My God has everyone in this country turned into the proverbial bull in a china shop? Spilled coffee, broken phones, and the list goes on. For Christ's sakes pay attention to what your doing and shit like this won't happen! No, I am not perfect but come on.
Oh, and, BTW, now you're changing your story about what it was we were discussing? Better go back and edit your posts to eliminate your self-contradictions.
I'll take your recommendation under advisement. In the mean time I'll finish my cup of ES-1 and move on to another topic. Thanks for your input.
My God has everyone in this country turned into the proverbial bull in a china shop? Spilled coffee, broken phones, and the list goes on. For Christ's sakes pay attention to what your doing and shit like this won't happen! No, I am not perfect but come on.
Exactly.
Put this complaint under the same as...
"I wasn't getting enough hot water in the morning, so I turned up the thermostat and now I've been scalded. I'm suing!"
or
"I don't understand why I'm being cited for hitting the other car! They moved into the lane I was changing into and besides, it was a really important call!"
Ad nauseam. I do not have to drive more than one quarter of a mile from my home without seeing at least three instances of people "Driving While Moron".
You'd be wrong there. The only way to recover is through countersuit. So i'm pretty sure that you need to check your facts.
Nope. The courts can award costs to the winners. The attorneys file a motion requesting that the plaintiffs pay costs, and the judge decides whether awarding costs is warranted.
This is why the U.S has so many millionaires, sue and get rich. Not only should he lose but him and his lawyers should be charged with stupidity for wasting everyones time. No wonder our country is so messed up.
Lets see - an early iPhone had a metal back. People complained because it scratched. The range sucked because the metal helped shield the internal antenna. The iPhone 3G had a plastic back - it also scratched. The antenna probably worked better though. So Apple spent millions designing a new external wrap-around antenna. It probably works better than previous designs (if you don't deliberately death-grip it and use a case or bumper. To make the back scratch resistant and transparent to RF - they used the strongest glass used in cellphones - Corning's Gorilla Glass. Now people complain because if they drop it - there's a risk the glass might break. People should treat these devices like $600 marvels of miniaturization and really take care of them better. Accidents happen - but people are too blasé about tossing these devices around. It's not a toy.
The phone is a fairly expensive piece of equipment. So, while a dropped wineglass results in maybe 3/4 dollars out of pocket ... this could be over $500.
So, should Waterford be held responsible for someone dropping a $70 crystal wine glass which breaks? Cost should not be a factor, only whether the design is flawed relative to any claims made by the manufacturer or general safety issues.
Quote:
I guess one would expect that the phone be able to sustain a couple foot drop and not sustain horribly catastrophic damage, because dropping it has to be considered a reasonable event. I've dropped my phone a number of times, on cement, and it's still pretty much ok. The case it's in maybe not so much. So it's unfortunate for him if he hasn't put it in a case. It's a reasonable extension (but one could argue that you shouldn't advertise a phone costing $200 that destroys itself when you drop it, you should advertise a $220 phone (+ $20 for the case), that survives reasonable drops.
This is nonsense. You want the handset manufacturer to basically insure you because you are not particularly careful with your gear. The design of the device should be considered when purchasing - especially for people who are accident-prone. It's not like there are no other options available to the buyer.
I am not for lawsuits especially this kind and no where did I say that the phone should be indestructible or any phone for that matter. Al I said was that using glass as a material the way Apple has makes this phone more vulnerable to sustaining damage. If you HAVE to buy a case for your phone then that in itself speaks to the problem. A phone should be durable enough to withstand drops etc. Drops from 5 feet maybe not but I can't think of a lot of other phones that suffer the same carnage that these have. No one person is perfect - accidents do happen.
Perhaps you think the government should mandate how high a fall a phone should be required to take without incurring significant damage. Of course, it would be different in varying countries. How about instead just taking care of your gear? If you are concerned, then get the item insured.
Quote:
Using a class action lawsuit is a way of bringing attention to a problem that may or may not exist. If evidence supports that the iPhone 4 is more susceptible then maybe it will have legs. Does anyone know for a fact that these new phones are better than the previous models when it comes to sustaining damage? I would be interested to know.My old 3Gs held up just fine and it was dropped a few times. Those of you without kids wouldn't know anything about the risk they pose to precious handheld devices.
