If you have that much damage from a phone, why didn't you immediately replace it?
In other words, to be damaged so much by a phone seems like negligence on your own part.
Maybe it's because I'm not from the US, and I don't understand your judicial system.
I think it would be inadmissible where I live.
Can anyone explain the logic behind even MAKING this type of claim?
Actually, it's more like ~$2M for the attorneys and whatever rest to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are just pawns. It's the slimy law firm that's actually filing the suit. They troll for folks to sign up so they can file a class action lawsuit.
I agree with some of you. Does this guy deserve 5 million? Fuck no. But... The iPhone is misleading and entrappment. According to the guy I have quoted the solution is take it back. Well I bought the 3g which I haven't even got to see if 3g is fast because the apple store I bought it from was in a no coverage zone. I get home... Still no coverage. If it
Does get coverage it is usually one bar. And it keeps dropping my calls. AT&T will allow me to return it if I pay a $175.00 cancellation fee.... Hmmm that's bs. So I understand the mans headache but he doesn't deserve 5 million. My recommendation is don't buy an iPhone until At&t has more 3g towers and until apple can make the iPhone switch from 3g to edge without dropping calls.
Entrapment? Do you even know what this word means? I was not aware that Apple was law enforcement agency or that they were inducing you to commit a crime by purchasing an iPhone.
Let's recap:
1) No signal in Apple Store but you bought it, apparently, without reservation;
2) No signal when you got home but you still chose to keep the phone;
3) No signal and/or dropped calls for the entire return period but you again chose to keep the phone.
Sounds like poor judgement on your part. I would have returned the phone if I were unable to make and receive calls in an acceptable manner. At least you have not yet chosen to sue others for the judgements you made.
I think many of you are missing a few important points about our judicial system and have somewhere bought into the hype that corporate america sometimes puts out.
First, gaining class action status is not easy. You really have to convince a judge that all of the elements required for class action status have been met. A little background on the basis of class action suits. The reason for having class action suits is for judicial economy. When there are a large number of plaintiffs, it is more judicially economical to have one suit representing the class than hundreds or thousands of suits tying up the courts. The other major reason is that usually the amount of damages individually would be too small to justify the expense and there are a large number of injured parties that would seek restitution but for the cost being greater than the potential restitution. In a class action suite you get attorney fees in a normal breach of contract (unless specified in the contract) you do not.
While I haven't seen the specific allegations in any of these suits, I would imagine that they are alleging more than just breach of contract. It is in a tort where there is intentional wrong doing that you get the large damage awards. You must prove that the defendant party did something wrong to you and did it intentionally or at the very least knew or should have known that what they were doing would cause you harm.
Thus, if they can prove that Apple made certain promises to induce you to part with your money (Twice the speed for half the cost) and they knew that those promises were false (3G did not work very well on the iPhone due to either hardware or software failings) and then they denied that the promises weren't being met (there is nothing wrong with the iPhone or AT&T's network) and you relied on their further falsehood (the next patch will fix it) to cause you to miss the 30 day return window you might have a case. Usually, by the time a case is certified the plaintiff knows he has lost and has negotiated a settlement. Few actually go to trial. It is really a means for the little guy to be able to take on a big corporation and have a chance of winning. Otherwise the little guy would always be screwed.
By the way, if you ever actually took the time to read the McDonald's case you might be surprised at what you would learn. It isn't the way the newspaper would have you believe.
Except that it's not. I continue, even with the 2.1 software, to experience complete losses of service in the middle of the workday. I called AT&T during today's outage and they admitted they had a tower down in my ZIP code (19801). We are talking a complete loss of all data services, and it keeps happening over and over, so I tend to agree that AT&T is not capable of providing consistent service.
No, I'm not suing, but I'm glad someone is so that this issue gets talked about and kept in the forefront.
You have given a fine example of why someone might seek redress from AT&T. But how does Apple fit in with these lawsuits? It's funny because Apple, rather than AT&T, seems to be the primary focus of these suits which seem to be AT&T deployment and capacity issues.
There is no logic with our judicial system... that's the problem. People here come up with any reason to sue and get rich quick. And sadly, a judge will side with the moron most of the time. Or at least that's the way it seems...
