Apple Hit with 'Planned Obsolescence' Lawsuit in Brazil over Fourth-Generation iPad

[RedCroissant]

Originally Posted by Jetson

Actually the lady who bought coffee at McDonalds had a reason to sue and had a winning case. She spilled scaulding hot coffee on her lady parts. OUCH!

She proved that McDonalds coffee was extremely and unnecesarily hot and as a direct result she suffered serious injury.

People buying an iPad 3 then getting upset because Apple releases an improved model 7 months later have NOT suffered any injury.

The reason I used the hot coffee example is because McDonald's was not ultimately responsible. You said it yourself "SHE spilled scalding hot coffee." Would the coffee have been considered too hot if she had not spilled the coffee in the first place and did what almost every other person does when buying coffee(putting it in the cup holder and waiting for it to be slightly cooler and therefore drinkable)? Of course not. I still do this to this day. If I want to buy coffee from ANYWHERE, I figure out how far away I am from wherever I am going to see if the coffee will have cooled down enough to where I can drink at least some of it before arriving at my destination. If I don't think it will, I don't buy it.

Even at home when I make coffee in a french press(I bring water to a boil, then pour it into the carafe, put the plunger on, wait about 7 minutes, and then plunge it). Do I pour that into a mug and immediately drink the coffee? NO, because that would burn my mouth unless I mix in some other liquid that cools it down to the point where I can drink it.

The McDonalds lady probably just got the first cup from a freshly-brewed pot, was clumsy, and was rewarded for her clumsiness.

[Jetson]

Originally Posted by RedCroissant

The reason I used the hot coffee example is because McDonald's was not ultimately responsible. You said it yourself "SHE spilled scalding hot coffee." Would the coffee have been considered too hot if she had not spilled the coffee in the first place and did what almost every other person does when buying coffee(putting it in the cup holder and waiting for it to be slightly cooler and therefore drinkable)? Of course not. I still do this to this day. If I want to buy coffee from ANYWHERE, I figure out how far away I am from wherever I am going to see if the coffee will have cooled down enough to where I can drink at least some of it before arriving at my destination. If I don't think it will, I don't buy it.

Even at home when I make coffee in a french press(I bring water to a boil, then pour it into the carafe, put the plunger on, wait about 7 minutes, and then plunge it). Do I pour that into a mug and immediately drink the coffee? NO, because that would burn my mouth unless I mix in some other liquid that cools it down to the point where I can drink it.

The McDonalds lady probably just got the first cup from a freshly-brewed pot, was clumsy, and was rewarded for her clumsiness.

I know this is getting a bit off topic, but the issue of litigation based on injury suffered should be understood a bit better.

Here is an opinion piece from a website that spells out my understanding of the McDonald's Hot Coffee case:

The Actual Facts About - The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. © 1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of California
-----

Brought to you by - The 'Lectric Law Library
The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
http://www.lectlaw.com

[Dinø]

I like this lawsuit. I was equally confused when the 3rd generation iPod was release. I went to buy one at the local Apple store, and the salesperson simply asked me which capacity did I want, 8GB, 32GB, or 64GB. You can even find numerous tech sites where reviewers posted their findings after testing out a 3rd-gen model with 8GB of storage.

If Apple have done such a great job marketing their products, then I'm sure a loyal follower will have not any difficulty identifying what's wrong above.

And check this out: http://www.amazon.com/Apple-iPod-tou.../dp/B002M3SOBU

And on ebay: http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Apple-iPod-t...8-GB-/92848078

[mgsarch]

Originally Posted by RedCroissant

The reason I used the hot coffee example is because McDonald's was not ultimately responsible. You said it yourself "SHE spilled scalding hot coffee." Would the coffee have been considered too hot if she had not spilled the coffee in the first place and did what almost every other person does when buying coffee(putting it in the cup holder and waiting for it to be slightly cooler and therefore drinkable)? Of course not. I still do this to this day. If I want to buy coffee from ANYWHERE, I figure out how far away I am from wherever I am going to see if the coffee will have cooled down enough to where I can drink at least some of it before arriving at my destination. If I don't think it will, I don't buy it.

