PDA

View Full Version : Florida Lawyer Sues Apple for Renting HD Movies on Non-HD Devices




MacRumors
Jul 8, 2013, 03:46 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/08/florida-lawyer-sues-apple-for-renting-hd-movies-on-non-hd-devices/)


Apple is being sued in a new class action suit (http://www.scribd.com/doc/152454454/Apple-iTunes-Lawsuit-Over-HD) (via GigaOM (http://gigaom.com/2013/07/08/apple-sued-for-renting-hd-videos-to-older-iphones/)) led by Florida lawyer Scott Weiselberg, who accuses the company of allowing customers with older devices supporting only standard definition films to pay for and download higher quality content.This class action involves defendant Apple, Inc. ("Apple") and its deceptive business practice of charging a premium price for the rental of HD content programs (e.g., movies, etc.) to consumers on early versions of Apple devices that Apple knew could not play HD content, and which only played the less expensive standard definition ("SD") content that Apple downloaded at the time of the rental.

As a result, millions of customers were deceived into paying the $1 premium for HD content rentals for their SD Apple Mobile Devices.According to the filing, Weiselberg rented and downloaded the high definition version of the movie "Big Daddy," before discovering that his iPhone did not support HD playback. HD content is often offered at a premium in the App Store, and Weiselberg says that he was "tricked" into paying an extra $1 for the content.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/07/bigdaddylawsuit.jpg
While SD and HD content is clearly marked in the App Store, Weiselberg was not aware that his phone could not play HD content, and within the filing, he suggests that Apple should have automatically recognized the device type and prevented the purchase of HD content from an SD-only phone.

HD playback was first introduced in 2008, alongside iTunes 8.0. At that time, older iPhones and iPod touches were not able to support the new format, allowing some mistaken purchases to be made. Apple has since changed the download process, introducing warnings and preventing HD content from being downloaded by SD device, but Weiselberg believes that SD options are still too difficult for users to find.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, plus interest, sustained by the Plaintiff and the Class, as well as legal fees.

Article Link: Florida Lawyer Sues Apple for Renting HD Movies on Non-HD Devices (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/08/florida-lawyer-sues-apple-for-renting-hd-movies-on-non-hd-devices/)



Amazing Iceman
Jul 8, 2013, 03:47 PM
This is so stupid... He could have just call Apple and ask to switch the format of his rental..

And weird... A lawyer with an old phone??? he must be a bad lawyer that makes no money...

komodrone
Jul 8, 2013, 03:48 PM
You're a lawyer, you're not using a Retina device, and you're suing Apple for this fact. Stingy!

TheKrs1
Jul 8, 2013, 03:49 PM
Option 1: Request refund

Option 2: Learn for the future

Option 3: SUE!

Clearly the most rational choice is option 3.

LastLine
Jul 8, 2013, 03:49 PM
This is so stupid... He could have just call Apple and ask to switch the format of his rental..

And weird... A lawyer with an old phone??? he must be a bad lawyer that makes no money...

In fairness while this is a bit frivolous, you have to agree to some extent with the logic that a non HD capable device shouldn't offer HD films. Kinda how your iPhone can't see iPad only apps :)

I'm sure a letter of complaint and request for a refund would have worked well enough though :P

thadoggfather
Jul 8, 2013, 03:51 PM
Damages compensated: $1 and an ass kicking and waste of the lawyer's time and resources (so high opportunity cost)

I like what he's getting at, that 13" non-retina/iPad2/mini/all iPhones don't output at 720p :D

Still not a great approach dude.

bacaramac
Jul 8, 2013, 03:54 PM
Wow, just wow. Next lawsuit from this lawyer is they going to allow rental on HD devices and then sue when they watch it on their non HD iPhone since Apple is nice enough to support older devices that don't display HD.

People seriously need to get a life.

mattopotamus
Jul 8, 2013, 03:54 PM
People are ass hats when it comes to lawsuits.

BaldiMac
Jul 8, 2013, 03:55 PM
In fairness while this is a bit frivolous, you have to agree to some extent with the logic that a non HD capable device shouldn't offer HD films. Kinda how your iPhone can't see iPad only apps :)

That logic ignores the fact that you can transfer rentals to other devices, so there is a legitimate reason to offer HD content on non-HD devices.

thedarkhalf
Jul 8, 2013, 03:57 PM
Correct me if i'm wrong, but just cause you buy the movie on one device, that doesn't mean it's only playable on said device. I thought you could buy something on the iPhone and it would be available on your iPad, Laptop and AppleTV as well.

Edit: Baldimac just answered my question :)

Berti10
Jul 8, 2013, 04:00 PM
That's America!

lolkthxbai
Jul 8, 2013, 04:05 PM
Why Weiselberg? Why? I'm tired of people like this making us normal Floridians look bad :/

Seriously though, I think the only device that can't do HD playback is the 3GS (and previous models), iPad mini and iPad 2.

And honestly, what's the definition of HD anyways...? It's so loosely used. I mean, the iPhone 5 is 640 x 1136 and 720p HD is 720 x 1280...

jwdsail
Jul 8, 2013, 04:07 PM
Really?

When you buy or rent on iTunes, the content is playable on any device tied to your AppleID, including a Mac, PC, or AppleTV that you may have hooked up to an HDTV....

Just because I rent or buy it on one device, doesn't necessarily mean that I intend to watch it on that device.. How is Apple supposed to know???

I suppose Apple could add a nanny/idiot dialogue that states, "We see you are currently using a non-HD Device. If you do not have an HD device (iPhone 5, AppleTV, Mac, PC, iPad (Current Generation)) that you intend to view this content on, would you prefer to order the SD version of ****?"

I think that would get pretty f'in annoying after about a few rentals/purchases.....

Carmenia83
Jul 8, 2013, 04:07 PM
You guys are missing the point. "Millions of people...paid a $1 premium" which means the attorney bringing the case would be entitled to a sizeable portion of the multimillion dollar class action suit as legal fees. Good return on his $1 investment.

vmistery
Jul 8, 2013, 04:08 PM
I'm sure he is just doing it to provide us all with entertainment for an evening. Or free publicity

nutmac
Jul 8, 2013, 04:08 PM
What's next? Sue Macy's for shirts that do not fit instead of returning them for refund?

lolkthxbai
Jul 8, 2013, 04:10 PM
Oh snap! Lets sue Netflix because I pay just as much as my friend and he gets HD movie streaming on his 40" HDTV but I don't on my 10 year old SD TV... Oh wait...

odedia
Jul 8, 2013, 04:12 PM
I actually agree with this one for a change. It's a classic "lets try to get away with it" scenario. The vast population wouldnt notice the fact that they paid the extra for no reason. And HD sounds like "It's much better!". These are millions and millions of dollars apple makes without giving the customer the premium product he paid for.

Sometimes class action lawsuits are just a way to get companies to fix their mistakes.

And for some lawyer to make a bucket of money, ofcourse...

Wurm5150
Jul 8, 2013, 04:13 PM
He should sue himself for renting a movie to watch on 3.5" screen on one count and another for renting an Adam Sandler movie.

kaldezar
Jul 8, 2013, 04:18 PM
What's next? Sue Macy's for shirts that do not fit instead of returning them for refund?

Oh what a great idea, send this to the lawyer for a percentage of the settlement LOL:)

nagromme
Jul 8, 2013, 04:19 PM
Apple screwed up, no question, and should return the extra dollar to everyone who made this mistake--nay, they should DOUBLE that amount as penalty. Even if that's many dozens of people. Then add legal fees.