If the loser had to pay all the costs, including those of the defendant maybe they'd think twice.
I think many of you are missing a few important points about our judicial system and have somewhere bought into the hype that corporate america sometimes puts out.
First, gaining class action status is not easy. You really have to convince a judge that all of the elements required for class action status have been met. A little background on the basis of class action suits. The reason for having class action suits is for judicial economy. When there are a large number of plaintiffs, it is more judicially economical to have one suit representing the class than hundreds or thousands of suits tying up the courts. The other major reason is that usually the amount of damages individually would be too small to justify the expense and there are a large number of injured parties that would seek restitution but for the cost being greater than the potential restitution. In a class action suite you get attorney fees in a normal breach of contract (unless specified in the contract) you do not.
While I haven't seen the specific allegations in any of these suits, I would imagine that they are alleging more than just breach of contract. It is in a tort where there is intentional wrong doing that you get the large damage awards. You must prove that the defendant party did something wrong to you and did it intentionally or at the very least knew or should have known that what they were doing would cause you harm.
Thus, if they can prove that Apple made certain promises to induce you to part with your money (Twice the speed for half the cost) and they knew that those promises were false (3G did not work very well on the iPhone due to either hardware or software failings) and then they denied that the promises weren't being met (there is nothing wrong with the iPhone or AT&T's network) and you relied on their further falsehood (the next patch will fix it) to cause you to miss the 30 day return window you might have a case. Usually, by the time a case is certified the plaintiff knows he has lost and has negotiated a settlement. Few actually go to trial. It is really a means for the little guy to be able to take on a big corporation and have a chance of winning. Otherwise the little guy would always be screwed.
By the way, if you ever actually took the time to read the McDonald's case you might be surprised at what you would learn. It isn't the way the newspaper would have you believe.
I don't doubt you know what you are talking about but I have to ask ... most advertising in the US is nothing but a pack of lies. How do they all get away with it?
we only hear about the frivolous [lawsuits], but what about the ones that are legit, as expected, mums the word on those.
Well... we only hear about the lawsuits filed.... not when they are dropped or lose.
We don't know what happens as a result. Its either
1) They win and get what they ask
2) They win and get less
3) They settle for less (unspecified amount)
4) They lose or drop the suit.
I suspect that 99.9% of lawsuits against apple fall into #3 or #4.
I wish we could track lawsuits from the last 10 years and their results.
Quote:
That being said, it seems a good preventative measure should be that if the defendant can, prove without a shadow of a doubt that the suit brought against them was indeed frivolous, the the plaintiff is fully responsible for the defendants defense cost, all of it. Without having a background in law I think this would help stem some of the suits we see.
Yes. Is that not the law in the US?
In Australia, lawyers advertise "you only pay us if you win!", but they don't tell you that you may still have to pay court costs and the defendant's legal costs.
A friend of a friend had a petting zoo for kids to play with rabbits, sheep etc. The rabbit bit a 3 year old's finger and the family sued for psychological injury - the child (then 4) was wetting his bed twice a week and they blamed the rabbit.
In the court case they argued that there should have been a warning sign ("beware of rabbit"?) and the owner was asked "were you aware that a rabbit could bite?" - to which he said "anything with teeth can bite". The father was absolved of responsibility for his son because his 2 year old daughter was running after "another dangerous animal" and he went to help her (this time a duck).
Anyway - they won the lawsuit, the petting zoo had to pay $40,000 (and the lawyers took their half of course). The petting zoo (and zoo's insurance) then appealed, and won the appeal. The family had to pay back the original $40,000, plus the zoo's legal fees and court costs. About $100,000.
I'm glad the petting zoo made it. In this case the lawyers worked on greed and "no risk" but in the end it cost the family.
I think it's pretty bold to stat that a fix has been put in place. I'm on 2.1 and still having trouble making calls or getting dropped from them. Way more often than it should be happening.
But I love the device too much so I'd like to ride it out until the system is fixed (crossing my fingers).
Meanwhile, just because Apple or AT&T will refund your money for returning it does not mean it's okay to put out false advertising. So saying someone has poor judgment and should have returned it doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to pursue false advertising.
