Post by: Texas Mac Man on October 09, 2007, 07:49:35 PM
Post by: Paddy on October 09, 2007, 11:19:50 PM
http://www.macworld.com/forums/ubbthreads/...;view=collapsed
The bigger you get, the bigger the target you become for the sharks.
Post by: krissel on October 10, 2007, 12:31:59 AM
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/a...LOSKHSCJUNN2JVN
Might end up that Apple has to make the warnings about breaking the warranty in larger type.
Post by: RHPConsult on October 10, 2007, 04:02:19 AM
I was especially moved by the signature that reads something like . . ."Your Mac can help cure disease in its spare time"
And the answer to the query, "Can we bring back caning of lawyers?" to which some perceptive type replied, "Only when they get out of Tort Reform School.
Post by: krissel on October 12, 2007, 02:56:58 AM
QUOTE
Though the suit raises many thorny issues, one of the more eyebrow-raising claims accuses Apple of monopolistic practices on the theory that the iPhone is such a distinctive device that it constitutes its own market — i.e., no other cell phone manufacturer even rises to the level of being a competitor. Since Apple obviously enjoys a monopoly over the iPhone market, the suit claims it is now illegally trying to extend that monopoly into other areas, including phone service and handset software.
To support the claim that the iPhone should be deemed to constitute it’s own market, the plaintiffs allege: “For many users, including the Plaintiffs and the Class, there was no product available which offered anywhere near the same combination of services and ease of use.”
To support the claim that the iPhone should be deemed to constitute it’s own market, the plaintiffs allege: “For many users, including the Plaintiffs and the Class, there was no product available which offered anywhere near the same combination of services and ease of use.”
Flattery in a lawsuit..
http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007...rce=yahoo_quote
Post by: RHPConsult on October 12, 2007, 11:15:55 AM
Impatiently, now, waiting for Leopard.
Life is Good.
Post by: Paddy on October 12, 2007, 12:04:18 PM
Have any of these idiots actually read the warranty (available on Apple's web site)?
http://images.apple.com/legal/warranty/iphone.pdf
"This warranty does not apply: (a) to damage caused by use with non-Apple products; (b) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, flood, fire, earthquake or other external causes; c) to damage caused by operating the product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Apple; (d) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider (“AASP”); (e) to a product or part that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple;"
The monopoly of Apple over the iPhone market charge IS pretty funny...let's see...how about the monopoly of the Apple in the iMac market, since no other all-in-one computer comes remotely close to it?
Q: What do you have when a lawyer is buried up to his neck in sand?
A: Not enough sand.
Post by: RobW on October 13, 2007, 02:55:48 PM
QUOTE(Paddy @ Oct 12 2007, 01:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And did you see that it is now a class action and they're asking for $1 BILLION in damages???...
Q: What do you have when a lawyer is buried up to his neck in sand?
A: Not enough sand.
Q: What do you have when a lawyer is buried up to his neck in sand?
A: Not enough sand.
Post by: krissel on October 14, 2007, 12:53:25 AM
http://www.techsurvivors.net/forums/index....showtopic=17309
Post by: Paddy on October 15, 2007, 08:33:40 AM
From Wikipedia:
QUOTE
On June 25, 2007, the trial ended with District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruling in favor of the dry cleaners, and awarding them court costs pursuant to a motion which the Chungs later withdrew. The court took judicial notice of Pearson's divorce proceedings, where he was sanctioned $12,000 by the trial court "creating unnecessary litigation and threatening both [Rhonda] VanLowe and her lawyer with disbarment."
On July 11th, 2007, Pearson made a motion to reconsider in the trial court, stating that he felt the judge had "committed a fundamental legal error" and had failed to address his legal claims. Pearson stated that he believed the court had imposed its own conditional interpretation of 'satisfaction guaranteed' rather than what Pearson believes is an offer of unconditional and unambiguous satisfaction. The court denied the motion.
The Chungs' moved to recover $83,000 in attorneys' fees and impose sanctions, but withdrew the motion after recovering their costs through fund-raising; the Chungs stated that they did so in the hopes of persuading Pearson to stop litigating.[18] But on August 14, 2007, Pearson filed a notice of appeal.
On August 2, 2007 it was revealed that a panel recommended not to give Pearson a ten year term as an Administrative Law Judge, after his initial two year term expired mid-2007, in part because his suit against Mr Chung demonstrated a lack of "judicial temperament." Pearson was appointed in 2005 and will lose his $100,512 salary if a hearing upholds that decision.
....On July 24, 2007, The American Tort Reform Association and the Institute for Legal Reform of the United States Chamber of Commerce hosted a fundraiser for the Chungs to help pay their attorneys fees that reported having raised up to $64,000.00. The Chungs say they have received close to $100,000 from supporters to cover their attorneys' fees and lost business.
Citing a loss of revenue and emotional strain from the lawsuit, the Chungs announced, on September 19, 2007, that they have closed and sold the dry cleaning shop involved in the dispute. The Chungs still own one additional dry cleaning shop and have stated they will be focusing their attention and resources on their remaining shop.
On July 11th, 2007, Pearson made a motion to reconsider in the trial court, stating that he felt the judge had "committed a fundamental legal error" and had failed to address his legal claims. Pearson stated that he believed the court had imposed its own conditional interpretation of 'satisfaction guaranteed' rather than what Pearson believes is an offer of unconditional and unambiguous satisfaction. The court denied the motion.
The Chungs' moved to recover $83,000 in attorneys' fees and impose sanctions, but withdrew the motion after recovering their costs through fund-raising; the Chungs stated that they did so in the hopes of persuading Pearson to stop litigating.[18] But on August 14, 2007, Pearson filed a notice of appeal.
On August 2, 2007 it was revealed that a panel recommended not to give Pearson a ten year term as an Administrative Law Judge, after his initial two year term expired mid-2007, in part because his suit against Mr Chung demonstrated a lack of "judicial temperament." Pearson was appointed in 2005 and will lose his $100,512 salary if a hearing upholds that decision.
....On July 24, 2007, The American Tort Reform Association and the Institute for Legal Reform of the United States Chamber of Commerce hosted a fundraiser for the Chungs to help pay their attorneys fees that reported having raised up to $64,000.00. The Chungs say they have received close to $100,000 from supporters to cover their attorneys' fees and lost business.
Citing a loss of revenue and emotional strain from the lawsuit, the Chungs announced, on September 19, 2007, that they have closed and sold the dry cleaning shop involved in the dispute. The Chungs still own one additional dry cleaning shop and have stated they will be focusing their attention and resources on their remaining shop.
Pearson was removed from the list of Administrative Law judges on the DC web site in May; he's still not listed there today.