The Square Trade report said that iPhone 4 sustained 82% more damage than the iPhone 3GS. Since the iPhone 4 has twice the glass surface area, one might expect that the damage would increase 100%. That 82% figure might suggest that the glass is, in fact, more durable than what was previously used.
I never said anything about multiple drops anywhere in my post. I just said that phones get dropped for a multitude of reasons and that Apple should take that fact into consideration. The phone is not that durable regardless of what people say, I have seen it for myself at the Apple Store and there are plenty of reports that support this fact.The glass surface is more susceptible because they have mounted it directly on top of the frame of the phone unlike their previous design where the glass was inset.
Then that should be factored into the purchase decision. It's not like the iPhone is the only option. And part of that decision would be to buy a warranty policy from the likes of Square Trade.
<SIGH> this is all probably very accurate...the problem is stiffness and hardness are NOT properties you want in something that isnt supposed to break...you want TOUGHNESS.
Often as a material because harder it is MORE likely to shatter not less.
If he actually wrote this into his suit, he completely invalidated his case.
Exactly, the same way with steel in fasteners. Something with a higher grade that is harder such as a grade 8 bolt is actually more brittle than a lower carbon bolt. A lot of people don't understand this concept. They think if it's harder its gotta be stronger in every aspect which isn't the case it depends on the implementation.
The worst part is that the glass sticks out from the edge of the band. They could at least have carved the metal band with a diagonal lip and done the same with the glass in the opposite direction with a rubber layer between so that flat surfaces don't contact the glass and the rubber layer absorbs the impact. They could even use the rubber they use on the base of the unibody Macbook for the back. That way they can finally make the white one and it's easy gripped. It's going to get dirty more easily but dirt lets you know when you need a new one.
I am not for lawsuits especially this kind and no where did I say that the phone should be indestructible or any phone for that matter. Al I said was that using glass as a material the way Apple has makes this phone more vulnerable to sustaining damage.
So you believe that the people who bought the iPhone didn't know it was made of glass? That's pretty foolish. People saw the phone and knew it was made of glass, yet bought it anyway. If they didn't think they could own one without drop-kicking it, they shouldn't buy one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originaldub
If you HAVE to buy a case for your phone then that in itself speaks to the problem. A phone should be durable enough to withstand drops etc. Drops from 5 feet maybe not but I can't think of a lot of other phones that suffer the same carnage that these have. No one person is perfect - accidents do happen.
Where is the rule that says that phones have to be able to withstand a drop?
And I'd love to see your evidence from a neutral source that suggests that the iPhone is any worse than any other phone out there.
You see, most people are intelligent enough to realize that a $600 device made of glass and containing sensitive electronics inside shouldn't be dropped. What's your excuse?
This is why the U.S has so many millionaires, sue and get rich
Yup, this is why.
It has nothing to do with the opportunities provided by the US social, political and economic environment coupled with people willing to work their ass off and thus be rewarded with success.
It has nothing to do with the opportunities provided by the US social, political and economic environment coupled with people willing to work their ass off and thus be rewarded with success.
Nope, it's all frivolous lawsuits
Indeed. I made my first two million suing Mohawk Paper Inc. for the many, MANY cuts inflicted on my hands during the use of their product.
Last night I went to bar, had a few too many, dropped my rocks glass, it hit the counter, shattered, went to the floor and cut my foot (I was wearing sandals). Ambulance came, took me to the hostpital and got 10 stitches, not before I punched out the nurse for cutting my Calvin Klein jeans off.
I'm suing the bartender for not cutting me off, the bar for hiring such an inept employee, the bar again for using glass that doesn't break, the counter manufacturer for not adding rubberized raiils to protect from such mishaps (after all, it IS a bar), the liquor manufacturer for making a product that KNOWINGLY causes an altered state of consciousness... and it burned when it hit my open wound. I'm suing the ambulance for such an expensive trip, and that friggin nurse, for destroying my jeans (seriously, they aren't onesies with built in booties... It was just a foot). Oh yeah, and the damn cops for arresting me on TWO charges: Public Intoxication and assault. Oh, and I'm sure I can name Apple for something that happened that night too.