I do think many of these suits are going to far, but there are laws in place to prevent false or misleading advertising. Don't be upset because someone wants to enforce the law. It's another case when they want to take advantage of the law to pursue a windfall.
I love Apple, but all companies should be very careful what they claim in ads and be prepared to substantiate any and all claims.
My recommendation is don't buy an iPhone until At&t has more 3g towers and until apple can make the iPhone switch from 3g to edge without dropping calls.
I agree that Apple should take the phone back if you genuinely have no coverage. That's allowed here, but I believe the allowance is only for NO coverage of 2G or 3G... so it wouldn't help an iPhone user.
As for the iPhone switching between 3G and edge - apparently the network has to support that too. I don't understand the technicalities, but an Aussie forum was discussing this and the 3G tower needs to enable the exchange of the details of nearby 2G towers for a clean handover to happen between 3G and 2G.
In our major harbour tunnels they want to do this, as it would be very obvious if any of the networks cut out when entering the tunnel. But they do want to keep people on 3G as much as possible, so in the suburbs they don't allow an easy switch to 2G. People accept dropped calls here and there (to a point) and this is a more efficient use of the network (just bad for us!). I wonder if Optus etc are still doing this.
I'm sorry, but this kind of crap just shows the flaws of America. And I'm American. It's ridiculous, and it's never going to change. Our legal system is shit and people are greedy.
But you know what? I'm in Japan right now. I have an iPhone 3G and even though I'm on a lower quality network because Softbank doesn't always have good signal, I haven't experienced a dropped call yet. And in Japan all we have is 3G now. So why are these lawsuits targeting Apple? Apple doesn't run the network.
I will say that I think the 2.1 firmware pulled a fast one by upping the number of bars. Even when I have "5 bars" internet drags because the signal isn't really that strong; it's just hanging on with a weak signal. So that's bullshit in my opinion.
As for the person who bought an iPhone at an Apple Store without checking 3G coverage, that's just being a poor consumer. That's your responsibility, and not Apple's fault.
The same reason a woman can win a lawsuit for millions because McDonald's didn't put a warning label on their coffee cups that says "Beware, Coffee Is Very Hot".
You can sue and probably win even the most frivolous lawsuits these days.
That was not a frivolous case. It's cited as frivolous by those who are ignorant and intellectually lazy.
Would YOU like to undergo skin grafts on your crotch like the woman who spilled the coffee in her lap? Yes, the coffee was that hot. That fact never seems to get mentioned by those citing the case. Nor the reduced award on appeal. Nor the 700 scalding incidents and McDonald's did nothing to resolve the issue of serving coffee at 185 degrees. Nor the fact that the 81-year-old woman was just trying to get McDonald's to pay her medical expenses but they blew her off.
If we need tort reform, then let's base it on facts, not knee-jerk reactions. This government has done enough to reduce consumer rights and give it to corporations.
It would be a crying shame if these clowns win a case based on coverage issues. It is like this can we realistically blame Apple if else drive out of town and end up with no 2 or 3G coverage? Should we start during radio stations when we drive out if range? Frankly it reminds me of another democrat that is publically whining because he doesn't think he is getting the entittlements he thinks he deserves. It just makes me wonder why people go out and buy technology they don't even remotely understand.
Now given all of that Apple frankly hasn't been on very good behaviour with iPhone. IPhone is close to a perfect emulation of a crash ohmatic. in my case Safari is worst than it's ever been. Still I realize the device is only a couple of months old. It simply takes time to get things right. The reality is that Apple has a history of stablising it's OSes and there is good reason to believe they will here. So yes Apple is guilty of shipping a beta but let's also realize that it is a state of the art and innovative beta. You pay a price to be on the bleeding edge.
I think it's pretty bold to stat that a fix has been put in place. I'm on 2.1 and still having trouble making calls or getting dropped from them. Way more often than it should be happening.
The problem is that not everyone is on 2.1.
The folks on 2.0.X are still screwing up the antennas.
This is why they are pushing so hard to get everyone upgraded.
You had 30 days to test the phone and the network and decide if it met your needs.
If you had returned it during that period you would not have been charged $175.
Is that not enough time?
To add to your response to Daniel: The $175 is an early termination fee for your contract after the 30 days and allows you to keep the iPhone you originally paid for at a subsidized rate.
