Ondrej Holzman Lawyers representing in the case in which the whether Apple harmed users with its changes to iTunes and iPods, the plaintiffs took a second chance and introduced a new lead plaintiff, so the trial can continue. On the contrary, Apple's lawyers are fighting against the publication of the complete statement of Steve Jobs.
Apple a week ago he rushed behind Judge Yvonne Rogers, finding that none of the plaintiffs named in the documents had purchased their iPods within the previously outlined time period, and so the entire case effectively lacked a rightful plaintiff. The judge was troubled by this fact, but give it the plaintiffs, representing the roughly eight million users to whom it felt obligated to continue, a chance to remedy the matter.
In the end, sixty-five-year-old Barbara Benett became the main plaintiff, who must represent all the other users in the class action. She bought her iPod nano, which - as she described to the jury - she used to learn to skate, at the end of 2006, which agrees with the defined period that the case concerns.
"We're on the right track," Rogers breathed after lawyers for both sides interviewed Bennett. On Tuesday, when the new plaintiff was introduced, the judge offered a two-day recess to allow Apple's lawyers to review the plaintiff's new representation, but the California firm refused.
However, the great confusion regarding the named plaintiffs favors Apple in the future. "You now have something to appeal against," Rogers told William Isaacson, Apple's general counsel. Whether Apple will have something to appeal against will be revealed next week, when the jury is due to hand down its verdict.
Apple does not want to publish Jobs' resignation
However, one more issue, indirectly related to the jury's verdict, is currently being resolved at the California court in Oakland. A trio of media organizations to Judge Rogers back, to have the two-hour one published statement of Steve Jobs, who testified about the case a few months before his death in 2011. A roughly half-hour portion of the entire video recording was then used in court.
"We're not asking for anything other than the release of what the jury heard," attorney Tom Burke, who is representing AP, Bloomberg and CNN, explained the request. "Steve Jobs is not your usual witness, and that makes this a unique matter."
However, Apple's lawyer Jonathan Sherman objected to such a request, accusing media organizations of profiteering. "The value of seeing him again in his black turtleneck - this time very ill - is minimal," Sherman argued before the court, contrasting Jobs' testimony shortly before his death in the fall of 2011 with his "lively" appearances when introducing new products or when presenting a new campus in front of the city council. by the Council in Cupertino.
"They want a dead man and they want to show it to the rest of the world because it's a court record," Sherman said. For now, Apple has Judge Rogers on its side, who is hesitant to release the video. According to her, this would violate the basic rules of the court, which prohibit the taking of any video recording of the entire proceedings. At the same time, however, the judge said that if the media company presents strong arguments why Jobs' statement should be published by the end of the week, she will consider the situation.
You can find complete coverage of the iPod case <a href="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1932/8043/files/200721_ODSTOUPENI_BEZ_UDANI_DUVODU__EN.pdf?v=1595428404" data-gt-href-en="https://en.notsofunnyany.com/">here</a>.
Hyenas! Leave Steve alone.
Ungrateful…!
Poor people who can't buy an mp3 player other than an iPod, brainless "locked" in the ecosystem :-D