Even at home when I make coffee in a french press(I bring water to a boil, then pour it into the carafe, put the plunger on, wait about 7 minutes, and then plunge it). Do I pour that into a mug and immediately drink the coffee? NO, because that would burn my mouth unless I mix in some other liquid that cools it down to the point where I can drink it.

The McDonalds lady probably just got the first cup from a freshly-brewed pot, was clumsy, and was rewarded for her clumsiness.

I studied this case during school, you are applying irrelevant logic that was mitigated by the actual facts of this case. The only thing your analogy demonstrates is that you've never read the actual case and are not familiar with the facts.

[vampyren]

Originally Posted by Daalseth

the US isn't the only country with sleezy lawyers willing to sue over anything. In the US I'd say this would be tossed out within seconds. In Brazil...?

hehe and i wonder how long it take before someone in US (or other country) use the same idea and start suing Apple. Countdown starts NOW

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Originally Posted by ramram55

you are right, as owner of apple macbook 2010 would felt the exact effect, you can not do airplay to external TV or monitor with Apple TV, that is a kick in the teeth, sick to the stomach. You have to hook up with wires to external devices, just 2 years or so with new OSX, what a let down.

Yeah, my 2008 Macbook Pro cannot do Airplay mirroring or Airdrop (missed that by one generation it seems), but at least Mountain Lion works well thus far otherwise. On the other hand, I just added USB 3.0 to the 2008 Macbook Pro for all of $11 and change using a Gyles card from Amazon and the Caldigit driver. It appears to work perfectly other than a need to put it to sleep and wake up to reactivate the card if I remove it hot for some reason. USB 2.x devices work also so now I have 4 ports total without a hub, two super speed and two regular 2.x. Newer Mac that dumped the Express Card jacks for a stupid SD card (I can get a SD reader FOR Express card or USB) simply have no way to upgrade to USB 3.0 except the 2011 through Thunderbolt with a hub adapter. Apple should have kept the expansion ports. I can't even get a SD reader for $11 normally, let alone USB 3.0. I'm quite pleased.

[fertilized-egg]

Unfortunately the thread is full of shouting matches and usual trolling. Let's look at it from the technical point of view. The claim is Apple could've put the A6X chip there instead of A5X back in early 2012. Is that really reasonable? Apple's new architecture and Samsung's new process most likely weren't ready for such mass manufacturing that time. Apple was forced to use the largest chip in the industry that was expensive and took a lot of heat and battery.

If Apple simply reused the A5 chip in the iPad 3 the claim might have some merits but the A6X was a completely new chip that came after it was tested out on other products. I just don't see how the iPad 3rd gen could've arrived any differently other than delaying the launch date.

[brdeveloper]

In portuguese:
tecnologia.terra.com.br/eletronicos/apple-acao-quer-reembolso-e-tablet-novo-para-donos-do-ipad-3-no-brasil,e6cbe351f720d310VgnVCM3000009acceb0aRCRD.html

"The problem is the way Apple dealt with the consumers. It wasn't seen in the retailers any warning that the iPad 3 was discontinued after iPad 4 has been launched. In some of them, the iPad 3 continues available as being the latest iPad", says the lawyer.

"O problema é a forma como a Apple tratou o consumidor. Não se via nas lojas um alerta de que o iPad 3 fora descontinuado depois da chegada do iPad 4. Em algumas, o iPad 3 segue disponível como sendo o novo iPad", diz o advogado.

[sebastian...]

Again, Apple ios products do have an evil intentional anti-"green" planned obsolescence.

How come ?
Well you somehow find a new unused perfect ipad 2 or 3. You plan to buy it for Skype, GarageBand and so on. You bring it home and you will discover that you are unable to install those apps even though if you look at an ipad 2 advertisement you will see that ipad 2 happily running GarageBand, Pages and so on.

This should be a good stand for a case. And yes that ipad is not functioning well anymore even though it is new.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Originally Posted by sebastian...