Not really, if you have a phone worth over $500, you're likely going to try and look after it regardless of what it's made of. In much the same way you walk carefully through department stores full of expensive china. If someone left an expensive vase in a precarious situation, you can say don't go in the store or you can say it wasn't the smartest thing to do creating the situation in the first place.
I would hazard a guess that a large majority of people would dislike the idea of anything designed to be used in a mobile scenario being built primarily of glass. Vehicle windows are made of glass by necessity not by choice.
The worst part is that the glass sticks out from the edge of the band. They could at least have carved the metal band with a diagonal lip and done the same with the glass in the opposite direction with a rubber layer between so that flat surfaces don't contact the glass and the rubber layer absorbs the impact. They could even use the rubber they use on the base of the unibody Macbook for the back. That way they can finally make the white one and it's easy gripped. It's going to get dirty more easily but dirt lets you know when you need a new one.
Auto glass and any other electronics glass is a composite of glass silicate and plastic polymers.
I don't know how often, but judges can award costs already when the circumstances justify it. Forcing them to do so by law only makes it more difficult for less affluent plaintiffs to bring lawsuits, which I suspect some people think is a good result. Maybe they should just come out and admit it.
I posted this link the other day which addresses a lot of the issues regarding loser pays. The article is 16 years old but still relevant. From the article:
Quote:
A closer look shows that the actual practice of loser-pays abroad bears little resemblance to the bogey version used to frighten Americans around campfires. No system is perfect, and all litigation carries risks for the innocent, which is one of many reasons for society to discourage it. But as millions of well-informed Europeans see it, loser-pays isn't nearly as terrifying as the way we sue in this country, where lawyers can lay your life to waste and the system will leave you no recourse at all.
Loser-pays is the standard in England, so it is sometimes known as the "English Rule." It is thus often spoken of as if it were some Beefeaters-and-warm-beer eccentricity of the Sceptered Isle. But it has no special connection with England. It has prevailed for millennia in Europe, developing early in Roman law and spreading from there to the civil law systems that evolved all over the continent and became codified in France, Germany, and elsewhere around the time of Napoleon. It even developed in the church courts. Scandinavia, like England, does not trace its civil procedure to the Romans but nonetheless has loser-pays.
Quote:
Few critics of loser-pays really hew to the so-called American Rule. For years Congress has blithely enacted hundreds of laws incorporating one-way fee-shifting: Defendants pay plaintiffs' legal fees when they lose, but they do not collect payment for their legal fees when they win. This heads-I-win, tails-we're-even idea indeed penalizes people for asserting their legal rights even with the utmost good faith in the closest of cases. Yet it has by now been installed in countless laws with a civil rights or environmental label. And you guessed it: With scarcely an exception, the same lawyers, legal academics, and bar officials who profess horror at two-way loser-pays are fans of the one-way version. The inconsistency glares. If the fluke chance of losing will scare middle-class litigants out of a good case and into a bad settlement, then it must do so when they get sued, and not only when they sue.
The American public itself seems not to be as terrified of full loser-pays as its lawyers. Even when U.S. News and World Report asked the question in its more menacing form--"If you sue someone and lose the case, should you pay his costs?"--a far-from-shabby 44 percent of those polled agreed that they should. And with sides reversed, nearly everyone saw the idea's fairness. "If someone sues you and you win the case, should he pay your legal costs?" Eighty-five percent said yes to that one.
I have dropped my iphone 4 many times, and from about 4+ feet onto tile floors to boot. It never had a problem because: I KEPT THE CASE APPLE GAVE ME ON THE PHONE!!! The iPhone4 is an amazing feat of engineering.
I also bought a 2011 Nissan Sentra SL that has had nothing but issues. When it was one week old, it wouldn't start because Nissan used defective battery cables. Normally I'd say, "New designs have issues" but this affected the 2010's as well. So this was a known issue. Since I live in the desert (Las Vegas, NV) a car not starting can endanger your life. That's why I only buy new cars, from what I think are quality brands. Now here comes the kicker: I haven't found a lawyer here in Las Vegas that will take this case. A foreign automaker is trying to kill their American customers, and that's OK, but a piece of glass breaks, and the case goes class-action? Where's the justice?
