iPod Nano Class Action Suit

[ksz]

Paint peeling -> RUST if not repainted.

iPod micro-scratching -> Nothing

Not equivilent.

There is only one 'i' in equivalent.

She said peeling/cracking/scratching. These ailments could have been corrected by continuously applying touch-up paint. It's very cheap. And when you need more, just buy more. So what if the touch-up paint does not perfectly match the color and levelness of the rest of the paint job? The issue is not aesthetics, it is rust, so touch-up paint will protect you from rust and that's that. What fools they were that pressed on with a lawsuit and caused a recall of BMW Minis...

 

[Azbola]

Suicide

Blimey, the website got so bored of this thread it tried to kill itself
It feels better now though.

 

[snowmoon]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough-- even those of us MINI owners w/out the problematic black coats have still received extended warranties (I mean from Chili Red to Dark silver). And not all of the paint issues were peeling... some of them had paint bubbles, some of them scratched more, some coats got a cracked look but w/out exposure to air (yet). That's my point-- MINI recognized a potential issue; rectified the affected vehicles, and then extended coverage to all of their customers w/in a time bracket (generous really from 2002-2004 vehicles, that is a good # of cars by the way) to ward off more BBB complaints and/or lawsuits.

I guess neither did I....

The problem with the mini lead directly to a loss of FUNCTION because of MANUFACTURING DEFECT. Just as apple quicky responded to the MANUFACTURING DEFECT in the screens of the nanos. The iPod's use the same plastic coating that all previous models have used and in this case no one is claiming this is a defect in manufacturing but a defect in design.

Still have yet to see an iPod that has loss of function ( music playing, picture viewing, movie viewing, ... ) due to micro scratching due to non abusive handling.

 

[matticus008]

I just thought of a slight spin from the same company, BMW's MINI... Because of the stink raised over those black-paint job MINIs, other owners became much more aware of their cars' coats.

To ease owners, MINI has since extended the warranty coverage for rust damage to a full 10 years (I suppose in case the paint peels and exposes the underlying metal and allowing oxidation).

So that is one such instance where first of all, cosmetics allowed for a recall and second of all... a cosmetic issue could develop into a functional issue. Luckily, BMW has stepped up to meet these issues (but not w/out a lot of effort on the part of a very few owners-- and yet so many of us have benefited from their vocal fight and initiative). It is because of this that although I am not currently involved w/ this nano lawsuit, I have no qualms w/ people who choose to fight it because if the courts prove it to have merit, then all of us w/ affected nanos could/would benefit from those few, similar to the iPod battery lawsuit.

That is a rather good comment, and one which adds some relevant precedents to the discussion, rather than ksz's attempt to rewrite the laws of physics and declare simultaneously redefine strength as "opinion" when the actual results are published and accepted as scientific fact. However, the missing element in your example, which is a requisite element, is that someone MUST experience functional damage and prove it in court. At that point, it would behoove the manufacturer to extend the warranty coverage to the earliest possible cause of that defect (all the way back to scratching, which leads to peeling, which leads to oxidation, and then finally rust). However, it is absolutely critical that someone actually experience a functional defect and conclusively demonstrate the cause of that defect.

 

[matticus008]

Sorry for two in a row, but I wanted to make sure that devilot76's excellent comment was addressed separately and directly, because it's far better than the positions I counter below. (An opinion, not fact. See the difference, defect mongers?)

Yes the materials are inappropriate because they tarnish the aesthetic value

The materials do not tarnish themselves. Silver does this in the presence of certain molecules, including air alone, sometimes within days. Is silver defective?

It can be made more scratch resistant. It can be made of anodized aluminum. It can be made of a magnesium-titanium shell. It can even be made of thick plastic.

All of these would prohibit the nano from being "nano" in size and weight, which would alter the product's aesthetics, which you claim is perhaps the major feature in purchasing. You can't like something for its design and turn around and say it's a bad design. "Capiche?"

Functional harm is not relevant in this case because we're talking about aesthetic degradation, but if allowed to continue unabated, that aesthetic degradation can lead to functional failure.

No, the assertion is defective materials, which by definition includes a demonstration of functional failure. Aesthetic degradation can (contrast with "does") lead to functional failure, but you must demonstrate that this is the case.

