Worst lawsuit ever
You'd think that lawyers would be trained in the art of correctly interpreting the fine print.
Larry Drury, an Illinois lawyer, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of iPhone owner Jose Trujillo that claims Apple defrauded his client by failing to reveal that the iPhone battery was not user-replaceable, and that it would die after 300 charges. (Thanks, Gizmodo.)
"This case arises out of Defendants' purposeful and fraudulent concealment to purchasers of its iPhone cellular telephone that they will be required to incur an annual fee of $85.95 as part of Defendants' battery replacement program," Drury or someone at his firm wrote in the introduction to the complaint.
Sounds sinister, but it's simply not true. Yes, like the iPod, the iPhone battery is not user-replaceable, and yes, you'll have to send it back to Apple at the cost of $85.95 to get a new one. But the principal claim in the suit, "that the iPhone battery has a durability and/or lifetime of approximately 300 charges, necessitating frequent and more than annual maintenance, repair, and/or replacement if charged regularly on a daily basis," just doesn't fly.
When the iPhone arrived, Apple said the lithium-ion battery that ships with the iPhone would start to lose capacity after 300 to 400 charges. (UPDATED 4:10pm - It's after 300 to 400 full charge cycles. A complete drain of the battery, followed by a full charge, equals one charge cycle.) That's "start to lose capacity," not "roll over and die." Apple's Web site currently says, "A properly maintained iPhone battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 400 full charge and discharge cycles." On that page, Apple describes proper maintenance as "at least one charge cycle per month."
And the one-year warranty that comes with the iPhone entitles you to a free replacement battery if it drops below 50 percent capacity during the duration of the warranty. You can extend that warranty to two years for $69.
This, unfortunately, is what all lithium-ion batteries do: gradually lose their charging capacity over time. Having to send the iPhone to Apple for battery replacement is certainly inconvenient, but Trujillo could have returned his iPhone had he failed to realize that the iPhone's battery was just like the iPod's. Still, the plaintiffs probably had the successful iPod battery lawsuit in mind when they filed their complaint, hoping to force Apple into a settlement.
I called Drury to see if he knew his complaint contained incorrect information, and I haven't received a response as of yet. Good luck with the suit, gentlemen.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
There's a moron with money born every minute.
* or a car, or a house, or be allowed to procreate, ... :)
change the battery."
I have a great solution. Let's let manufacturers produce
whatever they want as long as it is reasonably safe. Then we'll
let consumers buy what the market has to offer. That way you
can buy a phone without a user replaceable battery that is thin
and well designed or you can have phone brick with an ultra-
critical user replaceable battery. People get more or less what
they want and we don't need extra police to enforce your
proposed user replaceable battery law.
It's standard convention for phones to have batteries that can be changed at will. To say nothing of letting consumers customize their ringtones. The manufacturer has no incentive to change if people who purchase their products don't speak up. After all, the customers did invest in the company.
they are unhappy with a product", but here's a glimpse of reality:
Most users never replace the batteries in cellphones. We are a
very fickle society (here in the USA) and we like to have the best
and the brightest. So, every two years, when our cellphone
contracts have expired, we go for a new phone. Usually, by the
end of the two years, those batteries are charging near 50%
capacity. At least, this has been my experience, and the same for
many of my friends.
I personally would not pay $5-600 for the iPhone because if I
spend that much on the phone, I am going to want to keep it for
at least four years, and the non-user-replaceable battery won't
fly with me. The most I've ever paid for a cell phone with a two-
year contract is $100, and at the end of the contract, I hated the
carrier so much, I was happy to get rid of both the phone, and
the carrier (Crapular).
First, the manufacturer or a product can make whatever they
want, however they want, whenever they want. If customers are
unhappy, sure they have the right to speak out, everone does.
But there's world of difference between speaking out and a
frivolous lawsuit. The FACT is that the moron who is filing suit
had ample warning before he bought a phone that it sounds like
he isn't even smart enough to operate, let alone understand. In
addition to this, the customers did not invest in the company,
they invested in the product. And as someone who did invest in
the company, it angers me personally that someone is suing my
investment simply because they are a moron that cannot keep
up with technology.
Just another symptom of an over-litigeous society with too
much time, and too few brains.
I think this guy's brain has a low battery light. If you are smart
enough you can OPEN the iPods and iPhones to service the
battery's if you wish to. Otherwise be smart and send devices of
that nature in to the companies that make them for proper
service.
You expect to be able to service your new high end hybrid cars
that have comlex battery assembly in them? I don't think so.
The Prius has a monster battery assembly if I recall using only
ONE example. I don't think this user could change that out of
his, not to mention the majority of us would even WANT to.
get to reality.
Why is it OK for Apple to put out a non-consumer friendly
product? Customers have a right to speak up if they are unhappy
with a product.
The best way to tell Apple that this is not a consumer friendly
product is not buying it.
Why blame Apple of the buyer's stupidity?