(Assuming Apple refused a refund, which I've never known them to do. It's been downright painless, even when the mistake is mine.)


Really?

When you buy or rent on iTunes, the content is playable on any device tied to your AppleID, including a Mac, PC, or AppleTV that you may have hooked up to an HDTV....

Just because I rent or buy it on one device, doesn't necessarily mean that I intend to watch it on that device.. How is Apple supposed to know???

Not entirely true, I don't think: if you rent on a Mac/PC iTunes, you can transfer TO an iOS device. You can also transfer from one Mac/PC to another. But you cannot transfer a rental FROM an iOS device, last I knew. (And I think you should be able to.)

ablashek
Jul 8, 2013, 04:20 PM
The only crime i see here is that apple is charging people to see an Adam Sandler movie, they should offer it for free and be glad that a fraction of the population would willingly watch his movies.

Sorry that was a low punch, sandler is decent and big daddy along with happy filmore and billy madison are decent flicks.

Lancer
Jul 8, 2013, 04:21 PM
Seriously?

I wouldn't sue, especially if it was for renting 'Big Daddy' :rolleyes:

This is right up there with suing because your coffee is too hot!

koruki
Jul 8, 2013, 04:22 PM
thats like a angry fat woman suing a shop that only sells small dresses. DON'T BUY IT FFS. Whose to say the low definition copy isnt the same price, I know for one thing my baby girls shoes cost just as much as mine

rmwebs
Jul 8, 2013, 04:24 PM
Back up a second, we have a bigger issue.

Apple expecting $12.99 for Big Daddy in HD?! You are joking? It's in the 0.99 bargain bins in the UK (and available for free on Sky and Virgin TV on-demand).

fraggot
Jul 8, 2013, 04:25 PM
So basically, they're suing cause they're idiots?

sclawis300
Jul 8, 2013, 04:30 PM
That logic ignores the fact that you can transfer rentals to other devices, so there is a legitimate reason to offer HD content on non-HD devices.

but his logic ignores that fact that you are just temporarily renting the item and therefore, you are not likely to view it on another device. If anything, it should be the other way around.

kokako
Jul 8, 2013, 04:33 PM
nice try

jwdsail
Jul 8, 2013, 04:34 PM
Not entirely true, I don't think: if you rent on a Mac/PC iTunes, you can transfer TO an iOS device. You can also transfer from one Mac/PC to another. But you cannot transfer a rental FROM an iOS device, last I knew. (And I think you should be able to.)

Shrug, I've never had issues..

http://support.apple.com/kb/PH1705

I've never tried renting on my iPhone and transferring it to the AppleTV .. so far - just got it.. mostly use a Mac Mini as HTPC.. Have Airplayed from a MacBook Pro to the AppleTV tho...

madcran
Jul 8, 2013, 04:34 PM
Seriously?

I wouldn't sue, especially if it was for renting 'Big Daddy' :rolleyes:

This is right up there with suing because your coffee is too hot!

I'm totally against frivolous lawsuits, but you should really check out the real reason she sued for hot coffee. It's not just about the scalding hot coffee to her legs and "other" areas (3rd degree burns), it's about how McDonald's business practices and their cover up of it that really won the lawsuit for the old lady. There's a good documentary about it.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com

It's on Netflix, http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Hot_Coffee/70167106 (http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Hot_Coffee/70167106)

G-Mo
Jul 8, 2013, 04:35 PM
This lawsuit is nonsense since you can move rented content between devices as many times as you wish during the rental period, so he may have rented on his iPhone but then could move and watch it on his HDTV later (which supports HD).

olowott
Jul 8, 2013, 04:37 PM
Hope he read the terms and conditions:rolleyes:

alexgowers
Jul 8, 2013, 04:44 PM
I hate these kind of law suits and prick cases.

I like the choice of HD or SD, rent or buy even when on a non HD device.

If I buy anything it's to keep for my lifetime, if I then get a HD i device then surely I should have had the option if it was available no matter what.

I would hate for some prick to have sued when I believe the opposite is actually true that if i wasn't allowed to have HD I would want to ensure apple to have it available.

Money grabbing wasters.

kevingaffney
Jul 8, 2013, 04:45 PM
Typical American attitude, sue

stiligFox
Jul 8, 2013, 04:49 PM
Never has the first world problems meme seem more appropriate.

I do understand that in the long run it could add up to a substantial amount over all iOS users making the same mistake, but this is something I'd submit as a bug report rather than go all SUUUUUUUUE

Casiotone
Jul 8, 2013, 04:51 PM
Apple screwed up, no question, and should return the extra dollar to everyone who made this mistake--nay, they should DOUBLE that amount as penalty. Even if that's many dozens of people. Then add legal fees.

(Assuming Apple refused a refund, which I've never known them to do. It's been downright painless, even when the mistake is mine.)




Not entirely true, I don't think: if you rent on a Mac/PC iTunes, you can transfer TO an iOS device. You can also transfer from one Mac/PC to another. But you cannot transfer a rental FROM an iOS device, last I knew. (And I think you should be able to.)

You can transfer purchases from an iOS device to iTunes, doesn't that also work for rentals?

BaldiMac
Jul 8, 2013, 04:52 PM
but his logic ignores that fact that you are just temporarily renting the item and therefore, you are not likely to view it on another device. If anything, it should be the other way around.

:confused: What should be the other way around? According to the article, the lawyer purposely bought HD content. "Likely" has nothing to do with it. Why would Apple override his specific choice?

Wild-Bill
Jul 8, 2013, 04:52 PM
What an *******. The legal system is already overloaded with frivolous lawsuits and patent trolls.

If being a douchebag was a crime HE'D be sued.

Shrink
Jul 8, 2013, 04:53 PM
Never has the first world problems meme seem more appropriate.

I do understand that in the long run it could add up to a substantial amount over all iOS users making the same mistake, but this is something I'd submit as a bug report rather than go all SUUUUUUUUE

You don't get national publicity and possibly some dough by doing the sensible thing and submitting a report.

Earendil
Jul 8, 2013, 05:02 PM
I actually agree with this one for a change. It's a classic "lets try to get away with it" scenario. The vast population wouldnt notice the fact that they paid the extra for no reason. And HD sounds like "It's much better!". These are millions and millions of dollars apple makes without giving the customer the premium product he paid for.

Only time will tell, but what you're saying with Apple having made "millions" relies on a few things:
1. "Millions and millions" of people have made this mistake and not cared.
2. Apple gets the dollar, instead of it going to a hollywood entity.

My guess is that it's a number in the thousands, and that Apple gets a small fraction of that extra dollar. It's really not worth it for Apple to intentionally be doing this imho.

Sometimes class action lawsuits are just a way to get companies to fix their mistakes.

I completely agree that sometimes they are useful, and that it's one of the better ways to curb a corporations nasty practices.

Apple screwed up, no question, and should return the extra dollar to everyone who made this mistake--nay, they should DOUBLE that amount as penalty. Even if that's many dozens of people. Then add legal fees.

(Assuming Apple refused a refund, which I've never known them to do. It's been downright painless, even when the mistake is mine.)

I think you should have lead with that last bit in the parentheses.

I see this entire thing as a huge sign of how amazing Apple is. Seriously. Consider this: Would anyone blame Amazon for not hacking something in that doesn't let you download HD content on unsupported devices? Would you blame the guy behind the brick and mortar counter for only letting you rent the VHS because even though you have a Blueray player, you only have a 20 y.o. tube TV? No, I don't think we would. We would recognize that as the personal mistake that it is. Technology is sometimes complex and confusing and takes an intentional effort to educate ones self to prevent mistakes.