Wrong. Disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay is a product impairment. It is the use of inappropriate materials for the rigors of its intended use.

Once and for all, this "rate of decay" is a myth and an opinion and nothing more. Abrasion is measured in number. Consumers don't have to do the calculations unless they are attempting to prove damages in a legal claim or formal complaint. Since you are doing one or both of those, you must present the facts underlying your opinions. Since there is no time element, "rate of decay" is purely and utterly speculative.

I think your comprehension of English is rapidly decaying as demonstrated once again by an ignorant statement. Who said anything about ugly? We're not talking about ugly. We're talking about a premature degradation

So we're talking about functional harm, then, and we're finished here.

I have many clear glass plates that have no scratches. Glass is brittle, but it's hardened and resilient to scratching. Go to a window right now and try to scratch it. How much force and what type of blunt object will you need?

I have not seen a used dinner plate of any kind without scratches. As as for scratching a window, I can do it with a single grain of sand, a sturdy piece of titanium, or anything harder than the glass. Maybe the iPod should be made of glass, since it's substantially harder to scratch than any plastic.

A few more weeks and I may not be able to see the screen.

Speculative opinion. Come back when you accomplish that perceived reality.

Did you not read my reply? Maybe you did but could not remember...short term memory loss. If I put the nano in a drawer or glass cage for 2 years, do you think that is considered to be normal use?

It was merely to illustrate that time itself has no impact on scratching. If you substitute "lost in a cabinet" to "carried in a case" you can still use it every day without exposing it to potential scratches. You can also use it every day, expose it to scratches, and not be shocked when it does indeed scratch. If you put something out in the rain, expect it to get wet. Maybe something is more water-repellant than another, but it'll still get wet. My deck furniture cushions get soaked when it rains, and they're designed for use outside, which is generally where rain occurs. I can't sue them for waterlogged cushions even if every other manufacturer used vinyl covers (which they do not).

Okay, so now Apple should publish guidelines for how often you are supposed to use the nano? Ridiculous.

No, you should be able to use enough common sense to know that the more you use something, the more likely it will experience wear. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will, however, as everyone's usage is different. No two items are exactly the same.

What whining? You are so content with the status-quo that you have abandoned all desire for change.

A rather bold statement. I have said many times that I'm not saying the iPod is perfect. But there's a difference between "room for improvement" and "defective piece of crap" that you're either not getting, or just using to obscure the point. There is nothing that has been demonstrated to be wrong or defective wrt the iPod. That does not mean I have no desire for change.

 

[ksz]

I guess neither did I....

The problem with the mini lead directly to a loss of FUNCTION because of MANUFACTURING DEFECT. Just as apple quicky responded to the MANUFACTURING DEFECT in the screens of the nanos. The iPod's use the same plastic coating that all previous models have used and in this case no one is claiming this is a defect in manufacturing but a defect in design.

Still have yet to see an iPod that has loss of function ( music playing, picture viewing, movie viewing, ... ) due to micro scratching due to non abusive handling.

This is not a good rebuttal because customers could have purchased touch-up paint and corrected the problem themselves. They could apply touch-up paint every two days or every week to keep repairing new scratches. Do you want your car to have such demanding maintenance requirements?

Similarly, iPod owners are being told to keep buying and using polishers and protectants.

Car bodies are covered by many layers of paint and topcoats. If the surface layer of paint peels or scratches, it does not necessarily lead to rust. And if you accumulate small scratches, it still does not lead to rust. We all have these scratches and stone chips on our cars and if they are severe enough, we apply touch-up paint. We do this because stone chips from rough roads and minor scratches from extended use are normal wear and tear, but if the car's paint exhibits a materials or manufacturing flaw that renders it disproportionately susceptible to damage, then it is a systemic flaw attributable to the manufacturer and not to the buyer.

 

[ksz]

Sorry for two in a row, but I wanted to make sure that devilot76's excellent comment was addressed separately and directly, because it's far better than the positions I counter below. (An opinion, not fact. See the difference, defect mongers?)

Do you think a legal case has merit only when there is a precedent? Who do you think sets the precedent? And why do you think new precedents cannot be set? Very one-tracked thinking on your part.