I posted this link the other day which addresses a lot of the issues regarding loser pays. The article is 16 years old but still relevant. From the article:
I see an opinion, bolstered by few facts. It's also obviously closed knitted to a political position, the notion that any measure which reduces litigation is automatically a good thing. I question the presumption. It's also worth keeping in mind that the working definition of "frivolous lawsuit" for most people is one not filed by me.
Comments
Oh, and, BTW, now you're changing your story about what it was we were discussing? Better go back and edit your posts to eliminate your self-contradictions.
I'll take your recommendation under advisement. In the mean time I'll finish my cup of ES-1 and move on to another topic. Thanks for your input.
My God has everyone in this country turned into the proverbial bull in a china shop? Spilled coffee, broken phones, and the list goes on. For Christ's sakes pay attention to what your doing and shit like this won't happen! No, I am not perfect but come on.
Exactly.
Put this complaint under the same as...
"I wasn't getting enough hot water in the morning, so I turned up the thermostat and now I've been scalded. I'm suing!"
or
"I don't understand why I'm being cited for hitting the other car! They moved into the lane I was changing into and besides, it was a really important call!"
Ad nauseam. I do not have to drive more than one quarter of a mile from my home without seeing at least three instances of people "Driving While Moron".
I'm pretty sure the winners get costs as well, so I'm also pretty sure you wish for nothing.
You'd be wrong there. The only way to recover is through countersuit. So i'm pretty sure that you need to check your facts.
You'd be wrong there. The only way to recover is through countersuit. So i'm pretty sure that you need to check your facts.
Nope. The courts can award costs to the winners. The attorneys file a motion requesting that the plaintiffs pay costs, and the judge decides whether awarding costs is warranted.
You'd be wrong there. The only way to recover is through countersuit. So i'm pretty sure that you need to check your facts.
Costs orders here typically run that way. Clearly not there. Depends where you are.
The phone is a fairly expensive piece of equipment. So, while a dropped wineglass results in maybe 3/4 dollars out of pocket ... this could be over $500.
So, should Waterford be held responsible for someone dropping a $70 crystal wine glass which breaks? Cost should not be a factor, only whether the design is flawed relative to any claims made by the manufacturer or general safety issues.
I guess one would expect that the phone be able to sustain a couple foot drop and not sustain horribly catastrophic damage, because dropping it has to be considered a reasonable event. I've dropped my phone a number of times, on cement, and it's still pretty much ok. The case it's in maybe not so much.
This is nonsense. You want the handset manufacturer to basically insure you because you are not particularly careful with your gear. The design of the device should be considered when purchasing - especially for people who are accident-prone. It's not like there are no other options available to the buyer.
I am not for lawsuits especially this kind and no where did I say that the phone should be indestructible or any phone for that matter. Al I said was that using glass as a material the way Apple has makes this phone more vulnerable to sustaining damage. If you HAVE to buy a case for your phone then that in itself speaks to the problem. A phone should be durable enough to withstand drops etc. Drops from 5 feet maybe not but I can't think of a lot of other phones that suffer the same carnage that these have. No one person is perfect - accidents do happen.
Perhaps you think the government should mandate how high a fall a phone should be required to take without incurring significant damage. Of course, it would be different in varying countries. How about instead just taking care of your gear? If you are concerned, then get the item insured.
Using a class action lawsuit is a way of bringing attention to a problem that may or may not exist. If evidence supports that the iPhone 4 is more susceptible then maybe it will have legs. Does anyone know for a fact that these new phones are better than the previous models when it comes to sustaining damage? I would be interested to know.My old 3Gs held up just fine and it was dropped a few times. Those of you without kids wouldn't know anything about the risk they pose to precious handheld devices.
The Square Trade report said that iPhone 4 sustained 82% more damage than the iPhone 3GS. Since the iPhone 4 has twice the glass surface area, one might expect that the damage would increase 100%. That 82% figure might suggest that the glass is, in fact, more durable than what was previously used.