Apple has created software and hardware products that on the whole do not require the same sort of intentional effort that many other products require. We expect Apple to protect us from ourselves, as if that's their responsibility inside the integrated would of software/hardware/cloud-store that we're so used to. But it's not an expectation that we hold for anyone else. So I see this as a good sign that Apple has been doing things very well, and this is just one tiny area where Apple could do better, but in the mean time they are no different than anyone else. Oh yeah, and you can get a refund if you make the mistake :cool:

blitzer09x87
Jul 8, 2013, 05:03 PM
you see apple, you really need to make a 1080p iphone and not to mention it should be sporting a quad-core chip.

Geminist
Jul 8, 2013, 05:06 PM
I bought a PS3 game but couldn't play it on my PS2. That's it, I'm suing Sony.

tom1971
Jul 8, 2013, 05:08 PM
What a douchebag !

obafgkm
Jul 8, 2013, 05:08 PM
To a point, I agree with the plaintiff. I'd like to see the default be the SD version of a video; that works on all devices. If someone wants the HD version, let them opt-in (as opposed to the current default of forcing somebody who wants to pay less to opt out).

stiligFox
Jul 8, 2013, 05:17 PM
You don't get national publicity and possibly some dough by doing the sensible thing and submitting a report.

But, but... Think of the children!

milo
Jul 8, 2013, 05:19 PM
I half agree.

There is the possibility that someone renting via iPhone also has another device that supports HD.

Seems like the most logical thing Apple should do is put up a box that says "This device doesn't support HD resolution. Buy anyway? Y/N"

goodcow
Jul 8, 2013, 05:22 PM
The real crime is charging extra for HD to begin with. Especially "HD" when it's encoded at 6Mbps.

Nunyabinez
Jul 8, 2013, 05:23 PM
Imagine this scenario. I'm on my way home and browsing through movies (for argument's sake let's say I'm on the subway). I see Big Daddy and want to rent it so I can watch it on my Apple TV when I get home. Apple detects that I'm using an ancient phone that can't display HD content and won't let me rent it. Now everyone jumps in on the "walled garden" and "Apple knows what is good for you" statements.

Since there are clear use cases where customers with SD devices would rent HD content, the most that Apple could be expected to do is to ask "Are you really sure you want to do this?"

So, there is no way this guy wins this lawsuit (not a lawyer), since there are other remedies available. I guarantee that if he contacted Apple and explained his situation it would have been resolved with a refund. He just wanted cheap publicity.

gnasher729
Jul 8, 2013, 05:24 PM
but his logic ignores that fact that you are just temporarily renting the item and therefore, you are not likely to view it on another device. If anything, it should be the other way around.

It's obvious that only a complete imbecile would rent a HD movie on a device that cannot display it (and if you have an iPhone, even if the resolution was high enough it would still be stupid), unless they own an Apple TV and actually _can_ display HD movies on their TV.

I'd say Apple should offer to pay him $1,000 - under the condition that this lawyer states under oath that he was too stupid to find the SD movie, and Apple has permission to publish this wherever they want.

Mrg02d
Jul 8, 2013, 05:25 PM
What a wesiel...

sclawis300
Jul 8, 2013, 05:25 PM
:confused: What should be the other way around? According to the article, the lawyer purposely bought HD content. "Likely" has nothing to do with it. Why would Apple override his specific choice?

Sorry, should have quoted the post that you were responding to as well. It mentioned that you cant buy ipad apps on your iphone.

Gasu E.
Jul 8, 2013, 05:26 PM
I'm totally against frivolous lawsuits, but you should really check out the real reason she sued for hot coffee. It's not just about the scalding hot coffee to her legs and "other" areas (3rd degree burns), it's about how McDonald's business practices and their cover up of it that really won the lawsuit for the old lady. There's a good documentary about it.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com

It's on Netflix, http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Hot_Coffee/70167106 (http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Hot_Coffee/70167106)

I agree with this, especially as I am someone who has suffered second degree burns from merely DRINKING McDonald's coffee, using my mouth as per normal coffee-drinking best practices. The first time, I thought it was just a mistake; the second time, after an occurance at another McD's, I realized it must have been company policy to set the coffee temp dangerously high. I do not patronize McD's since that time. But I'm glad that someone made the effort to prevent McD's from callously inflicting pain on thousands of people merely because it made their operation more efficient, or whatever theory motivated them.

BaldiMac
Jul 8, 2013, 05:28 PM
Not entirely true, I don't think: if you rent on a Mac/PC iTunes, you can transfer TO an iOS device. You can also transfer from one Mac/PC to another. But you cannot transfer a rental FROM an iOS device, last I knew. (And I think you should be able to.)

Those are the current terms for the iPhone 4 and later. You could rent a movie on a iPhone 3GS and transfer it to iTunes.

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2010/08/25/movies-rented-on-the-iphone-4-cant-be-transferred-back-to-itunes/

Mr. Retrofire
Jul 8, 2013, 05:28 PM
I thought Apples HD movies have the same quality as other SD movies!? :p

RightMACatU
Jul 8, 2013, 05:32 PM
Well now it's clear that Weiselberg represents a bunch of morons :D

Welcome to America where you can own as many guns as you want gun but don't go piss off people by charging HD premium on morons' device :rolleyes:

macs4nw
Jul 8, 2013, 05:33 PM
Wow, just wow. Next lawsuit from this lawyer is they going to allow rental on HD devices and then sue when they watch it on their non HD iPhone since Apple is nice enough to support older devices that don't display HD. People seriously need to get a life.

Agreed! This is no 'exploding batteries' issue, people.

.....Sometimes class action lawsuits are just a way to get companies to fix their mistakes. And for some lawyer to make a bucket of money, of course...

The latter, unfortunately, too often seems to take precedence.

.....According to the filing, Weiselberg rented and downloaded the high definition version of the movie "Big Daddy," before discovering that his iPhone did not support HD playback. HD content is often offered at a premium in the App Store, and Weiselberg says that he was "tricked" into paying an extra $1 for the content.....

Tricked, how? And as a lawyer, wouldn't you expect him to actually read his options, before proceeding with that rental?

.....While SD and HD content is clearly marked in the App Store, Weiselberg was not aware that his phone could not play HD content.....

Coming from a lawyer, presumably an educated person, this borders on the incredulous.

.....and within the filing, he suggests that Apple should have automatically recognized the device type and prevented the purchase of HD content from an SD-only phone.....

Sure, are we all being expected to be little children again, needing to be taken by the hand.....this is akin to us expecting MACY's to estimate our size, while we're shopping, and to prevent us from buying the wrong size shirt.

.....HD playback was first introduced in 2008, alongside iTunes 8.0. At that time, older iPhones and iPod touches were not able to support the new format, allowing some mistaken purchases to be made. Apple has since changed the download process, introducing warnings and preventing HD content from being downloaded by SD device, but Weiselberg believes that SD options are still too difficult for users to find.....Article Link: Florida Lawyer Sues Apple for Renting HD Movies on Non-HD Devices (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/08/florida-lawyer-sues-apple-for-renting-hd-movies-on-non-hd-devices/)

APPLE became aware of the problem, and fixed it. I don't see any evidence of gross negligence, or malicious intent on the part of APPLE.

You have to wonder about the motives of this lawyer, in filing this class-action suit. Lawsuits are supposed to be used to correct gross miscarriages of justice, and to seek financial compensation for monetary damages, suffered as a result thereof. Could it be that this lawyer's motives are less than altruistic (in getting justice for his clients), and more about financial gain for himself; gain that would be way out of proportion to the 'damages' he actually suffered?

