’s iTunes software. A videotaped deposition of Steve Jobs, who died in 2011, was expected to be shown later on Friday.
Correction: December 5, 2014
An earlier version of this post misstated the home state of a man potentially involved in the iPod case. He lives in Michigan, not Minnesota. Also, the post misstated how the man could be involved. He contacted the judge overseeing the case; he has not yet been included in the lawsuit.
No comments:
Post a Comment