cjk91108

Great to see another DED article in the old style. 

This is the concern with initially accepting the answer forced on them by their lack of strong response. The reason for the slow down was engineering. A cell out of balance with the others can (and has for many of my customers) caused a crash/system reset. The fine is ridiculous, Apple might continue to allow inexpensive battery replacement. These types of shake downs are happening in many industries these days. Maybe in a time before good information was a available this was a problem but to continue to find smaller and smaller examples to show that things are still out of control is benefiting very few. I do not for a moment believe that those users have been scammed out of the ROI of their device because Apple chose to limit battery usage when the battery began degrade with age. Not even Apple can stop physics. 

iOS_Guy80 said:

wizard69 said:

Very interesting but I have two issues. 

Get use to it and not just in an Apple Store. It beats the alternative.

What is the alternative you have in mind? Almost all models show that by the end of this about 70%+ of the population will have had the virus.

also

The key phrase here is: [Further, the IP fails to recite an inventive concept, Apple says, as they "recite generic computer components [ ] that the specification admits were not invented by VoIP-Pal and that operate in their expected manner."] Let's hope we see this more and more as time goes on. I frequently read these Patents declarations and see them as vague enough that they state nothing. I'm not sure if they state them this way in order to hide their real process, allow them to be used as "Gotcha devices" as they frequently are or are written purposely by non-engineers.

seanismorris said:

It’s not a matter of taking sides, but of breaking laws.

They’re just saying that no Brazilian laws were broken.

That’s a misrepresentation of both the lawsuit and the result.