Put me in the 'skeptical' category. I find it hard to sympathize with this lawyer, and those he can convince to join the 'cause'.

FlatlinerG
Jul 8, 2013, 05:40 PM
What's next? Sue Macy's for shirts that do not fit instead of returning them for refund?

Solution, sew a size label onto all citizens so that they can match sizes more easily.

usbp456
Jul 8, 2013, 05:41 PM
and weird... A lawyer with an old phone??? He must be a bad lawyer that makes no money...

lol

Tknull
Jul 8, 2013, 05:44 PM
What ever happened to personal accountability? You make a mistake and purchase the wrong product, and you should live with the consequences.

Ha, can you imagine walking in to Best Buy to buy a blu-ray movie, only to have the sales clerk say "I'm sorry Sir/Ma'am, but i'm going to need to see a photo of your blu-ray player before I can sell you that."

justindo
Jul 8, 2013, 05:50 PM
In fairness while this is a bit frivolous, you have to agree to some extent with the logic that a non HD capable device shouldn't offer HD films. Kinda how your iPhone can't see iPad only apps :)

I disagree. Since rented shows can be viewed on various devices linked to the same Apple ID, non-HD devices should be able to purchase HD shows.

For example, what if I want to start watching a movie on my iPad2 at school/work/wherever and then finish watching it at home on my AppleTV in HD. Even thought my iPad doesn't support HD my TV does, so leave me the option.

wknapp0924
Jul 8, 2013, 05:50 PM
I rented a HD movie on my Apple TV and said I thought the HD looked bad and got refunded in full no questions asked. Just get your 3.99 back.

Zoboomafoo
Jul 8, 2013, 05:53 PM
So, there probably is a bit of logic that could be applied to making this better.

#1 - Use iCloud to detect my possible devices. If I don't have anything else, don't make me pay for what I can't display.

#2 - Probably better is to charge for use. When soemone rents, charge them for what they watched it with.

I'd say, design for the common case here. Not sure how many people transfer rentals from one thing to another. If I'm on an iphone, the default seems best to be what the iphone can display. For an ATV, HD.

manu chao
Jul 8, 2013, 05:54 PM
You can transfer purchases from an iOS device to iTunes, doesn't that also work for rentals?
It doesn't work for movie rentals. At least when I last read the relevant terms in Apple's documentation.

chadua
Jul 8, 2013, 05:58 PM
I accidently ordered an HD movie on my Xbox 360 and Microsoft gave me double my points back when I called to get it fixed. (there had been some kind of error on their end. I think I had submitted the order for SD and it failed and when I clicked the re-submit button it had defaulted back to HD)

And I've never had Apple customer support simply dismiss me either. I've also downloaded movies before to watch on another device. A message saying this file can't be played on your device before the download might be nice, but a law suite doesn't seem at all right.

manu chao
Jul 8, 2013, 06:00 PM
Not entirely true, I don't think: if you rent on a Mac/PC iTunes, you can transfer TO an iOS device. You can also transfer from one Mac/PC to another. But you cannot transfer a rental FROM an iOS device, last I knew. (And I think you should be able to.)
Does Airplay to an AppleTV work for rented HD movies? If it technically works (not sure about the bandwidth required for HD), I think it should work because it is really treated like a remote loudspeaker and monitor. It definitely works for the audio of a movie with an Airport Express.

I also don't know if you have to be logged into an AppleTV with the same AppleID as for example on a computer to stream copy-protected material to it. I would assume you don't have to. Thus, people might buy an HD movie on their phone and then stream it later to an AppleTV that is not registered to them. Even just throwing up a warning (every time somebody tries to buy HD content on a non-HD device) does get annoying.

macs4nw
Jul 8, 2013, 06:12 PM
.....I'd say Apple should offer to pay him $1,000 - under the condition that this lawyer states under oath that he was too stupid to find the SD movie, and Apple has permission to publish this wherever they want.

That kind of publicity, is definitely not what he's looking for, lol, and something tells me, he's not gonne take APPLE up, on such a 'generous' offer. :D

TsMkLg068426
Jul 8, 2013, 06:25 PM
Is the lawyer Saul Goodman from Breaking Bad?

scwinsett
Jul 8, 2013, 06:35 PM
Can't wait to sue Walmart for selling me a Bluray of All The Presidents Men when all I have is a VCR

Mr. Retrofire
Jul 8, 2013, 06:51 PM
What ever happened to personal accountability? You make a mistake and purchase the wrong product, and you should live with the consequences.
Not in this world & time.

bathurstguy
Jul 8, 2013, 06:56 PM
So if I go to the video shop and rent a blue-ray movie, then get home and I only have a DVD player, I would return and swap! Not sue.

Peoples should stop blaming others for their incompetence or lack of understanding.

techwhiz
Jul 8, 2013, 06:59 PM
He's a troll.
He's a lawyer representing a class.

He stands to make a ton, if the class is certified.

In a class action suit, the lawyers make the cash.

He's trying to cash in. It has nothing to do with his purchase and everything to do with he can get a payday.

samcraig
Jul 8, 2013, 07:04 PM
Doubled edged sword - or perhaps Apple has painted themselves in a mental corner for some.

Meaning - Apple's devices and ecosystem are known for "just working" - simple, easy to use, walled garden, safe, idiot proof. Whether true or not. That's (for the most part) how people view Apple's devices. Apple to a large part plays into that as well.

Torn on this issue because yes - the guy should know better (and quite frankly who needs to see Adam Sandler's movies in HD har har) and it's not Apple's "fault" per se that he made a purchase on a device that couldn't handle it.

That being said - as for the reasons listed above - I do think that it would be perhaps smart for Apple to put such restrictions in place and/or default to SD (which I don't think my devices had - I think I had to manually select SD since HD was the default). Another option would be to restrict older devices to only purchasing SD and then if played back on a capable device - throw up a pop up that says "do you want to upgrade to HD for $1.00 more."

Think of it as "upsizing" :)

Tknull
Jul 8, 2013, 07:49 PM
Apple has already chosen their lawyer to handle this case...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lURHNLrwtc

marksman
Jul 8, 2013, 08:02 PM
This seems baseless since you can play the content on multiple devices and might have plans to watch it on an HD device. Apple is not psychic.

Glideslope
Jul 8, 2013, 08:12 PM
Non Event. :apple:

weing
Jul 8, 2013, 08:18 PM
I hate lawyers as much as the next guy but he does have a point. By their burying the Standard Rez version "under the button", iTunes made it very easy to pay that extra $ for HD when you just wanted to rent the standard version for economy and drive space on an iOS device. I doubt that was an accident.

pubwvj
Jul 8, 2013, 08:24 PM
Yes, Apple is engaging in purposefully predatory practices confusing customers however if you just ask they'll refund it. This happened to me, they fixed it. This is not worth a class action lawsuit or any lawsuit. He is wasting the courts time out of greed. No surprise.

lighthouse_man
Jul 8, 2013, 08:39 PM
He knows he's not going anywhere with this case but he got what he wanted, his name in the paper. This will attract some gullible clients on the basis that he stands up to big corporations.

Sun Baked
Jul 8, 2013, 08:50 PM
Wouldn't the class action lawsuit against stupid people include too many defendants.

Be easier to send them "You can't cure stupid" t-shirts.

christophermdia
Jul 8, 2013, 09:32 PM
Forgive me if this is already stated, but you could rent from an old iPod touch/3GS and then watch on your iMac, MacBook, or appletv, so I think he has no case whatsoever....