The materials do not tarnish themselves. Silver does this in the presence of certain molecules, including air alone, sometimes within days. Is silver defective?

Have you seen a portable consumer electronics device whose exterior is made entirely from silver? Stay relevant please, not academic. I asked you, because of your propensity for numbers, to calculate the total number of portable electronics devices whose shell is made from the same material as the nano and divide that number by the total number of portable electronics devices. If you can't do this, guess. My guess will be that less than 1% of the makes and models of portable electronics devices use the same outer materials as the nano. Sony does not use that material, neither does Dell, nor Motorola, nor Nokia, nor Sony-Ericsson, nor Samsung, nor the notebook companies, etc. In fact I cannot think of anyone else who does...

All of these would prohibit the nano from being "nano" in size and weight, which would alter the product's aesthetics, which you claim is perhaps the major feature in purchasing. You can't like something for its design and turn around and say it's a bad design. "Capiche?"

Wrong. There are many MP3 players even tinier than the nano. Titanium is a very strong material than can be made into thin sheets. I also stated warnings on the package and a protective sleeve in the box. Don't pick and choose your excerpts.

No, the assertion is defective materials, which by definition includes a demonstration of functional failure. Aesthetic degradation can (contrast with "does") lead to functional failure, but you must demonstrate that this is the case.

In my estimation, a disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay under normal use conditions does warrant a case, and if you think there is no precedent, I think one should be set.

Once and for all, this "rate of decay" is a myth and an opinion and nothing more. Abrasion is measured in number. Consumers don't have to do the calculations unless they are attempting to prove damages in a legal claim or formal complaint. Since you are doing one or both of those, you must present the facts underlying your opinions. Since there is no time element, "rate of decay" is purely and utterly speculative.

You are still thinking in terms of the precedents you are aware of.

So we're talking about functional harm, then, and we're finished here.

I certainly hope you are finished! Disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay warrants a case...all my comments have been suggesting exactly this.

I have not seen a used dinner plate of any kind without scratches. As as for scratching a window, I can do it with a single grain of sand, a sturdy piece of titanium, or anything harder than the glass. Maybe the iPod should be made of glass, since it's substantially harder to scratch than any plastic.

Yes you can intentionally induce a scratch on glass if that is what you set out to do. I did not set out to scratch my nano. Why would I?

It was merely to illustrate that time itself has no impact on scratching. If you substitute "lost in a cabinet" to "carried in a case" you can still use it every day without exposing it to potential scratches. You can also use it every day, expose it to scratches, and not be shocked when it does indeed scratch. If you put something out in the rain, expect it to get wet. Maybe something is more water-repellant than another, but it'll still get wet. My deck furniture cushions get soaked when it rains, and they're designed for use outside, which is generally where rain occurs. I can't sue them for waterlogged cushions even if every other manufacturer used vinyl covers (which they do not).

I have addressed the issue of disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay more times than I care to count. You still do not get it. Your analogies here are flawed and I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine the flaws.

No, you should be able to use enough common sense to know that the more you use something, the more likely it will experience wear. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will, however, as everyone's usage is different. No two items are exactly the same.

Of course, the more I use something the more it will accumulate wear. The phrase 'the more I use' implies time. And if I use it only 2 times and it has broken out into a hive of scratches, that is a problem.

A rather bold statement. I have said many times that I'm not saying the iPod is perfect. But there's a difference between "room for improvement" and "defective piece of crap" that you're either not getting, or just using to obscure the point. There is nothing that has been demonstrated to be wrong or defective wrt the iPod. That does not mean I have no desire for change.

Again, I think you're losing it. Who said the nano is a "defective piece of crap"? Do you really have short-term memory loss? I was only joking in my last reply, but now I'm wondering...

I am keeping my nano (for now) in spite of the scratched up surface. If Apple is really allowing nano customers now to replace scratched units, I will IMMEDIATELY GET IT REPLACED when I return to the United States and the next one will be treated immediately with protectants and carrying sleeves. Or maybe I will ask for a refund and wait for the next generation nano. I will decide when I return.

 

[matticus008]

Do you think a legal case has merit only when there is a precedent? Who do you think sets the precedent? And why do you think new precedents cannot be set? Very one-tracked thinking on your part.