That was not a frivolous case. It's cited as frivolous by those who are ignorant and intellectually lazy.
Would YOU like to undergo skin grafts on your crotch like the woman who spilled the coffee in her lap? Yes, the coffee was that hot. That fact never seems to get mentioned by those citing the case. Nor the reduced award on appeal. Nor the 700 scalding incidents and McDonald's did nothing to resolve the issue of serving coffee at 185 degrees. Nor the fact that the 81-year-old woman was just trying to get McDonald's to pay her medical expenses but they blew her off.
If we need tort reform, then let's base it on facts, not knee-jerk reactions. This government has done enough to reduce consumer rights and give it to corporations.
This is more BS from the left. Any reasonable person realizes coffee is hot. The process to make involves boiling water. If this woman got anything she got to much. This is a perfect example of someone trying to make up for their stupidity in the courts.
Serious question: can any lawyers or anyone explain why some one who buys a 199 phone is entitled to 5 million dollars if it doesn't work as advertised? i would really like to hear some reasonable argument for this.
thanks
That is easy...
$199.00 to the guy who went to the lawyers to sue Apple
That was not a frivolous case. It's cited as frivolous by those who are ignorant and intellectually lazy.
[...]
There is much more to the case than that and the jury found that that the plantiff was 20% responsible for her injuries, so that was taken off the settlement. The main issue the jury seemed to have in Liebeck v. McDonald's is the lack of adequate labeling on the package, not the temperature. Liebeck's lawyers stated that it would take least 12 seconds (had to look this fact up) before 3rd-degree burns would occur from 180° F coffee.
Making better cups and lids. and having larger warnings are how companies are dealing with these lawsuits. Thankfully, they are still serving coffee at the same temperatures as they were before so we aren't getting dealt an inferior tasting cup of joe as a result.
That was not a frivolous case. It's cited as frivolous by those who are ignorant and intellectually lazy.
Would YOU like to undergo skin grafts on your crotch like the woman who spilled the coffee in her lap? Yes, the coffee was that hot. That fact never seems to get mentioned by those citing the case. Nor the reduced award on appeal. Nor the 700 scalding incidents and McDonald's did nothing to resolve the issue of serving coffee at 185 degrees. Nor the fact that the 81-year-old woman was just trying to get McDonald's to pay her medical expenses but they blew her off.
If we need tort reform, then let's base it on facts, not knee-jerk reactions. This government has done enough to reduce consumer rights and give it to corporations.
It's an interesting link and I thank you for it. It's very persuasive It certainly educates me.
The full story removes the extremes of sensationalism about the case, and makes you think McDonalds should have done something. No one wants an 81year old lady to have 3rd degree burns and skin grafts, and she only asked for medical expenses not millions of dollars or the half million she was awarded (her medical expenses, from the description, would have been $50k-$100k??).
However - it still leaves the simple question - are we responsible for ourselves?
Okay so McDonalds coffee is 20'f hotter than other coffees...
1) had the lady ever bought coffee from McDonalds before? (and thus would be aware of its temperature)
2) if she had known it was 20'f hotter than starbucks, would that have stopped her from buying it at McDonalds?
3) had she known it was 20'f hotter than starbucks, could that have changed her spilling it in her lap?
Just because 70 people scald themselves and get compensation every year doesn't make McDonalds wrong either. More people die of tooth-pick related accidents than of shark attack.... does that make the tooth-pick makers responsible?
Whether the lady was asking for $500,000 or just her medical expenses - should a coffee shop pay when someone spills their coffee? Do we need a sign for everything that can go wrong (I was told I should have put a sign under the desk behind a computer saying "do not pull out the power cord").
I feel bad for the lady, and it would have been nice if McDonalds had paid her expenses. They already replace your drink if you drop it, when it's not their fault. But really...
Making better cups and lids. and having larger warnings are how companies are dealing with these lawsuits.
Good idea with better cups and lids.
I hate the warning thing. Warnings only work when there are few of them, so it has to be selective - once you get a lot then you don't read them.