Yumbo
Jul 8, 2013, 11:36 PM
This seems baseless since you can play the content on multiple devices and might have plans to watch it on an HD device. Apple is not psychic.

Apple's marketing of movies is misleading in this regard. You can transfer purchases but NOT rentals, which is NOT stated on the movies page, which advertises rentals. Even when you rent something, there is NO warning to inform you of that.
The fine print is that you can only transfer one way, but not the other, which defeats the whole it just works philosophy.
If anything, sue on those grounds.

Amazing Iceman
Jul 9, 2013, 12:27 AM
In fairness while this is a bit frivolous, you have to agree to some extent with the logic that a non HD capable device shouldn't offer HD films. Kinda how your iPhone can't see iPad only apps :)

I'm sure a letter of complaint and request for a refund would have worked well enough though :P

True. Still, nothing worth a lawsuit. Just ridiculous.
And of course it has to be a Florida lawyer.... Not surprising...

----------

That kind of publicity, is definitely not what he's looking for, lol, and something tells me, he's not gonne take APPLE up, on such a 'generous' offer. :D

Someone put lawyer in a box and ship to North Korea...

----------

Forgive me if this is already stated, but you could rent from an old iPod touch/3GS and then watch on your iMac, MacBook, or appletv, so I think he has no case whatsoever....

Yes, i want to be able to rent and buy on any device, even if it's unsupported, and watch later on my supported devices.

This just smells like scam all over.
Sadly, Florida is the crib of fraud, which affects its citizens. We have to pay higher home/auto/health, etc. insurance because of all these crooks.

anthony11
Jul 9, 2013, 12:27 AM
Option 1: Request refund

Option 2: Learn for the future

Option 3: SUE!

Clearly the most rational choice is option 3.

FWIW option 1 above isn't much of an option, since it isn't easy to do, and in my experience Apple tends to ignore refund requests.

chadua
Jul 9, 2013, 12:52 AM
FWIW option 1 above isn't much of an option, since it isn't easy to do, and in my experience Apple tends to ignore refund requests.

In my experience apple has processed every one of my refund requests. Probably about 6 since I've started using iTunes.

jonnysods
Jul 9, 2013, 01:03 AM
Settle out of court for $8.

H2SO4
Jul 9, 2013, 01:28 AM
I'm totally against frivolous lawsuits, but you should really check out the real reason she sued for hot coffee. It's not just about the scalding hot coffee to her legs and "other" areas (3rd degree burns), it's about how McDonald's business practices and their cover up of it that really won the lawsuit for the old lady. There's a good documentary about it.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com

It's on Netflix, http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Hot_Coffee/70167106 (http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Hot_Coffee/70167106)

Is still a frivolous load of balderdash. When the vast majority of people make hot drinks themselves they use boiling water, some use no milk which leaves nothing except time to cool it.
By this logic kettle manufatcurues should all, (I know some do recently), have a 'hot drinks' setting to prevent similar instances.

You boil the kettle, (as I'm sure Liebeck usually does), pour into a vessel, add milk and sugar to taste and then drink, or sip.

mumph
Jul 9, 2013, 04:13 AM
I got caught out with this too. I bought Lincoln in HD (1080p) but my 1st Gen AppleTV cant play it. In fairness I should of known but I saw HD and thought yeh ok. Only to be 'reminded' that I cant actually view it because my hardware cant handle it even though I am able to buy it on the device.

I do have an iPad 3 so I can view it on their and on my iMac but I really wanted to watch it on the TV. If it didnt show up on the ATV I wouldnt of bought it as I'm not getting value for money which I guess is where the lawsuit comes in. I'm not one for lawsuits and jumping on bandwagons but this one does have a bit of weight to it. :s

Rossatron
Jul 9, 2013, 04:21 AM
In fairness while this is a bit frivolous, you have to agree to some extent with the logic that a non HD capable device shouldn't offer HD films. Kinda how your iPhone can't see iPad only apps :)

I'm sure a letter of complaint and request for a refund would have worked well enough though :P

or you know, people could start using their brain instead of throwing responsibility on others

alent1234
Jul 9, 2013, 05:11 AM
I got caught out with this too. I bought Lincoln in HD (1080p) but my 1st Gen AppleTV cant play it. In fairness I should of known but I saw HD and thought yeh ok. Only to be 'reminded' that I cant actually view it because my hardware cant handle it even though I am able to buy it on the device.

I do have an iPad 3 so I can view it on their and on my iMac but I really wanted to watch it on the TV. If it didnt show up on the ATV I wouldnt of bought it as I'm not getting value for money which I guess is where the lawsuit comes in. I'm not one for lawsuits and jumping on bandwagons but this one does have a bit of weight to it. :s


It's like buying a blu ray - DVD set when you only have a DVD player

kurosov
Jul 9, 2013, 06:36 AM
Correct me if i'm wrong, but just cause you buy the movie on one device, that doesn't mean it's only playable on said device. I thought you could buy something on the iPhone and it would be available on your iPad, Laptop and AppleTV as well.

Edit: Baldimac just answered my question :)

Yep, and I do it often. He's basically complaining at a feature many people actually make use of.

Now, if he was complaining at certain HD purchases only available on the iPad while the desktop version only offers SD...

chrf097
Jul 9, 2013, 06:39 AM
In fairness while this is a bit frivolous, you have to agree to some extent with the logic that a non HD capable device shouldn't offer HD films. Kinda how your iPhone can't see iPad only apps :)

I'm sure a letter of complaint and request for a refund would have worked well enough though :P

My old 2nd gen iPod touch doesn't allow me to buy HD movies. The only way I can see this happening is if he bought it on iTunes as HD and then tried to put it on.

I WAS the one
Jul 9, 2013, 06:49 AM
This is just obvious. He just wants money. Why in the hell he rents an HD movie on a SD device? oh right... to sue them afterwards!

Gav2k
Jul 9, 2013, 07:17 AM
I got caught out with this too. I bought Lincoln in HD (1080p) but my 1st Gen AppleTV cant play it. In fairness I should of known but I saw HD and thought yeh ok. Only to be 'reminded' that I cant actually view it because my hardware cant handle it even though I am able to buy it on the device.

I do have an iPad 3 so I can view it on their and on my iMac but I really wanted to watch it on the TV. If it didnt show up on the ATV I wouldnt of bought it as I'm not getting value for money which I guess is where the lawsuit comes in. I'm not one for lawsuits and jumping on bandwagons but this one does have a bit of weight to it. :s

What would you do if Apple took your money for the hd copy but streamed you a copy in sd. I think that would piss you off a lot more than finding out you just can't watch it and fire an email off for a refund which you would get.

This joke of a lawsuit has to many holes in it. The t&c's clearly state he playback on compatable devices only with a list of exclusions added to the fact you can rent on any device for the ease of bein able to Que a movie to watch later on a compatable device.

Tbh if Apple changed it so I couldn't rent at work and view later that would annoy me. But tbh I'm not running an old iOS device so won't have this issue any time soon.

GoCubsGo
Jul 9, 2013, 07:24 AM
This just in, another lawyer shows how incredibly stupid they can be.

While I get the point, this hardly warrants another suit.

mumph
Jul 9, 2013, 07:27 AM
But tbh I'm not running an old iOS device so won't have this issue any time soon.

But many of us are. Our iOS devices dont magically update their hardware, shame really because that would be cool hehe.

The point is that they are making available HD downloads on devices that cant utilise them. So if you only have an original iPad for example and download a HD movie because you were naive to the requirements (like many people unfortunately) then you would of wasted 9.99.