New precedents come from new harms. There is no precedent for a purely cosmetic claim because no such suit has been successful, not because it has never been attempted.

Have you seen a portable consumer electronics device whose exterior is made entirely from silver? [...] My guess will be that less than 1% of the makes and models of portable electronics devices use the same outer materials as the nano. Sony does not use that material, neither does Dell, nor Motorola, nor Nokia, nor Sony-Ericsson, nor Samsung, nor the notebook companies, etc. In fact I cannot think of anyone else who does...

Actually, Motorola, Sony, Toshiba, and many other companies do indeed use polycarbonate in their products. It is, in fact, one of the most common plastics in electronics, and all optical media. For just one quick example, the Motorola V600 has a polycarbonate black plastic insert on its front cover. (ps - these things are also scratched! The horror!)

Wrong. There are many MP3 players even tinier than the nano.

With all the features of the nano? This is news to me.

You are still thinking in terms of the precedents you are aware of.

There is not a precedent for suing on aesthetic grounds without damages. That does not mean that there is no precedent at all--it's just the opposite, that many suits have been rejected for lack of substantive harm. In fact, that's one of the biggest presumptions of Western law.

Yes you can intentionally induce a scratch on glass if that is what you set out to do. I did not set out to scratch my nano. Why would I?

Uh, if you remember your own example, you asked me to go to a window and attempt to scratch it.

I have addressed the issue of disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay more times than I care to count.

You are rewriting physics and the functioning of the universe in those examples. Anyone with a scientific mind or a high school physics class can see that there is no "rate of decay" unless the material itself breaks down over time. You're grafting a property, decay, into a scenario where it does not occur.

Again, I think you're losing it. Who said the nano is a "defective piece of crap"?

You're the one saying it's defective (and other posters). Maybe you've lost sight of that in your whole rewrite of the universe.

---
This is the last I intend to say on the matter, and I leave you, the readers, with the following questions to consider.

1. Do you own an iPod?
2. Are you disappointed with its appearance, which you feel has been worsened within just days as these posters claim?
3. Did you return the nano? Did you write a thoughtful, firm, but polite letter or email to Apple voicing your disappointment?
4. If you didn't return the nano, was it because you couldn't find a better alternative, or was it because you didn't want to pay the $20 or $25 (depending on the capacity) restocking fee?
5. If it was the restocking fee, have you complained about the restocking fee or taken any action about the real source of frustration--that fee?
6. If you kept the iPod, knowing you were disappointed in it and being well within the return period, do you honestly think you have a right to blame Apple for your disappointment?

This is for the entire community now to ponder
7. If Apple had no restocking fee policy, would anyone be so crass as to support the claims of the lawsuit or to accuse the nano of being legally (that is, functionally) defective?

 

[EricNau]

I have never seen people post posts this long...
This is starting to cut into my spare time

 

[ksz]

New precedents come from new harms.

My nano's aesthetics have been harmed from normal use at a highly disproportionate rate. Everything will decay from repeated use, but the rate of this decay is highly disproportionate in the nano.

There is no precedent for a purely cosmetic claim because no such suit has been successful, not because it has never been attempted.

You can always use touch-up paint if the paint on your BMW Mini scratches or peels. Why don't you? Why did the plantiffs win the lawsuit? This is a reasonably similar precedent in my opinion.

Actually, Motorola, Sony, Toshiba, and many other companies do indeed use polycarbonate in their products. It is, in fact, one of the most common plastics in electronics, and all optical media. For just one quick example, the Motorola V600 has a polycarbonate black plastic insert on its front cover. (ps - these things are also scratched! The horror!)

I have already stated that I actually own a black Motorola V620. The V620 is the same as the V600, but black in color and sold mostly in the European and Asian markets. I have owned it for more than 6 months and its shell and screen are in very good condition from very heavy use! The nano does not even come close to the scratch resilience of my black V620.

With all the features of the nano? This is news to me.

Who said it needed all the features of the nano?

There is not a precedent for suing on aesthetic grounds without damages. That does not mean that there is no precedent at all--it's just the opposite, that many suits have been rejected for lack of substantive harm. In fact, that's one of the biggest presumptions of Western law.

Disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay is a valid flaw of a product, in my opinion. Again I remind you that I am not suing; I want Apple to fix the problem, put a warning on the label, enclose a sleeve in every box, etc.

Uh, if you remember your own example, you asked me to go to a window and attempt to scratch it.

Sure I remember. How much force does it take to scratch the window with a grain of sand? Go try it and measure the force or give a qualitative answer.

You are rewriting physics and the functioning of the universe in those examples. Anyone with a scientific mind or a high school physics class can see that there is no "rate of decay" unless the material itself breaks down over time. You're grafting a property, decay, into a scenario where it does not occur.

Excuse me? Have you been listening or sleeping? The nano exhibits a disproportionate rate of aesthetic decay from normal use conditions. If you don't understand this sentence, return to grade school.

You're the one saying it's defective (and other posters). Maybe you've lost sight of that in your whole rewrite of the universe.

You are rewriting the laws of quotation! I argue that the nano's materials are inappropriate for its intended use conditions and because of this, the choice of material for the nano's exterior is a design flaw. I also said I am keeping my nano. Who said, "it's a piece of crap?" I don't know how your universe works, in my universe no one here said it's a piece of crap. Laws of physics indeed.

This is the last I intend to say on the matter...

Thanks for a good exchange.

 

[matticus008]

I thought about letting this go, but as a point of clarity and because of being instructed to return to grade school, I'm going to have to provide additional remarks.

A harm in formal complaint and law, is a significant health, safety, functional, or substantial financial damage incurred because of the cause of your complaint. Again, aesthetics are not a basis for formal complaint or lawsuit, because aesthetics are not open to legal judgment.

You can always use touch-up paint if the paint on your BMW Mini scratches or peels. Why don't you? Why did the plantiffs win the lawsuit? This is a reasonably similar precedent in my opinion.

No. That suit demonstrated a functional and safety harm that could be attributed to be originated by the scratching. The suit was not won because the cars scratched, but because those scratches were proved to contribute to an actual demonstrated harm. This is something people must understand about law.

I argue that the nano's materials are inappropriate for its intended use conditions and because of this, the choice of material for the nano's exterior is a design flaw. [...] Who said, "it's a piece of crap?"

So the product is flawed but not defective? How does that work? And then it's not defective, and it's not inferior either? Does "piece of crap" not mean "inferior?"

Which is it? Is it flawed, defective, or inferior (all terms you've used) or is it simply imperfect?

Thanks for a good exercise. . And I, barring any further orders to restart my education, am finished.

 

[ksz]

The debate got nowhere on legal grounds, but Apple is taking (voluntary?) action to improve the situation. And that is good for everyone.

 

[Aliquis]

So that sucks that people are having problems with scratching so easily. I say it's better to get some type of film cover to put on it, and then to also keep it in a slip case. Rad-tech makes some awesome slip cases, but I'm not sure if they have their nano model out yet.

 

[Azbola]

1. Do you own an iPod?
2. Are you disappointed with its appearance, which you feel has been worsened within just days as these posters claim?
3. Did you return the nano? Did you write a thoughtful, firm, but polite letter or email to Apple voicing your disappointment?
4. If you didn't return the nano, was it because you couldn't find a better alternative, or was it because you didn't want to pay the $20 or $25 (depending on the capacity) restocking fee?
5. If it was the restocking fee, have you complained about the restocking fee or taken any action about the real source of frustration--that fee?
6. If you kept the iPod, knowing you were disappointed in it and being well within the return period, do you honestly think you have a right to blame Apple for your disappointment?

This is for the entire community now to ponder
7. If Apple had no restocking fee policy, would anyone be so crass as to support the claims of the lawsuit or to accuse the nano of being legally (that is, functionally) defective?

Thought I'd answer Matticus' questions:

1) Yes (well, girlfriend does)
2) Yes (within weeks not days though)
3) Tried to return (28 days after purchase - ipod was in the box for 14 days prior to use as it was a gift), told to go away
4) Not told about 14 day return period or restocking fee when I bought it
5) Fee is not an issue, not being able to return it at all is
6) Damage was not seen within 14 day return period, I wasn't aware this period existed anyway
7) Restocking fee not an issue, inability to return/replace it is


As a side note, now I know about the 14 day return period I looked it up on their website and one of the terms is:

"ii) The Product(s) are returned in their original condition and the security seals on the Product(s) are intact; and"

So a scratched ipod is not returnable anyway as it is not in the original condition.

