iPad overheating lawsuit dismissed as Jobs' controversial mansion is razed

Posted:
in iPad edited January 2014
A lawsuit accusing Apple of falsely advertising the iPad has been dismissed due to lack of specificity, while CEO Steve Jobs has finally succeeded in having the historic Jackling mansion torn down, ending a decade-long personal struggle.



Class-action lawsuit



Court documents reveal that a federal judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit, Gregg Keizer of Computerworld reports. The suit was filed in July of last year and alleged that Apple had failed to warn users that the iPad could overheat when used in direct sunlight and had falsely advertised that the tablet device functioned like a book.



"Using the iPad is not 'just like a reading book' at all since books do not close when the reader is enjoying them in the sunlight or in other normal environmental environments," the complaint read.



U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel issued the order last week. "The Court concludes that these allegations are insufficient," said Fogel. "At the least, Plaintiffs must identify the particular commercial or advertisement upon which they relied and must describe with the requisite specificity the content of that particular commercial or advertisement."



Plaintiffs Jacob Balthazar, Claudia Keller and John Browning have 30 days to refile an amended complaint with the required specifics.



Jackling mansion



According to local newspaper the Almanac, demolition of the Jackling mansion began earlier this week. A person knowledgeable about the operation said the house had been "essentially flattened," though complete destruction of the house will take approximately two weeks.



The razing of the 17,250-square-foot mansion puts an end to a decade long controversy between Jobs and preservationists. The Spanish colonial revival mansion, which was built by Copper baron Daniel Jackling in the 1920s, had attracted the attention of local historians, who argued that the house was historically significant.



Jobs purchased the mansion in 1984 and lived in it for roughly 10 years before renting it out. The home has stood vacant since 2000, in what critics have called "demolition by neglect."



After several back and forth filings involving the city of Woodside and preservation group Uphold our Heritage, Jobs finally received the permit last week authorizing demolition of the home.



Jobs reportedly plans to build a smaller, more private home in place of the dilapidated mansion.



«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 47
    And does the iPad's screen rip when you turn the pages too fast?



    Seems like a lazy lawsuit to me...



    "Using the iPad is not 'just like a reading book' at all since books do not close when the reader is enjoying them in the sunlight or in other normal environmental environments," the complaint read.
  • Reply 2 of 47
    blursdblursd Posts: 123member
    Another case of some idiot buying a product and expecting it to perform in a way or do something it was never designed to do, nor was it ever claimed by the company to do. These morons really can't tell the difference between a paper bound book, and an iPad. It's one thing for Apple to say there is an iBookstore ... it's another entirely if what you hear from that same statement is "the iPad works just like a book." Don't get mad at Apple because you didn't bother to actually learn about the $500 dollar product before you bought it.



    Back when I worked in computer sales it was amazing to me what people would come in to complain about, and the reasons they gave for why we should "have to" take the particular product back. There was the guy who wanted to return his iPod because he couldn't play his CD's directly from it (I don't mean digitally transfer them to the iPod ... I mean he thought the USB cable connected to some kind of disc player that then played the music over the iPod ... which kind of defeats the idea of the iPod, because all you would need is a Discman). Then there was the guy who bought a graphics tablet and got upset it didn't come with several Adobe programs costing thousands of dollars. "You really think you were supposed to get two thousand dollars of software with a hundred dollar tablet," I asked him. Then there was the lady who bought a desktop because she wanted to get on the internet, and got upset the computer didn't automatically connect to the internet when she took it home - turns out she didn't know about ISP's and that computers don't magically just connect to the internet without some sort of service. And my personal favorite was the man who bought a laptop and was irate that he was required to recharge the battery. I don't mean he was upset because the battery didn't hold a charge very long, or that the charger didn't work ... I mean he thought the laptop was supposed to have some sort of battery that never needed to be charged, and just always had power (like a T2000 or something). Every single one of them swore the product was advertised to do whatever ridiculous thing they claimed ...



    Some people are just stupid ... and they always want to blame someone else for their own stupidity.
  • Reply 3 of 47
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    The judge dropped that case like a hot potato.
  • Reply 4 of 47
    tsatsa Posts: 129member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    The judge dropped that case like a hot potato.



    What's so historical about the house anyway? It wasn't even a hundred years old.
  • Reply 5 of 47
    You sure it wasn't an iPad that destoyed the house?
  • Reply 6 of 47
    Too bad Steve couldn't start on that new house around 2005, when a guy making a dollar a year could get a home loan.



  • Reply 7 of 47
    Title says all.
  • Reply 8 of 47
    Why weren't these two articles in separate posts? They have nothing to do with each other.



    iPad lawsuit: What a stupid claim. If you truly wanted to own a book, you should have bought a book. Or perhaps a Kindle or Nook. There were no surprises in the iPad.



    House: If the preservationists really wanted to maintain the house, they could have bought it. They just wanted someone else to pay for it and do their bidding. I think it looked like a nice house and if I owed it, I wouldn't have demolished it. But I didn't own it.
  • Reply 9 of 47
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 1,893member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac'em X View Post


    Too bad Steve couldn't start on that new house around 2005, when a guy making a dollar a year could get a home loan.







    LOL -- awesome quote!
  • Reply 10 of 47
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 1,893member
    The fact that it took so long for Jobs to demolish a house that he legally owned is, I believe, an illustration of what's wrong with California. There are just too many obstacles to progress in that state. I don't mean to suggest that I want to live in some kind of libertarian fantasy world where we ignore all externalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities) and have everyone pursue their private interests without regard to any other consideration. I'm just saying that in CA it seems that the process for balancing these competing concerns appears to be highly inefficient, and that the balance seems a little skewed to me in many cases (another example is the difficulty in using desert land for solar power generation due to environmental concerns -- the irony of course being that the whole point of solar power generation is to help solve the single biggest environmental issue in the history of human civilization, but god forbid we piss off some turtles).
  • Reply 11 of 47
    that mansion didn't even have cable!
  • Reply 12 of 47
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Lol, I wonder if he had a glass of champagne when they finally flattened it. What a battle.
  • Reply 13 of 47
    irelandireland Posts: 17,547member
    You guys are obsessed with this mansion.
  • Reply 14 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac'em X View Post


    Too bad Steve couldn't start on that new house around 2005, when a guy making a dollar a year could get a home loan.











    At least, he has his worthless Apple stock to pledge......
  • Reply 15 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac'em X View Post


    Too bad Steve couldn't start on that new house around 2005, when a guy making a dollar a year could get a home loan.







    Took me a second to get that. Nice one! Lol.



    On a separate note:

    Really? You didn't present a copy of the offending advertising? Really?
  • Reply 16 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tsa View Post


    What's so historical about the house anyway? It wasn't even a hundred years old.



    In the USA that's "old" apparently.
  • Reply 17 of 47
    a_ka_k Posts: 32member
    I don't know about you guys, but I think the house was nice.
  • Reply 18 of 47
    Don't forget my YouTube video testing iPad overheating

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jv1EYFQuZM
  • Reply 19 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by akf2000 View Post


    You sure it wasn't an iPad that destoyed the house?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    The judge dropped that case like a hot potato.



  • Reply 20 of 47
    nceencee Posts: 836member
    sPad or hPad or myPad



    Skip
Sign In or Register to comment.