I downloaded my Lincoln example because I simply didnt think about it, i know the requirements, plus I do have devices capable of utilising the file so It didnt worry me too much.

My uncle or nan for example might tap on the HD option simply because it says 'buy now' quite correctly thinking that if its available to purchase on a device it should be able to utilise the file.

Why do Apple block iPad apps appearing for purchase on the iPhone? Because they wont work. Why dont they block HD films on none HD devices then?

I'm not saying this warrants a lawsuit, I'm just saying there is something behind it.

RWinOR
Jul 9, 2013, 08:16 AM
These kinds of things are such a waste of time! If we launched class-action lawsuits every time someone freely purchased something they could not use the courts would be full and we would not be able to do anything or even enjoy life.

How about suing the oil companies, because you can put premium gas into your old clunker of an automobile that does not need premium and will run fine on regular gas!

How about suing the coffee shops for charging more for an Americano when you could just get a house coffee.

How about suing....... The list would never end.

Thank god for lawyers, without them we would have no idea how ridiculous our society is or how stupid some people can be.

chanman
Jul 9, 2013, 08:37 AM
"Demand a refund"-The Boss

frostiex
Jul 9, 2013, 08:41 AM
I don't know about this lawyer...but in my household. I have both HD and SD ONly IOS devices. Which to me it a logical choice to buy the HD version so all my devices can see the vids.

Get a new phone you stupid lawyer

moxxey
Jul 9, 2013, 09:01 AM
Typical American attitude, sue

We have download stores in the US, CA, AU, UK and SE. Guess which territory has the most awkward and demanding customers? You barely hear back from Aussies. American's? They go straight for the jugular, don't listen to reason and call their credit card company to get their money back (no other territory can do this as easily).

The problem over there is that 'satisfaction' seems to reside solely with the seller. The customer often takes zero responsibility. They are backed by their card company and easy litigation.

Oldschoolers
Jul 9, 2013, 09:43 AM
Well at least it isn't Apple vs Samsung again lol.....Seriously thoguht - shouldn't this be done via the Better Business Bureau, where they can have Apple pull the records and refund those who are affected, while they fix iTunes? I'm sure Apple will settle out of court. If this lawyer can't afford an iPhone that does HD he won't stand a chance against Apple's legal team.

Dagless
Jul 9, 2013, 09:58 AM
I dunno, makes sense to me that there should at least be a notification that the device won't play the film in HD.

It's a shame that he has to sue for this, but it's also a huge shame you need this kind of action to get big companies to move.

ctdonath
Jul 9, 2013, 10:01 AM
This is right up there with suing because your coffee is too hot!

Public Service Tangent: the optimal temperature for brewing coffee is 2005.

KillaMac
Jul 9, 2013, 10:03 AM
About time,

BaldiMac
Jul 9, 2013, 10:10 AM
Apple's marketing of movies is misleading in this regard. You can transfer purchases but NOT rentals, which is NOT stated on the movies page, which advertises rentals. Even when you rent something, there is NO warning to inform you of that.
The fine print is that you can only transfer one way, but not the other, which defeats the whole it just works philosophy.
If anything, sue on those grounds.

You could transfer rentals on the iPhone 3GS and earlier.

I dunno, makes sense to me that there should at least be a notification that the device won't play the film in HD.

It's a shame that he has to sue for this, but it's also a huge shame you need this kind of action to get big companies to move.

Apple already moved before they were sued. The lawsuit acknowledges that Apple already added notifications.

ctdonath
Jul 9, 2013, 10:11 AM
He's a lawyer representing a class.

Not that the class wants to be represented.

thelatinist
Jul 9, 2013, 10:14 AM
I don't think people are appreciating the real sneakiness of this. The whole point of this is to get a judgment or settlement, however insignificant, and then petition the court to make Apple pay his exhorbitant attorney fees (which, since he is representing himself, will go right into his own pocket). He's just creating work for himself at everyone else's expense.

zorinlynx
Jul 9, 2013, 10:15 AM
I'm betting the extra dollar merely goes towards paying for the additional bandwidth, and thus Apple keeps all of it.

Either way, this guy is an idiot and is just trying to make a quick buck. I'm sure if he wins he will allocate a fairly sizable part of the settlement to himself for his own "fees". Meanwhile the people who supposedly got "screwed" will probably just get a free iTunes rental (which costs Apple basically nothing)

BaldiMac
Jul 9, 2013, 10:18 AM
I'm betting the extra dollar merely goes towards paying for the additional bandwidth, and thus Apple keeps all of it.

You don't think the content owner gets paid more for an HD movie? I find that hard to believe.

ctdonath
Jul 9, 2013, 10:26 AM
I'm betting the extra dollar merely goes towards paying for the additional bandwidth

HD has more content than SD (that's the point of HD: more visual content a la higher resolution). The studios want to get paid for that additional content.

It's not like :apple: is given the HD copy and then just delivers every other row & column of pixels. :apple: pays for a separate source file containing more valuable content; it is, from a technical standpoint, a completely different movie with a higher price tag.

codewrangler
Jul 9, 2013, 11:40 AM
I'm sure if he just emailed Apple, they would have adjusted the charge.

Did this guy run out of ambulances to chase? Why do people clog up the courts with ridiculous litigation? Waste of time and money.

HitchHykr
Jul 9, 2013, 12:32 PM
Tim Cook should just mail the lawyer a check for $1

j4zb4
Jul 9, 2013, 12:34 PM
Sorry, should have quoted the post that you were responding to as well. It mentioned that you cant buy ipad apps on your iphone.

But the apps you buy on the phone you use on the phone... If I buy/rent a movie from my iPhone I can download it on my mac and on my iPad and on my PC... I can even stream it to my HDTV with AirPlay...

cube
Jul 9, 2013, 12:37 PM
Can't you output FullHD from an iPhone to a TV ?

A different issue is that Lightning is crap.

j4zb4
Jul 9, 2013, 12:41 PM
I agree with this, especially as I am someone who has suffered second degree burns from merely DRINKING McDonald's coffee, using my mouth as per normal coffee-drinking best practices. The first time, I thought it was just a mistake; the second time, after an occurance at another McD's, I realized it must have been company policy to set the coffee temp dangerously high. I do not patronize McD's since that time. But I'm glad that someone made the effort to prevent McD's from callously inflicting pain on thousands of people merely because it made their operation more efficient, or whatever theory motivated them.

Preference for hot coffee is very subjective... Some like it scalding hot, some hot, some like it Luke warm... If you serve a customers very hot coffees the people who prefer it less hot can just wait a bit for the coffee to cool off... But if you serve Luke warm as your standard coffee how can customers who like their coffees piping hot heat their coffees...?

gnasher729
Jul 9, 2013, 02:06 PM
Preference for hot coffee is very subjective... Some like it scalding hot, some hot, some like it Luke warm... If you serve a customers very hot coffees the people who prefer it less hot can just wait a bit for the coffee to cool off... But if you serve Luke warm as your standard coffee how can customers who like their coffees piping hot heat their coffees...?

People make mistakes. I often buy coffee, put it on a tray, carry it to a table. I'm notoriously careful, always carry it so it won't go on top of people if I drop it. There's probably a one in ten thousand chance that I would spill coffee on some person.

One in ten thousand means coffee gets spilled over an awful lot of people every year. Totally unavoidable. Now if that coffee is scalding hot, lots of people will be scalded. Scalding hot is the difference between annoyance and possibly lengthy hospital visit.