 

[Maxx Power]

Thought I'd answer Matticus' questions:

1) Yes (well, girlfriend does)
2) Yes (within weeks not days though)
3) Tried to return (28 days after purchase - ipod was in the box for 14 days prior to use as it was a gift), told to go away
4) Not told about 14 day return period or restocking fee when I bought it
5) Fee is not an issue, not being able to return it at all is
6) Damage was not seen within 14 day return period, I wasn't aware this period existed anyway
7) Restocking fee not an issue, inability to return/replace it is


As a side note, now I know about the 14 day return period I looked it up on their website and one of the terms is:

"ii) The Product(s) are returned in their original condition and the security seals on the Product(s) are intact; and"

So a scratched ipod is not returnable anyway as it is not in the original condition.

Forget it, I've tried, Matticus just deflects everything first from before I started posting about him not acknowledging the scratchability of the iPod, and then if it scratches, it must cause the screen to be unreadable despite the asthetical factor that the money people paid for in percentages that went into apple engineering of the asthetics (what apple is good at, and what people take apple consumer products for), and finally if it does hinder anything, show proof in documentation, so unless you can hard-mail him a copy of some kind of legal document with what he calls "hard evidence" and "facts", you won't be able to say much, he just drowns you, kinda like apple marketing does, shout loud, then something like this comes up, and they quietly introduce a hardware fault return policy including non-manufacturor hardware fault and includes a sleeve.

 

[Maxx Power]

The debate got nowhere on legal grounds, but Apple is taking (voluntary?) action to improve the situation. And that is good for everyone.

So even to Apple, this problem is already known, and has been prepared for awhile now, they always did know, kinda proves 64Byte's motive theory, eh ?

 

[snowmoon]

Forget it, I've tried, Matticus just deflects everything first from before I started posting about him not acknowledging the scratchability of the iPod, and then if it scratches, it must cause the screen to be unreadable despite the asthetical factor that the money people paid for in percentages that went into apple engineering of the asthetics (what apple is good at, and what people take apple consumer products for), and finally if it does hinder anything, show proof in documentation, so unless you can hard-mail him a copy of some kind of legal document with what he calls "hard evidence" and "facts", you won't be able to say much, he just drowns you, kinda like apple marketing does, shout loud, then something like this comes up, and they quietly introduce a hardware fault return policy including non-manufacturor hardware fault and includes a sleeve.

I may not agree with people here on the facts about the nano, but Matticus is correct that the current debate does not rise to the legal qualification for product negligance and/or other legal remedies. Sorry to say, but he IS correct. Will this case go forward anyways? sure lawers make millions on cases like this whether they win OR loose... will apple add accessories to the iPod to CYA? sure you would too after an expensive legal case... is apple legaly responsible? not necessarly.

And nothing in apple's current action can be seen as an admision of guilt, just a good strategy to prevent negative spin from a VERY SMALL percentage of vocal users who can't call apple directly and ask for reperations.

 

[Maxx Power]

I may not agree with people here on the facts about the nano, but Matticus is correct that the current debate does not rise to the legal qualification for product negligance and/or other legal remedies. Sorry to say, but he IS correct. Will this case go forward anyways? sure lawers make millions on cases like this whether they win OR loose... will apple add accessories to the iPod to CYA? sure you would too after an expensive legal case... is apple legaly responsible? not necessarly.

And nothing in apple's current action can be seen as an admision of guilt, just a good strategy to prevent negative spin from a VERY SMALL percentage of vocal users who can't call apple directly and ask for reperations.

With time, the scratching problems will get worse, it won't get better, if apple is trying to ward off negative spin by doing what they did (very minimal), the suit will proceed. There MAY not be enough people who saw far enough into the future that the Nano wears out too fast right now, but this is one of those cases that accumulates evidence and victims as time goes on.

Lots of users did contact apple or apple store where they purchased it, they told them to, and i quote "go away". Whether or not the case does benefit the lawyers is not my concern, if it benefits current customers of Apple, then i'm for it.