I want to see the important warnings! Perhaps someone needs to successfully sue for too many warnings before they'll reduce. It's like Apple's labels on boxes - simple, clear.
ps. I went to the doctors the other day - they had about 30 letter-sized "important notices" above the reception. It took me 10 minutes to read them :-/
Comments
$5.000.000 / 100 plaintiffs = $50.000 per person.
If you have that much damage from a phone, why didn't you immediately replace it?
In other words, to be damaged so much by a phone seems like negligence on your own part.
Maybe it's because I'm not from the US, and I don't understand your judicial system.
I think it would be inadmissible where I live.
Can anyone explain the logic behind even MAKING this type of claim?
Actually, it's more like ~$2M for the attorneys and whatever rest to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are just pawns. It's the slimy law firm that's actually filing the suit. They troll for folks to sign up so they can file a class action lawsuit.
I agree with some of you. Does this guy deserve 5 million? Fuck no. But... The iPhone is misleading and entrappment. According to the guy I have quoted the solution is take it back. Well I bought the 3g which I haven't even got to see if 3g is fast because the apple store I bought it from was in a no coverage zone. I get home... Still no coverage. If it
Does get coverage it is usually one bar. And it keeps dropping my calls. AT&T will allow me to return it if I pay a $175.00 cancellation fee.... Hmmm that's bs. So I understand the mans headache but he doesn't deserve 5 million. My recommendation is don't buy an iPhone until At&t has more 3g towers and until apple can make the iPhone switch from 3g to edge without dropping calls.
Entrapment? Do you even know what this word means? I was not aware that Apple was law enforcement agency or that they were inducing you to commit a crime by purchasing an iPhone.
Let's recap:
1) No signal in Apple Store but you bought it, apparently, without reservation;
2) No signal when you got home but you still chose to keep the phone;
3) No signal and/or dropped calls for the entire return period but you again chose to keep the phone.
Sounds like poor judgement on your part. I would have returned the phone if I were unable to make and receive calls in an acceptable manner. At least you have not yet chosen to sue others for the judgements you made.
First, gaining class action status is not easy. You really have to convince a judge that all of the elements required for class action status have been met. A little background on the basis of class action suits. The reason for having class action suits is for judicial economy. When there are a large number of plaintiffs, it is more judicially economical to have one suit representing the class than hundreds or thousands of suits tying up the courts. The other major reason is that usually the amount of damages individually would be too small to justify the expense and there are a large number of injured parties that would seek restitution but for the cost being greater than the potential restitution. In a class action suite you get attorney fees in a normal breach of contract (unless specified in the contract) you do not.
While I haven't seen the specific allegations in any of these suits, I would imagine that they are alleging more than just breach of contract. It is in a tort where there is intentional wrong doing that you get the large damage awards. You must prove that the defendant party did something wrong to you and did it intentionally or at the very least knew or should have known that what they were doing would cause you harm.
Thus, if they can prove that Apple made certain promises to induce you to part with your money (Twice the speed for half the cost) and they knew that those promises were false (3G did not work very well on the iPhone due to either hardware or software failings) and then they denied that the promises weren't being met (there is nothing wrong with the iPhone or AT&T's network) and you relied on their further falsehood (the next patch will fix it) to cause you to miss the 30 day return window you might have a case. Usually, by the time a case is certified the plaintiff knows he has lost and has negotiated a settlement. Few actually go to trial. It is really a means for the little guy to be able to take on a big corporation and have a chance of winning. Otherwise the little guy would always be screwed.
By the way, if you ever actually took the time to read the McDonald's case you might be surprised at what you would learn. It isn't the way the newspaper would have you believe.
Except that it's not. I continue, even with the 2.1 software, to experience complete losses of service in the middle of the workday. I called AT&T during today's outage and they admitted they had a tower down in my ZIP code (19801). We are talking a complete loss of all data services, and it keeps happening over and over, so I tend to agree that AT&T is not capable of providing consistent service.
No, I'm not suing, but I'm glad someone is so that this issue gets talked about and kept in the forefront.
You have given a fine example of why someone might seek redress from AT&T. But how does Apple fit in with these lawsuits? It's funny because Apple, rather than AT&T, seems to be the primary focus of these suits which seem to be AT&T deployment and capacity issues.