However, if a company's management is aware of this... and had literally hundreds of cases against them settled out of court... and continues serving dangerously hot coffee, because they offer free refills and scalding hot coffee means nobody takes them up on that offer which saves money... more money than they paid out to victims of that policy... then clearly the payouts must be made higher to stop them.

skottichan
Jul 9, 2013, 02:13 PM
People make mistakes. I often buy coffee, put it on a tray, carry it to a table. I'm notoriously careful, always carry it so it won't go on top of people if I drop it. There's probably a one in ten thousand chance that I would spill coffee on some person.

One in ten thousand means coffee gets spilled over an awful lot of people every year. Totally unavoidable. Now if that coffee is scalding hot, lots of people will be scalded. Scalding hot is the difference between annoyance and possibly lengthy hospital visit.

However, if a company's management is aware of this... and had literally hundreds of cases against them settled out of court... and continues serving dangerously hot coffee, because they offer free refills and scalding hot coffee means nobody takes them up on that offer which saves money... more money than they paid out to victims of that policy... then clearly the payouts must be made higher to stop them.


The lack of sympathy from the suit is this. It's hot coffee, I can understand it tipping on a tray, but the woman who sued, took the lid off, after putting it between her thighs, in a moving car.

How is the spill McDonald's fault? Yes, the coffee is hot, but like the post above you said, it's easier for the consumer to let hot coffee cool, than it is to heat it up.

We need to stop protecting people like the McDonald's woman, and this lawyer. There was nothing malicious intent-wise in either this case or the McDonald's one.

Swytch
Jul 9, 2013, 02:25 PM
So when I go to the AT&T store and the clerk sees me make a phone call on my iphone 4S while I am buying a iPhone 5 Case, I can then sue AT&T for not telling me the case I am buying wont fit on my iPhone 4S?

Or more specific to rentals, if I am playing my DS at blockbuster while checking out to rent a PSVita game, I can sue if they dont inform me its not compatible?

At the checkout at a Grocery Store the clerk overhears my wife tell me she is lactose intolerant, I can sue if they dont inform me the cheese we are buying has milk?

There are a million examples, it is not the stores responsibility to do research for you.

Again he could have had anotehr device capable of HD he was planning on watching on.

And really, HD content to watch exclusively on an iPhone screen (even a retina)? seems like a silly purchase in the first place to me, so if I were apple, I would assume that he would only select it if he knew he had something bigger to watch it on.

Would you even want to download HD content to a iPhone and take up all that space for something you cant truly enjoy without a bigger screen?

The only real issue I see here is that there is no way to download the HD version on a SD Only iPhone so it can be streamed to a device that supports HD playback but only has WiFi and no available internet access. However, who wants to download a full HD movie over Cellular data speeds?

Solomani
Jul 9, 2013, 02:35 PM
People are ass hats when it comes to lawsuits.

Lawyers are not people.

----------

I don't think people are appreciating the real sneakiness of this. The whole point of this is to get a judgment or settlement, however insignificant, and then petition the court to make Apple pay his exhorbitant attorney fees (which, since he is representing himself, will go right into his own pocket). He's just creating work for himself at everyone else's expense.

Even IF this ******* lawyer wins, the most likely settlement forced on Apple would be to award some paltry $3 iTunes gift card for each customer affected. Which will be a very small number of people who actually were daft enough to purchase/download HD movies into their non-HD Apple hardware.

But the net loss is millions of dollars costing and tying up the US judicial system on this frivolous suit. But the lawyer will certainly get a few million in legal fees since he is "representing" the people, and himself.

mattopotamus
Jul 9, 2013, 02:35 PM
Lawyers are not people.

I actually have a law degree, but decided I did not want to practice law haha.

malexandria
Jul 9, 2013, 03:29 PM
is it frivolous? yes. but he has a point, it is very misleading to charge an HD premium for content that clearly isn't HD and not supported by your iDevices. Other companies like Vudu and Cinemanow detects whether your device is capable of delivering HD content or not and delivers the appropriate options. There's no reason Apple and iTunes can't do the same thing. Detect the device you are purchasing on and only deliver the options the device supports. Especially considering HD Digital Versions are almost always at a premium price - sometimes twice as much as SD.

BaldiMac
Jul 9, 2013, 03:42 PM
Other companies like Vudu and Cinemanow detects whether your device is capable of delivering HD content or not and delivers the appropriate options. There's no reason Apple and iTunes can't do the same thing.

Apple does do the same thing.

Detect the device you are purchasing on and only deliver the options the device supports.

As pointed out multiple times, rentals were transferable, so there was a legitimate reason to purchase HD versions on an SD device.

designs216
Jul 9, 2013, 03:44 PM
Come on guy! You did something stupid -- take personal responsibility!

This reminds me of that lady (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants) that spilled the hot coffee she was unwisely clutching between her knees, then went after McD's for damages. I cannot believe juries pay people no matter how frivolous the suit.

BaldiMac
Jul 9, 2013, 03:51 PM
This reminds me of that lady (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants) that spilled the hot coffee she was unwisely clutching between her knees, then went after McD's for damages. I cannot believe juries pay people no matter how frivolous the suit.

Because everyone should expect third degree burns requiring skin grafts from spilling a beverage! How could McDonald's reasonably expect anyone would spill their drink?!

:rolleyes:

malexandria
Jul 9, 2013, 04:04 PM
Because everyone should expect third degree burns requiring skin grafts from spilling a beverage! How could McDonald's reasonably expect anyone would spill their drink?!

:rolleyes:

Agree. Such a tired, ill-informed comment. It turns out that McDonalds was repeatedly fined and warned about the temperature in the coffee, the lids were flimsy and any drink that causes major 3rd degree burns tells you it was brewed too hot and was "undrinkable" to begin with. I've spilled Tea or other hot beverages on myself in the past and never got burns.

gnasher729
Jul 9, 2013, 04:13 PM
The lack of sympathy from the suit is this. It's hot coffee, I can understand it tipping on a tray, but the woman who sued, took the lid off, after putting it between her thighs, in a moving car.

How is the spill McDonald's fault? Yes, the coffee is hot, but like the post above you said, it's easier for the consumer to let hot coffee cool, than it is to heat it up.

We need to stop protecting people like the McDonald's woman, and this lawyer. There was nothing malicious intent-wise in either this case or the McDonald's one.

For some strange reasons, Americans always talk about the merits of taking personal responsibility, but they reject that principle when they talk about company management. Actually, the term "personal responsibility" is most often used to refuse companies taking responsibility. McDonalds clearly created a dangerous situation and profited from it. 700 cases are plenty of evidence that they knew they created a problem. It's like a car manufacturer building cars without seatbelts to save money. The damage is caused by creating a dangerous situation, _and_ someone making a mistake.

Now if a lawyer knew that McDonald's coffee was too hot, and intentionally threw coffee over himself to sue McDonald's, that should be rejected. That's what this situation is like. If Apple had an option hidden somewhere in the iPhone to buy HD versions even when the customer clicks on "buy SD", enabled by default in a place very hard to find, that would be comparable to the McDonald's case.

----------

Come on guy! You did something stupid -- take personal responsibility!

This reminds me of that lady (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants) that spilled the hot coffee she was unwisely clutching between her knees, then went after McD's for damages. I cannot believe juries pay people no matter how frivolous the suit.