Again, Apple ios products do have an evil intentional anti-"green" planned obsolescence.

How come ?
Well you somehow find a new unused perfect ipad 2 or 3. You plan to buy it for Skype, GarageBand and so on. You bring it home and you will discover that you are unable to install those apps even though if you look at an ipad 2 advertisement you will see that ipad 2 happily running GarageBand, Pages and so on.

This should be a good stand for a case. And yes that ipad is not functioning well anymore even though it is new.

I actually agree with this 100%. Apple SHOULD keep older versions of software for older iOS devices where the newer ones aren't compatible. Most regular software sites keep older or archive versions around. But then you cannot even try a demo of any software before you buy unless the author makes two versions. Their distribution system is flawed.

[RedCroissant]

Originally Posted by mgsarch

I studied this case during school, you are applying irrelevant logic that was mitigated by the actual facts of this case. The only thing your analogy demonstrates is that you've never read the actual case and are not familiar with the facts.

Actually, no. My logic I have applied is sound. It was my analogy that is only partially irrelevant. The reason I claim only partial irrelevance is due to the fact that when making coffee, water is brought to a boil(212 degrees Fahrenheit). And as far as I know, I don't know anyone that drinks it at that point or immediately after. There seems to be a consensus that coffee must cool down(to a certain degree) after being made before it can be ingested.

I have also had a private conversation regarding this post already with another member who was under the same impression that you are regarding my knowledge and understanding of the case and/or injury litigation. after our conversation we both understood that it was not an ignorance of the case or the subject matter on my part, but simply a difference of opinion regarding the entity that was at fault.

So if my analogy only demonstrates my failure to read the case and my unfamiliarity with the facts, then please acquaint me with the facts of which I am unfamiliar.

1. The she was elderly?
2. That she was not in fact driving the vehicle as many assume?
3. That she was wearing sweats or a track suit that caused the already hot liquid to stay close to her skin which resulted in more severe burns than if she had been wearing other material?
4. That she knowingly placed a styrofoam cup of hot coffee between her legs in order to add cream and sugar?
5. That there were numerous customers that also filed claims against them for the temperature of their coffee after doing the very same thing that the woman in question did?
6. That McDonald's claimed to store their coffee at a temperature between 180-190 degrees for their opinion of optimal taste for their coffee when other retailers store their coffee at temperatures ranging from 155-170 degrees?


I have only three questions for you:

1. What type of burns would the "victim" have received if the coffee was given to her at 155 degrees and the situation and her clothing were the same?
2. Has every customer of McDonald's that has spilled coffee on themselves after performing the same quite careless action decided to file suit against the company? If not; why not?


My position, which should be obvious, is that the temperature at which the coffee is stored and served is irrelevant because she(without actual intent to do so) spilled the coffee on herself. Yes it was an accident, and as such, not something that should be held against another entity. She was at fault.

[ericrwalker]

Well said, and to add to the coffee being too hot, places like to serve it a little too hot for a couple of reasons. 1. People add cream to their coffee,which cools it down some instantly. 2. At places like McDonald's it is often bought while on the go and usually put in a cup holder or driven off. So it will likely be at or near optimal temp when you start drinking it. Most people would rather have coffee that is too hot and allow it to cool some than be too cold with no way of heating it up.

Originally Posted by RedCroissant

Actually, no. My logic I have applied is sound. It was my analogy that is only partially irrelevant. The reason I claim only partial irrelevance is due to the fact that when making coffee, water is brought to a boil(212 degrees Fahrenheit). And as far as I know, I don't know anyone that drinks it at that point or immediately after. There seems to be a consensus that coffee must cool down(to a certain degree) after being made before it can be ingested.

I have also had a private conversation regarding this post already with another member who was under the same impression that you are regarding my knowledge and understanding of the case and/or injury litigation. after our conversation we both understood that it was not an ignorance of the case or the subject matter on my part, but simply a difference of opinion regarding the entity that was at fault.

So if my analogy only demonstrates my failure to read the case and my unfamiliarity with the facts, then please acquaint me with the facts of which I am unfamiliar.