I never said anything about multiple drops anywhere in my post. I just said that phones get dropped for a multitude of reasons and that Apple should take that fact into consideration. The phone is not that durable regardless of what people say, I have seen it for myself at the Apple Store and there are plenty of reports that support this fact.The glass surface is more susceptible because they have mounted it directly on top of the frame of the phone unlike their previous design where the glass was inset.
Then that should be factored into the purchase decision. It's not like the iPhone is the only option. And part of that decision would be to buy a warranty policy from the likes of Square Trade.
<SIGH> this is all probably very accurate...the problem is stiffness and hardness are NOT properties you want in something that isnt supposed to break...you want TOUGHNESS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toughness
Often as a material because harder it is MORE likely to shatter not less.
If he actually wrote this into his suit, he completely invalidated his case.
Exactly, the same way with steel in fasteners. Something with a higher grade that is harder such as a grade 8 bolt is actually more brittle than a lower carbon bolt. A lot of people don't understand this concept. They think if it's harder its gotta be stronger in every aspect which isn't the case it depends on the implementation.
The worst part is that the glass sticks out from the edge of the band. They could at least have carved the metal band with a diagonal lip and done the same with the glass in the opposite direction with a rubber layer between so that flat surfaces don't contact the glass and the rubber layer absorbs the impact. They could even use the rubber they use on the base of the unibody Macbook for the back. That way they can finally make the white one and it's easy gripped. It's going to get dirty more easily but dirt lets you know when you need a new one.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/AP...co=MTM3NjU0NTk
Problem solved.
I am not for lawsuits especially this kind and no where did I say that the phone should be indestructible or any phone for that matter. Al I said was that using glass as a material the way Apple has makes this phone more vulnerable to sustaining damage.
So you believe that the people who bought the iPhone didn't know it was made of glass? That's pretty foolish. People saw the phone and knew it was made of glass, yet bought it anyway. If they didn't think they could own one without drop-kicking it, they shouldn't buy one.
If you HAVE to buy a case for your phone then that in itself speaks to the problem. A phone should be durable enough to withstand drops etc. Drops from 5 feet maybe not but I can't think of a lot of other phones that suffer the same carnage that these have. No one person is perfect - accidents do happen.
Where is the rule that says that phones have to be able to withstand a drop?
And I'd love to see your evidence from a neutral source that suggests that the iPhone is any worse than any other phone out there.
You see, most people are intelligent enough to realize that a $600 device made of glass and containing sensitive electronics inside shouldn't be dropped. What's your excuse?
This is why the U.S has so many millionaires, sue and get rich
Yup, this is why.
It has nothing to do with the opportunities provided by the US social, political and economic environment coupled with people willing to work their ass off and thus be rewarded with success.
Nope, it's all frivolous lawsuits
Yup, this is why.
It has nothing to do with the opportunities provided by the US social, political and economic environment coupled with people willing to work their ass off and thus be rewarded with success.
Nope, it's all frivolous lawsuits
Indeed. I made my first two million suing Mohawk Paper Inc. for the many, MANY cuts inflicted on my hands during the use of their product.
Last night I went to bar, had a few too many, dropped my rocks glass, it hit the counter, shattered, went to the floor and cut my foot (I was wearing sandals). Ambulance came, took me to the hostpital and got 10 stitches, not before I punched out the nurse for cutting my Calvin Klein jeans off.
I'm suing the bartender for not cutting me off, the bar for hiring such an inept employee, the bar again for using glass that doesn't break, the counter manufacturer for not adding rubberized raiils to protect from such mishaps (after all, it IS a bar), the liquor manufacturer for making a product that KNOWINGLY causes an altered state of consciousness... and it burned when it hit my open wound. I'm suing the ambulance for such an expensive trip, and that friggin nurse, for destroying my jeans (seriously, they aren't onesies with built in booties... It was just a foot). Oh yeah, and the damn cops for arresting me on TWO charges: Public Intoxication and assault. Oh, and I'm sure I can name Apple for something that happened that night too.
Show me the money. I'm proud to be American.
You forgot the sandal maker.
Send my 20% finder fee to...
Proud to help Americans.
Not really, if you have a phone worth over $500, you're likely going to try and look after it regardless of what it's made of. In much the same way you walk carefully through department stores full of expensive china. If someone left an expensive vase in a precarious situation, you can say don't go in the store or you can say it wasn't the smartest thing to do creating the situation in the first place.