 

[ksz]

And nothing in apple's current action can be seen as an admision of guilt, just a good strategy to prevent negative spin from a VERY SMALL percentage of vocal users who can't call apple directly and ask for reperations.

It is generally this very small percentage of vocal users whose actions provide benefits for the rest of the silent majority. Leadership comes from the actions of a few.

Your implication that iPod nano scratchability affects only a small number of units (or owners) is not substantiated by fact. The disproportionate rate of aesthetic degradation under normal use conditions points to an inappropriate use of materials that do not hold up under the rigors of the iPod's intended use.

If there are no state or federal statutes to classify this as an actionable legal claim, we should petition our government to establish such statutes.

 

[davidgilmour]

my nano is scratched. can I sue steve jobs and ask him to give me a new one?

 

[pubwvj]

my nano is scratched. can I sue steve jobs and ask him to give me a new one?

You can sue anyone you want and try and get them to give you a new iPod. You can even sue me! It doesn't matter if I'm responsible for the scratches or not. Isn't this a great country? It is a place where ambulance chasing lawyers are now advertising on Google ads. A place where you can clog the courts with frivolous lawsuits. A place where you don't have to take responsibility for your own carelessness or stupidity. May you rot in a hell of your own crafting where your iPod is constantly being scratched.

What we need is legislative reform that makes the bringer of a suite responsible for proving the claim to the same test as criminal cases are held, nothing less, and if someone sues and loses then they must pay the defendant's legal costs AND if the judge finds the lawsuit to be frivolous then the person who brings the lawsuit should have to pay three times the costs to the defendant plus pay for the defendant's personal time at a rate of three times the higher of the defendant's rate of pay or the suer's rate of pay.

There are some valid lawsuits and it is a good mechanism for reform when all else fails but the court system is being abused by people and lawyers* who see it as a way to win the lottery and get rich quick.

*No, lawyers are not people. Recent scientific research has discovered that they are a sub-species of slime mold. That is why they don't bleed. Previously it had been thought that lawyers were a cross between a leach and a particularly nasty shark but that is not true.

 

[devilot]

*No, lawyers are not people. Recent scientific research has discovered that they are a sub-species of slime mold. That is why they don't bleed. Previously it had been thought that lawyers were a cross between a leach and a particularly nasty shark but that is not true.

Not all lawyers are completely corrupt... my cousin is one and she's a cool cat.

 

[EricNau]

You can sue anyone you want and try and get them to give you a new iPod. You can even sue me! It doesn't matter if I'm responsible for the scratches or not. Isn't this a great country? It is a place where ambulance chasing lawyers are now advertising on Google ads. A place where you can clog the courts with frivolous lawsuits. A place where you don't have to take responsibility for your own carelessness or stupidity. May you rot in a hell of your own crafting where your iPod is constantly being scratched.

What we need is legislative reform that makes the bringer of a suite responsible for proving the claim to the same test as criminal cases are held, nothing less, and if someone sues and loses then they must pay the defendant's legal costs AND if the judge finds the lawsuit to be frivolous then the person who brings the lawsuit should have to pay three times the costs to the defendant plus pay for the defendant's personal time at a rate of three times the higher of the defendant's rate of pay or the suer's rate of pay.

There are some valid lawsuits and it is a good mechanism for reform when all else fails but the court system is being abused by people and lawyers* who see it as a way to win the lottery and get rich quick.

<sarcasm>
I love America (please excuse me, I have to go sue GE because I burnt myself on one of their stoves).
</sarcasm>
Those reforms are welcomed in my opinion.

 

[pubwvj]

Not all lawyers are completely corrupt... my cousin is one and she's a cool cat.

Yes, you are right, I over generalized there. Some lawyers are human. Two of my neighbors (father & son) are lawyers and they are fine people. This is what causes the confusion in species identification. I once heard a <i>lawyer</i> say that it is the 20% who are corrupt that give the other 80% a bad name. Her words, not mine.

 

[gunnz]

I finally got the new skins from Decalgirl. I have a solid black one (three pieces....for the body, clickwheel and button) on the front, and a clear one on the back. You can pretty much mix and match anything....but i wanted it to look as original as possible. I highly recommend these! A little tough to get on...but it offers some really good protection from scratches.