1. The she was elderly?
2. That she was not in fact driving the vehicle as many assume?
3. That she was wearing sweats or a track suit that caused the already hot liquid to stay close to her skin which resulted in more severe burns than if she had been wearing other material?
4. That she knowingly placed a styrofoam cup of hot coffee between her legs in order to add cream and sugar?
5. That there were numerous customers that also filed claims against them for the temperature of their coffee after doing the very same thing that the woman in question did?
6. That McDonald's claimed to store their coffee at a temperature between 180-190 degrees for their opinion of optimal taste for their coffee when other retailers store their coffee at temperatures ranging from 155-170 degrees?


I have only three questions for you:

1. What type of burns would the "victim" have received if the coffee was given to her at 155 degrees and the situation and her clothing were the same?
2. Has every customer of McDonald's that has spilled coffee on themselves after performing the same quite careless action decided to file suit against the company? If not; why not?


My position, which should be obvious, is that the temperature at which the coffee is stored and served is irrelevant because she(without actual intent to do so) spilled the coffee on herself. Yes it was an accident, and as such, not something that should be held against another entity. She was at fault.

[Cubytus]

Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum

I actually agree with this 100%. Apple SHOULD keep older versions of software for older iOS devices where the newer ones aren't compatible. Most regular software sites keep older or archive versions around. But then you cannot even try a demo of any software before you buy unless the author makes two versions. Their distribution system is flawed.

Exactly. With centralized software installation & download center Apple started rolling out in the form of the App Store, both for Mac OS X and iPhone OS, it should be even easier to automatically allow for matching the OS version without impeding other user's experience. Linux repos have done this for years, and there is no technical reason why Apple wouldn't be able to do exactly the same.

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

Well said, and to add to the coffee being too hot, places like to serve it a little too hot for a couple of reasons. 1. People add cream to their coffee,which cools it down some instantly. 2. At places like McDonald's it is often bought while on the go and usually put in a cup holder or driven off. So it will likely be at or near optimal temp when you start drinking it. Most people would rather have coffee that is too hot and allow it to cool some than be too cold with no way of heating it up.

1. Bad taste, here we come. Good coffee shouldn't depend on cream to be drinkable. Good quality coffee shops do ask if you want to add anything liquid. If not, they fill the cup. If yes, they leave some space. Applies to temperature also: if coffee relies on putting cold cream to reach ideal temperature, it's basically not drinkable, either talking about temperature or taste, as put forth by the famous French proverb "café bouillu, café foutu". Besides, cream or milk added to a coffee should never be cold but heated to the same temperature as the coffee (about 150°F), but we largely forgot that out of convenience.

There is an Italian word I forgot that describes exactly that, coffee served at drinkable temperature vs. "ordinary" coffee. Considering how slow McDonald's service is, they could easily afford to have two pots: one scalding hot for those who prefer a coffee-based syrup, and one at normal temperature for serving right away, or keep a heated cream or milk pot to add at customer's demand.

[AppleScruff1]

Originally Posted by brdeveloper

In portuguese:
tecnologia.terra.com.br/eletronicos/apple-acao-quer-reembolso-e-tablet-novo-para-donos-do-ipad-3-no-brasil,e6cbe351f720d310VgnVCM3000009acceb0aRCRD.html

"The problem is the way Apple dealt with the consumers. It wasn't seen in the retailers any warning that the iPad 3 was discontinued after iPad 4 has been launched. In some of them, the iPad 3 continues available as being the latest iPad", says the lawyer.

"O problema é a forma como a Apple tratou o consumidor. Não se via nas lojas um alerta de que o iPad 3 fora descontinuado depois da chegada do iPad 4. Em algumas, o iPad 3 segue disponível como sendo o novo iPad", diz o advogado.

If this is the case, then there may be some merit to the suit.

[MarcelEdward]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Actually I would still side with Apple if this were the case - the issue in Brazil is probably more related to misleading publicity, where the company sells/advertises a device as being "the latest" when it is no longer the case. See my other post above for further reasoning associated with the Brazilian and other markets.