I would hazard a guess that a large majority of people would dislike the idea of anything designed to be used in a mobile scenario being built primarily of glass. Vehicle windows are made of glass by necessity not by choice.
The worst part is that the glass sticks out from the edge of the band. They could at least have carved the metal band with a diagonal lip and done the same with the glass in the opposite direction with a rubber layer between so that flat surfaces don't contact the glass and the rubber layer absorbs the impact. They could even use the rubber they use on the base of the unibody Macbook for the back. That way they can finally make the white one and it's easy gripped. It's going to get dirty more easily but dirt lets you know when you need a new one.
Auto glass and any other electronics glass is a composite of glass silicate and plastic polymers.
I don't know how often, but judges can award costs already when the circumstances justify it. Forcing them to do so by law only makes it more difficult for less affluent plaintiffs to bring lawsuits, which I suspect some people think is a good result. Maybe they should just come out and admit it.
I posted this link the other day which addresses a lot of the issues regarding loser pays. The article is 16 years old but still relevant. From the article:
A closer look shows that the actual practice of loser-pays abroad bears little resemblance to the bogey version used to frighten Americans around campfires. No system is perfect, and all litigation carries risks for the innocent, which is one of many reasons for society to discourage it. But as millions of well-informed Europeans see it, loser-pays isn't nearly as terrifying as the way we sue in this country, where lawyers can lay your life to waste and the system will leave you no recourse at all.
Loser-pays is the standard in England, so it is sometimes known as the "English Rule." It is thus often spoken of as if it were some Beefeaters-and-warm-beer eccentricity of the Sceptered Isle. But it has no special connection with England. It has prevailed for millennia in Europe, developing early in Roman law and spreading from there to the civil law systems that evolved all over the continent and became codified in France, Germany, and elsewhere around the time of Napoleon. It even developed in the church courts. Scandinavia, like England, does not trace its civil procedure to the Romans but nonetheless has loser-pays.
Few critics of loser-pays really hew to the so-called American Rule. For years Congress has blithely enacted hundreds of laws incorporating one-way fee-shifting: Defendants pay plaintiffs' legal fees when they lose, but they do not collect payment for their legal fees when they win. This heads-I-win, tails-we're-even idea indeed penalizes people for asserting their legal rights even with the utmost good faith in the closest of cases. Yet it has by now been installed in countless laws with a civil rights or environmental label. And you guessed it: With scarcely an exception, the same lawyers, legal academics, and bar officials who profess horror at two-way loser-pays are fans of the one-way version. The inconsistency glares. If the fluke chance of losing will scare middle-class litigants out of a good case and into a bad settlement, then it must do so when they get sued, and not only when they sue.
The American public itself seems not to be as terrified of full loser-pays as its lawyers. Even when U.S. News and World Report asked the question in its more menacing form--"If you sue someone and lose the case, should you pay his costs?"--a far-from-shabby 44 percent of those polled agreed that they should. And with sides reversed, nearly everyone saw the idea's fairness. "If someone sues you and you win the case, should he pay your legal costs?" Eighty-five percent said yes to that one.
http://reason.com/archives/1995/06/01/civil-suits
I also bought a 2011 Nissan Sentra SL that has had nothing but issues. When it was one week old, it wouldn't start because Nissan used defective battery cables. Normally I'd say, "New designs have issues" but this affected the 2010's as well. So this was a known issue. Since I live in the desert (Las Vegas, NV) a car not starting can endanger your life. That's why I only buy new cars, from what I think are quality brands. Now here comes the kicker: I haven't found a lawyer here in Las Vegas that will take this case. A foreign automaker is trying to kill their American customers, and that's OK, but a piece of glass breaks, and the case goes class-action? Where's the justice?
I posted this link the other day which addresses a lot of the issues regarding loser pays. The article is 16 years old but still relevant. From the article:
I see an opinion, bolstered by few facts. It's also obviously closed knitted to a political position, the notion that any measure which reduces litigation is automatically a good thing. I question the presumption. It's also worth keeping in mind that the working definition of "frivolous lawsuit" for most people is one not filed by me.