iPad overheating lawsuit dismissed as Jobs' controversial mansion is razed
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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......
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?
What's so historical about the house anyway? It wasn't even a hundred years old.
In the USA that's "old" apparently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jv1EYFQuZM
You sure it wasn't an iPad that destoyed the house?
The judge dropped that case like a hot potato.
Skip