Yeah buy the new ipad and get a ipad3 for the same money

[walterg74]

Of course this lawsuit makes sense!

I kniw apple nirmally releases products yearly and I'm ok with that, but with the ipad "3", they didn't release a new model, they silently ulgraded it, within a few months, screwing all the idiots that bought one over (myself included).

Now you americans making fun of brazil, well, maybe you don't care because you're used to getting screwed and probably love it. The rest of the world, not so much...

[US Marine]

Let's be honest, gents. Planned obsolescence is the centerpiece of the Apple business model.

...and most other tech companies today, I'm afraid.

[Bezetos]

"Haha, well, Brazil said what many other people thought "

Originally Posted by rdlink

And those people are just as stupid as Brazil.

Originally Posted by Kaibelf

Many people are dumb.

Geez, someone needs to grow up...

----------

Originally Posted by Xenomorph

So where are all the lawsuits against the Android manufacturers that crap out a new device every month?

Huh, I think you're comparing many different companies making Android tablets with one company making the iPad.

----------

Originally Posted by JAT

See, "has" is present tense. "Gone" is past tense.

Yes, the world went insane. (...)

Ever heard of present perfect? That's basic grammar...

[AlexisV]

Originally Posted by US Marine

Let's be honest, gents. Planned obsolescence is the centerpiece of the Apple business model.

...and most other tech companies today, I'm afraid.

I'd go so far as to say every electronic product ever released.

Companies suffer from delays and lack of updates. I bet RIM shareholders were thrilled that they failed to release enough new devices.

[plkrzr]

Did apple change the font in these new commercials.I don't like it!

[linuxcooldude]

Originally Posted by AppleScruff1

Hypothetically, what if you went to a store and the iPad 3 and 4 were both being sold as new and you asked for a new iPad and they gave you the 3 and didn't tell you there were 2 models?

Don't really care for the latest iPads. Don't care about retina display or the fastest processor. Battery life and storage space are what I am looking for. in fact I prefer an iPad 2 or a iPad Mini.

Gnasher had it right the distinction of asking for the latest model vs new. I think a buyer needs to know what they are buying. Just like a car. Don't take for granted what you mean and what the seller means.

[AppleScruff1]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

Don't really care for the latest iPads. Don't care about retina display or the fastest processor. Battery life and storage space are what I am looking for. in fact I prefer an iPad 2 or a iPad Mini.

Gnasher had it right the distinction of asking for the latest model vs new. I think a buyer needs to know what they are buying. Just like a car. Don't take for granted what you mean and what the seller means.

I don't think you really answered the question. Joe consumer doesn't know that there are two models currently being sold as new. There is no obvious distinction being made in store. They sell you the older model. Are you happy when you find out you didn't get the latest model and no one told you?

[Wolfpup]

I do think Apple should label these better. Should have explicitly been "iPad 3, iPad 4", etc. That part I agree with.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by brdeveloper

In portuguese:
tecnologia.terra.com.br/eletronicos/apple-acao-quer-reembolso-e-tablet-novo-para-donos-do-ipad-3-no-brasil,e6cbe351f720d310VgnVCM3000009acceb0aRCRD.html

"The problem is the way Apple dealt with the consumers. It wasn't seen in the retailers any warning that the iPad 3 was discontinued after iPad 4 has been launched. In some of them, the iPad 3 continues available as being the latest iPad", says the lawyer.

"O problema é a forma como a Apple tratou o consumidor. Não se via nas lojas um alerta de que o iPad 3 fora descontinuado depois da chegada do iPad 4. Em algumas, o iPad 3 segue disponível como sendo o novo iPad", diz o advogado.

Originally Posted by AppleScruff1

If this is the case, then there may be some merit to the suit.

So, you think Apple should be responsible for the signs in a third-party retailer?

[AppleScruff1]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

So, you think Apple should be responsible for the signs in a third-party retailer?

No. I don't think Apple should be responsible for anything. Ever. They are perfect in all ways. Is that better?