People do that all the time. Ask Bill Gates about the Zune!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/62534/thread/1179504144/
I just don't think this guy has grounds for a suit. He could have asked about this when purchasing the phone or he could have looked at the demo units in the store. If it was that crucial, he should have verified this before purchasing. Just because he wanted one right away and didn't take the time to investigate is his fault, not Apple's.
Someone should sue Honda since stability control only comes on V6 Accords. One could assume that ALL Accords would have that feature. Maybe that person dealt with the internet sales person and never read a brochure. Is that Honda's fault?
have to be thicker.
This is still not correct. Apple stated that the iPhone battery would retain 80% capacity after 300-400 FULL CHARGE CYCLES. This means that the battery has to use the equivalent of 100% of its capacity to count as one cycle. If you use 20% of the capacity of the battery per day, it will take five days to go through one charge cycle.
Once again, if I missed it, I am sorry.
an otherwise physically perfect device. And I really don't count
this as a design flaw because, as has been stated previously, the
majority of people don't replace their batteries anyway. In
addition, it wouldn't do well to have a battery compartment
because that would have increased the size of the device. Apple
would have had to make a separate compartment to isolate the
battery from the LCD and all of the hardware. This would have
probably increased the size by about .1 to .2 inches. While this
does not seem like a lot, in a device that is being marketed as
one of the slimmest, smallest smart phones on the market, it
makes a big difference. Otherwise, if the battery was user
replaceable, it would have to void the warranty anyway because
Apple couldn't verify that the electronics weren't damaged by
unexperienced hands removing the battery.
Also, there is one piece of disinformation on this thread. The
battery in the iPhone is soldered on the motherboard in the
device I believe. I am not sure why Apple designed the device
this way, other than for slimness maybe, but that is the reality of
the device. The vast majority of people are not up for
desoldering/soldering components on on a motherboard. I
don't know many people other than professional techs that are
up to this even among the computer inclined.
Gene from ZuneChannel.com
That being said, if you DO NOT like the way that product is made, THEN DON'T BUY IT.
If the idea of you being tied to AT&T for 2 years does not sit well with you; THEN DON'T BUY IT.
If the thought of dropping $500 to $600 for an iPhone seems too damn much, THEN DON'T BUY IT!
If, and more likely, WHEN iPhone sales begin to tank because of consumer dissatisfaction, then MAYBE Apple will hear the message.
Right now, I am watching to see what the FCC will do as far as the rules for the auction for the 700 Mhz band; will Google and its associates get what they want, and perhaps BREAK the stranglehold on broadband. Right now, the only real choices are between CABLE (broadband) and TELEPHONE (DSL) monopolies. Really, what competition is there????
Google has asked for 4 requirements, two of which the FCC seems to be inclined to do, and two they are not so inclined to do (one of those being allowing wholesale access.)
The Telcom Act of 1996, required incumbent telephone companies (read: former monopoly) to allow access to competitive local exchange carriers. However, this requirement DOES NOT apply to those incumbent telephone companies that chose to install 'fiber to the home' (Read: Verizon FiOS). This allows the incumbent telephone monopoly to EXCLUDE (or charge HIGH wholesdale rates to) competitive local exchange carriers from their new 'fiber to the home' installations. Reports of Verizon techs cutting the abandoned copper lines to customer's premises have recently surfaced in the media. This is another example of the telcom companies wanting to keep their monopolies secure from competiton.
Hopefully the FCC does not continue on this path; and implement rules requiring those companies that choose to install 'fiber to the home' to provide competitors access to their networks. To put competition into this new wireless band would benefit CONSUMERS; not the telcom monopolies.
My two cents.
This may have just surfaced in the media but it's a well known practice in FIOS forums if you look. Why would they leave the old copper wires? 99.999% of people that get FIOS will never look back. Removing those pairs provide more usable pairs for people that don't want FIOS and do want DSL from other providers. I'm sure verizon isn't running new copper wire just so other companies can provide service. And you don't want the old wires to get accidentally connected back up and feed your FIOS dialtone back out to the street.
If Verizon is footing the bill for all this new infrastructure, then they should be able to sell it however they want. There's nothing that stops a competitor from installing their own fibre network, is there?
Bryan
http://www.acez.com
However, what's this thing with Apple making products where you have to go to THEM to get a replacement battery? First iPods and now iPhones?
I've been a big fan of Apple's for years now, but I don't like that aspect of either piece of technology at all. I thought the iPod must have been a special case or something, but now it looks like they're starting to make a habit of it.
We shouldn't have to send units back to Apple for what SHOULD be a simple battery replacement. We should be able to replace our own batteries and purchase them for the most competitive price.
Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
- by vcaobest April 1, 2009 11:16 PM PDT
- "This case arises out of Defendants' purposeful and fraudulent concealment to purchasers of its iPhone cellular telephone that they will be required to incur an annual fee of $85.95 as part of Defendants' battery replacement program," http://www.vcao.net Drury or someone at his firm wrote in the introduction to the complaint."
- Reply to this comment
-
(35 Comments)