Re: Only lawyers benefit from delay like this
They'll need to find plaintiffs who
1 bought an iPod during the period in question
2 got music from Real Networks and attempted to put it on their iPods
3 didn't de-DRM their RN music once they realised that there was a problem
4 still give a damn.
Just owning an iPod isn't enough. They'd have to show that they were 'injured'. And that means that they have to show that they also got RN music _and tried to use it on their iPods_. Proving that at this late date may be a tad difficult. It was possible to de-DRM RN music; those who seriously wanted to, could, and did. They would probably keep their mouths shut now, 'cause they'd be telling the world that they breached the DMCA if they spoke up. This means that the real hard core RN users will be absent. And, finally, given the passage of time... most users simply don't care anymore.
And, oh, yeah, given the current shenanigans, I'd say that the court will have a Very Close Look(tm) at any new plaintiffs. if, say, someone de-DRMed his RN music and still tried to claim 'injury', and the court finds out (and Apple will do their best to see that the court finds out) there might be Unexpected Results(tm). (How might Apple know? If the users were silly enough to use iTunes Match, for example, Apple would have a _very_ good idea as to what's in that music collection, when it got there, and where it came from. I use iTunes Match, but I really couldn't care less if Apple knows that I like Tina Turner songs. If a plaintiff claimed that he attempted to put RN music on his iPod but iTunes Match says that the track in question was first on the user's system in 2012, or that it was placed there during the time in question as a 256k MP3 which was generated by [insert name of popular ripping software here], someone will have to do a little explaining.)