There is no logic with our judicial system... that's the problem. People here come up with any reason to sue and get rich quick. And sadly, a judge will side with the moron most of the time. Or at least that's the way it seems...
If the loser had to pay all the costs, including those of the defendant maybe they'd think twice.
I think many of you are missing a few important points about our judicial system and have somewhere bought into the hype that corporate america sometimes puts out.
First, gaining class action status is not easy. You really have to convince a judge that all of the elements required for class action status have been met. A little background on the basis of class action suits. The reason for having class action suits is for judicial economy. When there are a large number of plaintiffs, it is more judicially economical to have one suit representing the class than hundreds or thousands of suits tying up the courts. The other major reason is that usually the amount of damages individually would be too small to justify the expense and there are a large number of injured parties that would seek restitution but for the cost being greater than the potential restitution. In a class action suite you get attorney fees in a normal breach of contract (unless specified in the contract) you do not.
While I haven't seen the specific allegations in any of these suits, I would imagine that they are alleging more than just breach of contract. It is in a tort where there is intentional wrong doing that you get the large damage awards. You must prove that the defendant party did something wrong to you and did it intentionally or at the very least knew or should have known that what they were doing would cause you harm.
Thus, if they can prove that Apple made certain promises to induce you to part with your money (Twice the speed for half the cost) and they knew that those promises were false (3G did not work very well on the iPhone due to either hardware or software failings) and then they denied that the promises weren't being met (there is nothing wrong with the iPhone or AT&T's network) and you relied on their further falsehood (the next patch will fix it) to cause you to miss the 30 day return window you might have a case. Usually, by the time a case is certified the plaintiff knows he has lost and has negotiated a settlement. Few actually go to trial. It is really a means for the little guy to be able to take on a big corporation and have a chance of winning. Otherwise the little guy would always be screwed.
By the way, if you ever actually took the time to read the McDonald's case you might be surprised at what you would learn. It isn't the way the newspaper would have you believe.
I don't doubt you know what you are talking about but I have to ask ... most advertising in the US is nothing but a pack of lies. How do they all get away with it?
we only hear about the frivolous [lawsuits], but what about the ones that are legit, as expected, mums the word on those.
Well... we only hear about the lawsuits filed.... not when they are dropped or lose.
We don't know what happens as a result. Its either
1) They win and get what they ask
2) They win and get less
3) They settle for less (unspecified amount)
4) They lose or drop the suit.
I suspect that 99.9% of lawsuits against apple fall into #3 or #4.
I wish we could track lawsuits from the last 10 years and their results.
That being said, it seems a good preventative measure should be that if the defendant can, prove without a shadow of a doubt that the suit brought against them was indeed frivolous, the the plaintiff is fully responsible for the defendants defense cost, all of it. Without having a background in law I think this would help stem some of the suits we see.
Yes. Is that not the law in the US?
In Australia, lawyers advertise "you only pay us if you win!", but they don't tell you that you may still have to pay court costs and the defendant's legal costs.
A friend of a friend had a petting zoo for kids to play with rabbits, sheep etc. The rabbit bit a 3 year old's finger and the family sued for psychological injury - the child (then 4) was wetting his bed twice a week and they blamed the rabbit.
In the court case they argued that there should have been a warning sign ("beware of rabbit"?) and the owner was asked "were you aware that a rabbit could bite?" - to which he said "anything with teeth can bite". The father was absolved of responsibility for his son because his 2 year old daughter was running after "another dangerous animal" and he went to help her (this time a duck).
Anyway - they won the lawsuit, the petting zoo had to pay $40,000 (and the lawyers took their half of course). The petting zoo (and zoo's insurance) then appealed, and won the appeal. The family had to pay back the original $40,000, plus the zoo's legal fees and court costs. About $100,000.
I'm glad the petting zoo made it. In this case the lawyers worked on greed and "no risk" but in the end it cost the family.
But I love the device too much so I'd like to ride it out until the system is fixed (crossing my fingers).
Meanwhile, just because Apple or AT&T will refund your money for returning it does not mean it's okay to put out false advertising. So saying someone has poor judgment and should have returned it doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to pursue false advertising.