I read this after the post that I'm adding this to - exactly what I said. You say "take personal responsibility" but what you mean is "management shouldn't have to take responsibility". What's wrong with McDonald's taking personal responsibility? And isn't it much much easier to make things safe if _one_ McDonald's executive decides that coffee should be sold at safe temperature, than millions of customers having to watch out?

sclawis300
Jul 9, 2013, 05:09 PM
But the apps you buy on the phone you use on the phone... If I buy/rent a movie from my iPhone I can download it on my mac and on my iPad and on my PC... I can even stream it to my HDTV with AirPlay...

the point was that you don't necessarily use the thing you purchase on the device you purchase it with. ie, you rent a movie on your iphone/ipad watch it on apple tv (I assume this is possible). My point was I thought it was more likely that you will watch something you rent on the device on which you actually rent the item in question. The issue was brought up that you can't see ipad only apps on your iphone.

Your statement holds true for ipad apps as well, if I buy it with my iphone I can see it on my ipad. So why can't I see iPad apps on my iPhone?

(I concede that it got way more confusing based on the way I presented the argument without linking to all the quotes.)

BaldiMac
Jul 9, 2013, 05:13 PM
Your statement holds true for ipad apps as well, if I buy it with my iphone I can see it on my ipad. So why can't I see iPad apps on my iPhone?

The difference is that with movies there is a fallback for the device that it is purchased on (SD version). For iPad only apps, you can't use (or even download them) on your iPhone at all.

gnasher729
Jul 9, 2013, 10:20 PM
Come on guy! You did something stupid -- take personal responsibility!

This reminds me of that lady (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants) that spilled the hot coffee she was unwisely clutching between her knees, then went after McD's for damages. I cannot believe juries pay people no matter how frivolous the suit.

Actually, she just tried to get paid the cost of her medical treatment of $24,000. When a jury heard the actual facts (700 similar cases settled out of court, and McDonald's still selling scalding hot coffee) they raised the damages to millions of dollars, which the judge then reduced to several hundred thousand.

j4zb4
Jul 10, 2013, 01:55 AM
People make mistakes. I often buy coffee, put it on a tray, carry it to a table. I'm notoriously careful, always carry it so it won't go on top of people if I drop it. There's probably a one in ten thousand chance that I would spill coffee on some person.

One in ten thousand means coffee gets spilled over an awful lot of people every year. Totally unavoidable. Now if that coffee is scalding hot, lots of people will be scalded. Scalding hot is the difference between annoyance and possibly lengthy hospital visit.

However, if a company's management is aware of this... and had literally hundreds of cases against them settled out of court... and continues serving dangerously hot coffee, because they offer free refills and scalding hot coffee means nobody takes them up on that offer which saves money... more money than they paid out to victims of that policy... then clearly the payouts must be made higher to stop them.

Every year there are a lot of accidents at high speeds in exotic cars... Yes it's Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, Pagani's fault... They shouldn't make such fast cars... Bad corporates I tell you...

the point was that you don't necessarily use the thing you purchase on the device you purchase it with. ie, you rent a movie on your iphone/ipad watch it on apple tv (I assume this is possible). My point was I thought it was more likely that you will watch something you rent on the device on which you actually rent the item in question. The issue was brought up that you can't see ipad only apps on your iphone.

Your statement holds true for ipad apps as well, if I buy it with my iphone I can see it on my ipad. So why can't I see iPad apps on my iPhone?

(I concede that it got way more confusing based on the way I presented the argument without linking to all the quotes.)

AFAIK some apps are common... i.e. the same app works on both... Whereas some apps are made only for the iPad and they are won't run on the iPhone...


Actually, she just tried to get paid the cost of her medical treatment of $24,000. When a jury heard the actual facts (700 similar cases settled out of court, and McDonald's still selling scalding hot coffee) they raised the damages to millions of dollars, which the judge then reduced to several hundred thousand.

$24,000 to cure a burn...? You've got to be kidding me... You could get an angiography done with that much money...

And she shouldn't have been clutching it with her knees anyways... Especially while driving...

Next I'll try to eat through my nose and sue the restaurant when I choke...

BaldiMac
Jul 10, 2013, 08:14 AM
$24,000 to cure a burn...? You've got to be kidding me... You could get an angiography done with that much money...

She looked to settle for $20,000. Eight days in the hospital, skin grafts, two years of physical therapy, and $5,000 for loss of income. Not that outrageous.

And she shouldn't have been clutching it with her knees anyways... Especially while driving...

She wasn't driving. She was parked in the passenger seat adding cream and sugar. And the award was specifically reduced because she shared fault.

sclawis300
Jul 10, 2013, 09:15 AM
AFAIK some apps are common... i.e. the same app works on both... Whereas some apps are made only for the iPad and they are won't run on the iPhone...



That is the point of the suit. You can buy it but cant use it. You can't by apps on the iphone that you cannot use on an iphone. My point was that you buy an app and it is linked to your itunes account. If you later pick up a different device you can then download it to that device.

For example. Some iPad only game is FREE for one day only. Unfortunately I don't have my iPad with me because I am on the road. I would like to purchase it with my iPhone but I can't because it is iPad only. I think if you can rent a movie that is unwatchable, under the argument that you can watch it on another device, then you should be able to download an app using the same theory.




$24,000 to cure a burn...? You've got to be kidding me... You could get an angiography done with that much money...

And she shouldn't have been clutching it with her knees anyways... Especially while driving...

Next I'll try to eat through my nose and sue the restaurant when I choke...

Have you ever had skin grafts? or stayed in the hospital for multiple days? It is not cheap. I wouldn't go judging someone if you don't know all the facts.

BaldiMac
Jul 10, 2013, 09:37 AM
That is the point of the suit. You can buy it but cant use it. You can't by apps on the iphone that you cannot use on an iphone. My point was that you buy an app and it is linked to your itunes account. If you later pick up a different device you can then download it to that device.

For example. Some iPad only game is FREE for one day only. Unfortunately I don't have my iPad with me because I am on the road. I would like to purchase it with my iPhone but I can't because it is iPad only. I think if you can rent a movie that is unwatchable, under the argument that you can watch it on another device, then you should be able to download an app using the same theory.

An HD movie was more like a Universal app. The SD version was included for SD devices.

Gasu E.
Jul 10, 2013, 09:53 AM
And she shouldn't have been clutching it with her knees anyways... Especially while driving...



She was not driving. She was a passenger in a parked car.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe a food should be sold that can cause third-degree burns, requiring skin grafts, in two to seven seconds, even if you decide to take a bath in it. This is just crazy. McDs claimed during the trial that they knew it was dangerously hot, but that no one drinks their coffee right away, so that it always cools down. Clearly, this is bogus. Now, in my personal experieince, McDs coffee made my lips blister and my upper palate peel. Perhaps, in your view, it was my fault for doing something stupid such as "drinking" it using my "mouth." Of course, I just ended up just doing the smart thing after that and stopped buying their wretched product.

Gasu E.
Jul 10, 2013, 10:04 AM
Have you ever had skin grafts? or stayed in the hospital for multiple days? It is not cheap. I wouldn't go judging someone if you don't know all the facts.

Any skeptics should Google "Stella Liebeck". You can see some images of her burns and grafts.

larrybeo
Jul 10, 2013, 01:54 PM
I agree with this. I think this is absurd they would offer these options for the non-HD devices. Now if someone could please help me decide if my iPad Mini is an HD display or not? :)

Truffy
Jul 10, 2013, 03:20 PM
He should sue himself for renting a movie to watch on 3.5" screen on one count and another for renting an Adam Sandler movie.
I up voted this post. And if I wasn't registered already, I'd register simply so that I could up vote it!

sclawis300
Jul 10, 2013, 05:22 PM
Any skeptics should Google "Stella Liebeck". You can see some images of her burns and grafts.

NSFW that crap please GOOGLE.