Class Action Law Suit Against Apple

[Grimace]

Apple seems to have some unhappy customers, mainly with Laptops and iPods:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/biztech/01/01/apple.suit.reut/index.html

Will this go anywhere??

 

[coopdog]

The only place it should go is up the people's asses.

Yes, Apple uses mobos that are programed to fail right after the warranty has expired, bull ****!

Do PC users do this to compaq, IBM and Gateway?

It seems to me that because it's an Apple they think they deserve to get free bjs with their computer.

I got a thing in the mail and it wanted me do file in the law suit. All lawsuits are ****ing stupid. If you don't think so I will come to your house and fall down in your driveway and then sue you. I won't but lawsuits are stupid, why don't do they just fight? I think Jobs could take on atleast 3 of them and that british lead designer for apple could take all the rest.

 

[mactastic]

Originally posted by coopdog
All lawsuits are ****ing stupid.

Dred Scott

Miranda v Arizona

Tennessee v Scopes

Euclid v Ambler

Roe v Wade

To name just a few...

On topic however, I can understand if consumers are upset, but the nature of rechargeable batteries is that they degrade over time. Sucks, but that's the way it is. Plan on buying a new battery, or replacing the item every 18 months or so when you buy such a product.

 

[wdlove]

I had hardware problems with an LC III, that took almost a year to resolve. Did not sue Apple, but did get frustrated. I'm still a loyal Mac fan.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I think the issueis whether Apple has an "issue" with G3 iBooks or not. The iPod issue is more unclear to me.

 

[Daveman Deluxe]

Lawsuits are a very important part of the American civil justice system.

When I was in high school, my government teacher explained it this way:

Suppose you own a beautiful piece of river frontage which includes rights to the river itself. Just upstream is a gentleman who owns another piece of river frontage as well as the river.

So you decide you'll build a beautiful resort on your piece of river. Your neighbor, however, decides to start up a sheep butchering shop. You both do very well in your endeavors until the neighbor realizes the easiest way to get rid of the leftover sheep heads is to dump them into the river. All of a sudden, your resort goes belly up and you go bankrupt because nobody wants to sit next to a river where hundreds of sheep heads float by every day. Basically, your neighbor has screwed you really badly, but he hasn't broken any laws on the books.

This is where the civil lawsuit comes in. You can sue your neighbor because his negligence/laziness caused you to go bankrupt. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, and this sort of situation (albeit hypothetical) is why I'm glad we have a civil law system in the United States.

That said, I'm not in favor of women suing because their two-year-old child model sons got scratched up while playing on a city play structure. Civil law should not be used as an excuse to do away with personal responsibility.

In the case of the iBook issues, I am in favor of the class action lawsuit because iBook failures can cause economic damage to those whose businesses are dependent on use of these computers. Nobody will see a lot of money from it (except lawyers) but it will force Apple to say something--ANYTHING--about the issue.

I do not think a general product recall is in order because defective units do not pose a health risk. Apple does, however, need to institute a product replacement program for faulty iBooks that is more generous. IMO, if a logic board has failed twice on one of these iBooks, it should be replaced with a new/refurbished unit of the same specifications as the malfunctioning unit. It won't take care of the root cause of the problem (although the iBook G4s appear to not have such issues) but I do not see how Apple can be reasonably expected to retrofit discontinued models, and the vast majority of iBooks still have no issues.

For the record, I did not register in the class action lawsuit because I have no real personal interest in the case except to see what comes out of it.

Edited for clarity

 

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
When I was in high school, my government teacher explained it this way:

Suppose you own a beautiful piece of river frontage which includes rights to the river...

Yes, an important area of law, thus the inclusion of Euclid v Ambler above.

The validity of zoning was established in a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1926, Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.,3 in which it was determined that the exclusionary nature of zoning was appropriate and in the public interest as a means to reduce nuisances, and as such overrides the interests of individual property owners. This case almost by itself guaranteed the validity of zoning as a rightful use of the state's police power, and led to its importance as the most significant tool of land use, and of planning, yet devised. And it was popular not because of its sophistication, but because of its simplicity. The 1926 Supreme Court case upheld that land use could be controlled, and that "nuisance" uses could be kept out of designated areas.

Not terribly relevant to iBooks though...

 

[Daveman Deluxe]

Originally posted by mactastic
Yes, an important area of law, thus the inclusion of Euclid v Ambler above.

Not terribly relevant to iBooks though...

I wasn't defending the iBook suit per se, I was defending civil suits in general. Thanks for pointing out the specific case though.

 

[coopdog]

I was pretty young when I lived in England and from what I remember they didn't have lawsuits and the deal pretty well. I shouldn't have been so vauge to say all lawsuits are stupid. I hate lawsuits like when some guys todler falls into someones pool they sue the pool owner. How is it the guy with the pools fault?
The father should have been looking after his kid. I think that lawsuit is under man made hazard or something. Or when someone falls at a store then sues the store because there was ice or some stupid **** like that. But if someone owes money or something like that then sure.

 

[MrMacMan]

The iBook owners can claim whatever they want.

What I am saying is, If it goes bad... why got get more Apple Care and them replace it.

Ah well...

Sorry for you iBook users.

 

[absolut_mac]

ALL lawsuits stupid???

Originally posted by coopdog
All lawsuits are ****ing stupid.

Hmmmm, I beg to differ.

While SOME lawsuits definitely are stupid and should be dismissed long before they even come to trial, to label ALL lawsuits stupid is to ignore corporate greed like Ford Pintos exploding into fireballs, SUV's rolling over and crushing their occupants, asbestos in classrooms etc etc.

Unfortunately as long as corporate greed dictates ignoring problems due to the fix reducing their profits, lawsuits are the only recourse for those hurt by defective products.

Lawsuits are also pretty effective at forcing said companys to correct defects and/or stop them from continuing to make dangerously defective products.

 

[rainman::|:|]

iBook users have really gotten the shaft on this one. That class action is justified, and will probably result in settlement. Apple failed, i believe, the terms of their own warranties, or at least showed neglegence in replacements. But the iPod issue will go nowhere. Apple never claimed that the battery in the iPod would last forever. They plainly state a battery life of approx. 500 discharges. People may not like it, but Apple is in the clear on that one... It'd be like people suing Ford because they bought a car and were dismayed that it needed to have oil filters changed in the future.

paul

 

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
I wasn't defending the iBook suit per se, I was defending civil suits in general. Thanks for pointing out the specific case though.

Hehe, don't worry, I was mentioning the lack of relevance to iBooks 'cuz I got sidelined into some OT discussion of significant cases in US history, not because of what you said.

 

[latergator116]

Im not to sure on the iPod lawsuit...I mean, they are offering a battery replacement program.

As for the iBook, yes, Apple needs to do something about it. Hopefully it will end in a settlement and Apple will offer some kind of compensation to iBook users.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

The shame of many class action law suits is that the lawyers are generally the only true winners.

The shame of the G3 iBook logic board issue, is that Apple does not seem to be acting in good faith. They may not be acting any differently than any other computer company, but they are not just any other computer company.

With the iPod battery, this could lead to a settlement along the lines of computer monitors. A few dollars the class action people; but a disclaimer on just how long the battery is covered.