I do think many of these suits are going to far, but there are laws in place to prevent false or misleading advertising. Don't be upset because someone wants to enforce the law. It's another case when they want to take advantage of the law to pursue a windfall.
I love Apple, but all companies should be very careful what they claim in ads and be prepared to substantiate any and all claims.
My recommendation is don't buy an iPhone until At&t has more 3g towers and until apple can make the iPhone switch from 3g to edge without dropping calls.
I agree that Apple should take the phone back if you genuinely have no coverage. That's allowed here, but I believe the allowance is only for NO coverage of 2G or 3G... so it wouldn't help an iPhone user.
As for the iPhone switching between 3G and edge - apparently the network has to support that too. I don't understand the technicalities, but an Aussie forum was discussing this and the 3G tower needs to enable the exchange of the details of nearby 2G towers for a clean handover to happen between 3G and 2G.
In our major harbour tunnels they want to do this, as it would be very obvious if any of the networks cut out when entering the tunnel. But they do want to keep people on 3G as much as possible, so in the suburbs they don't allow an easy switch to 2G. People accept dropped calls here and there (to a point) and this is a more efficient use of the network (just bad for us!). I wonder if Optus etc are still doing this.
But you know what? I'm in Japan right now. I have an iPhone 3G and even though I'm on a lower quality network because Softbank doesn't always have good signal, I haven't experienced a dropped call yet. And in Japan all we have is 3G now. So why are these lawsuits targeting Apple? Apple doesn't run the network.
I will say that I think the 2.1 firmware pulled a fast one by upping the number of bars. Even when I have "5 bars" internet drags because the signal isn't really that strong; it's just hanging on with a weak signal. So that's bullshit in my opinion.
As for the person who bought an iPhone at an Apple Store without checking 3G coverage, that's just being a poor consumer. That's your responsibility, and not Apple's fault.
... AT&T will allow me to return it if I pay a $175.00 cancellation fee.... Hmmm that's bs...
You had 30 days to test the phone and the network and decide if it met your needs.
If you had returned it during that period you would not have been charged $175.
Is that not enough time?
The same reason a woman can win a lawsuit for millions because McDonald's didn't put a warning label on their coffee cups that says "Beware, Coffee Is Very Hot".
You can sue and probably win even the most frivolous lawsuits these days.
That was not a frivolous case. It's cited as frivolous by those who are ignorant and intellectually lazy.
Would YOU like to undergo skin grafts on your crotch like the woman who spilled the coffee in her lap? Yes, the coffee was that hot. That fact never seems to get mentioned by those citing the case. Nor the reduced award on appeal. Nor the 700 scalding incidents and McDonald's did nothing to resolve the issue of serving coffee at 185 degrees. Nor the fact that the 81-year-old woman was just trying to get McDonald's to pay her medical expenses but they blew her off.
Please educate yourself:
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
If we need tort reform, then let's base it on facts, not knee-jerk reactions. This government has done enough to reduce consumer rights and give it to corporations.
Now given all of that Apple frankly hasn't been on very good behaviour with iPhone. IPhone is close to a perfect emulation of a crash ohmatic. in my case Safari is worst than it's ever been. Still I realize the device is only a couple of months old. It simply takes time to get things right. The reality is that Apple has a history of stablising it's OSes and there is good reason to believe they will here. So yes Apple is guilty of shipping a beta but let's also realize that it is a state of the art and innovative beta. You pay a price to be on the bleeding edge.
Dave
I think it's pretty bold to stat that a fix has been put in place. I'm on 2.1 and still having trouble making calls or getting dropped from them. Way more often than it should be happening.
The problem is that not everyone is on 2.1.
The folks on 2.0.X are still screwing up the antennas.
This is why they are pushing so hard to get everyone upgraded.
You had 30 days to test the phone and the network and decide if it met your needs.
If you had returned it during that period you would not have been charged $175.
Is that not enough time?
To add to your response to Daniel: The $175 is an early termination fee for your contract after the 30 days and allows you to keep the iPhone you originally paid for at a subsidized rate.
That was not a frivolous case. It's cited as frivolous by those who are ignorant and intellectually lazy.
Would YOU like to undergo skin grafts on your crotch like the woman who spilled the coffee in her lap? Yes, the coffee was that hot. That fact never seems to get mentioned by those citing the case. Nor the reduced award on appeal. Nor the 700 scalding incidents and McDonald's did nothing to resolve the issue of serving coffee at 185 degrees. Nor the fact that the 81-year-old woman was just trying to get McDonald's to pay her medical expenses but they blew her off.
Please educate yourself:
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
If we need tort reform, then let's base it on facts, not knee-jerk reactions. This government has done enough to reduce consumer rights and give it to corporations.
This is more BS from the left. Any reasonable person realizes coffee is hot. The process to make involves boiling water. If this woman got anything she got to much. This is a perfect example of someone trying to make up for their stupidity in the courts.
Dave
Serious question: can any lawyers or anyone explain why some one who buys a 199 phone is entitled to 5 million dollars if it doesn't work as advertised? i would really like to hear some reasonable argument for this.
thanks
That is easy...
$199.00 to the guy who went to the lawyers to sue Apple
and
$4,999,801.00 to pay his lawyer!
That was not a frivolous case. It's cited as frivolous by those who are ignorant and intellectually lazy.
[...]
There is much more to the case than that and the jury found that that the plantiff was 20% responsible for her injuries, so that was taken off the settlement. The main issue the jury seemed to have in Liebeck v. McDonald's is the lack of adequate labeling on the package, not the temperature. Liebeck's lawyers stated that it would take least 12 seconds (had to look this fact up) before 3rd-degree burns would occur from 180° F coffee.
Making better cups and lids. and having larger warnings are how companies are dealing with these lawsuits. Thankfully, they are still serving coffee at the same temperatures as they were before so we aren't getting dealt an inferior tasting cup of joe as a result.
That was not a frivolous case. It's cited as frivolous by those who are ignorant and intellectually lazy.
Would YOU like to undergo skin grafts on your crotch like the woman who spilled the coffee in her lap? Yes, the coffee was that hot. That fact never seems to get mentioned by those citing the case. Nor the reduced award on appeal. Nor the 700 scalding incidents and McDonald's did nothing to resolve the issue of serving coffee at 185 degrees. Nor the fact that the 81-year-old woman was just trying to get McDonald's to pay her medical expenses but they blew her off.
Please educate yourself:
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
If we need tort reform, then let's base it on facts, not knee-jerk reactions. This government has done enough to reduce consumer rights and give it to corporations.
It's an interesting link and I thank you for it. It's very persuasive
The full story removes the extremes of sensationalism about the case, and makes you think McDonalds should have done something. No one wants an 81year old lady to have 3rd degree burns and skin grafts, and she only asked for medical expenses not millions of dollars or the half million she was awarded (her medical expenses, from the description, would have been $50k-$100k??).
However - it still leaves the simple question - are we responsible for ourselves?
Okay so McDonalds coffee is 20'f hotter than other coffees...
1) had the lady ever bought coffee from McDonalds before? (and thus would be aware of its temperature)
2) if she had known it was 20'f hotter than starbucks, would that have stopped her from buying it at McDonalds?
3) had she known it was 20'f hotter than starbucks, could that have changed her spilling it in her lap?
Just because 70 people scald themselves and get compensation every year doesn't make McDonalds wrong either. More people die of tooth-pick related accidents than of shark attack.... does that make the tooth-pick makers responsible?
Whether the lady was asking for $500,000 or just her medical expenses - should a coffee shop pay when someone spills their coffee? Do we need a sign for everything that can go wrong (I was told I should have put a sign under the desk behind a computer saying "do not pull out the power cord").
I feel bad for the lady, and it would have been nice if McDonalds had paid her expenses. They already replace your drink if you drop it, when it's not their fault. But really...
Making better cups and lids. and having larger warnings are how companies are dealing with these lawsuits.
Good idea with better cups and lids.
I hate the warning thing. Warnings only work when there are few of them, so it has to be selective - once you get a lot then you don't read them.
I want to see the important warnings! Perhaps someone needs to successfully sue for too many warnings before they'll reduce. It's like Apple's labels on boxes - simple, clear.
ps. I went to the doctors the other day - they had about 30 letter-sized "important notices" above the reception. It took me 10 minutes to read them :-/