October 21, 2005 9:53 AM PDT
Suit filed over Nano scratches
- Related Stories
-
Apple acknowledges flaw in iPod Nano
September 28, 2005 -
Problems surfacing with iPod Nano screen
September 24, 2005 -
Apple store buzzes with Nano fever
September 10, 2005 -
Rokr iTunes phone, iPod Nano unveiled
September 7, 2005
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday on behalf of all those who have bought a Nano, alleges that Apple violated state consumer protection statutes, as well as express and implied warranties. The complaint charges that Apple knew that there were design problems with the Nano.
"These Nanos scratch excessively during normal usage, rendering the screen on the Nanos unreadable," according to the complaint, which was filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., by attorneys with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Seattle and Columbus, Ohio-based David P. Meyer & Associates. The suit seeks to have the complaint certified as a class action claim and asks for "damages in the amount of monies paid for Nanos," as well as unspecified actual, statutory and punitive damages.
An Apple representative declined to comment on the suit, but Apple has stated that the Nano is made of the same polycarbonate material that's found in previous iPods and maintained that the scratching problem does not appear to be widespread.
The lawsuit charges, however, that the Nano contains a thinner coating of resin than on previous iPod models.
"The amount and durability of the resin applied as a protective coating during the Nano manufacturing process is clearly defective in that it is not sufficient to adequately protect the face of the Nano from extreme scratching and ultimately irreparable damage," the lawsuit says.
Questions about whether the Nano scratches more easily have been bubbling around Apple message boards since shortly after the product was announced in September.
Apple has confirmed a separate problem affecting less than 1 percent of Nanos, in which devices were shipped with a faulty LCD screen that was prone to cracking.
In its earnings conference call last week, Apple said it sold a million Nanos during the first 17 days the product was on the market and that it has seen significantly more demand than it has been able to meet.
101 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
that were overly scratched.
I see all scratch-related problems to the nanos a load of crap and that if you want to be sure yours doesn't scratch, stop putting it in the same pocket as your car keys. End of story.
that were overly scratched.
I see all scratch-related problems to the nanos a load of crap and that if you want to be sure yours doesn't scratch, stop putting it in the same pocket as your car keys. End of story.
I must have missed the law about selling items that might scratch. I could probably make a lot of money going through all my belongings and suing all the companies.
Just more people trying to jump on the gravy train.
I must have missed the law about selling items that might scratch. I could probably make a lot of money going through all my belongings and suing all the companies.
Just more people trying to jump on the gravy train.
__________________________________
R.K.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/</a>
__________________________________
R.K.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/</a>
As for the case its optional and it doesnt come with the nano so deal with it. If not having a scratched nano is worth the 30 bucks then buy it, if not then dont. If your patient and do a little research about a product before you drop a couple hundred dollars for it then you know what problems you could have, what you can do to prevent those problems and how much its going to cost you to prevent those problems. Ignorance is not a reason to sue.
In the case of the lawyers, in my opinion class action lawsuits are all about opprotunistic lawyers that look for something that harms (if you can call it that in this case) large amounts of people and then they look for someone to sue for it. Lawyers are the big winners of class action lawsuits, they make more than if it was an individual lawsuit and the people harmed make less than if it was an individual lawsuit. This case isnt about morals and business ethics, this is about compulsive and impatient people who had to have the latest and greatest now. Those people made an assumption that the product they were buying reached their certain level of quality and when it didnt they felt wronged. A lawyer looking to line his pockets then picks up the case telling those affected that its not your fault you were compulsive and ignorant about the product you were buying but it was Apples fault for not reaching a level of quality determined by you in the Apple's nano (refering to the scratches and not the defects of broken LCD's). The lawyer then sues for the price of the nanos and damages, ect (what kind of damages can you have in a case like this anyways?). Just be informed about what you buy.
check out montblank or waterman pens. stylish, expensively so, in fact. made of--hey--look at that: black plastic! often carried in--oh no, this is just too much: the pocket! maintains its expensive, scratch-free finish for . . . decades or longer.
the real irony? papermate pens are about as durable, for less than 1% of the price of a good montblac or waterman. i don't believe that consumer's expectations for the nano (to be reasonably durable) are unreasonable.
mark d.
As for the case its optional and it doesnt come with the nano so deal with it. If not having a scratched nano is worth the 30 bucks then buy it, if not then dont. If your patient and do a little research about a product before you drop a couple hundred dollars for it then you know what problems you could have, what you can do to prevent those problems and how much its going to cost you to prevent those problems. Ignorance is not a reason to sue.
In the case of the lawyers, in my opinion class action lawsuits are all about opprotunistic lawyers that look for something that harms (if you can call it that in this case) large amounts of people and then they look for someone to sue for it. Lawyers are the big winners of class action lawsuits, they make more than if it was an individual lawsuit and the people harmed make less than if it was an individual lawsuit. This case isnt about morals and business ethics, this is about compulsive and impatient people who had to have the latest and greatest now. Those people made an assumption that the product they were buying reached their certain level of quality and when it didnt they felt wronged. A lawyer looking to line his pockets then picks up the case telling those affected that its not your fault you were compulsive and ignorant about the product you were buying but it was Apples fault for not reaching a level of quality determined by you in the Apple's nano (refering to the scratches and not the defects of broken LCD's). The lawyer then sues for the price of the nanos and damages, ect (what kind of damages can you have in a case like this anyways?). Just be informed about what you buy.
check out montblank or waterman pens. stylish, expensively so, in fact. made of--hey--look at that: black plastic! often carried in--oh no, this is just too much: the pocket! maintains its expensive, scratch-free finish for . . . decades or longer.
the real irony? papermate pens are about as durable, for less than 1% of the price of a good montblac or waterman. i don't believe that consumer's expectations for the nano (to be reasonably durable) are unreasonable.
mark d.
The lawyers, however, clean up. That's why lawyers choose to specialize in class action.
Add to this the fact that duh, plastic scratches, you've got the makings of one huge nuisance suit.
The lawyers, however, clean up. That's why lawyers choose to specialize in class action.
Add to this the fact that duh, plastic scratches, you've got the makings of one huge nuisance suit.
because Apple says it will fit in there, doesn't mean it's the
preffered mode of carry.
Don't wan't scratches? Quit putting it in your pocket... Dumb *****.
Keep suing and you won't have anything left to sue about because
companies will quit making stuff.
Clearly what is being described here is scratching far beyond what a reasonable person would expect. I have a 3G iPod that I carry around in my pocket all the time, unprotected. There's barely a scratch on the face - certainly no noticeable scratches, and none that interfere even slightly with reading the display. And yet what we're hearing about Nanos is that the face is getting scratched to the point where the display is unreadable, in a very short time.
So statements like "put anything plastic in your pocket it will get scratched" and "don't wan't scratches? Quit putting it in your pocket" are simply ignorant. Sure, on the face of it, they seems like obvious statements, but in this instance are apparently made in complete ignorance of the facts.
i have a two year old sony minidisc player. i've dropped it numerous times onto sand-ridden wooden and concrete floors, put it in my pockets with my keys, wallet, phone, and even glass objects. the display, despite a large crack, is still *very* legible.
the new ipod nanos are becoming scratched to the point of illegibility not by being dropped on the ground, but by scratching against the fabric that comprises pockets, fingers passing over them, EVEN THE INSIDE OF THE PLASTIC CASES SOLD TO PROTECT THEM. unless you expect people to go into a semiconductor foundry and use a small robotic crane to play their ipod nano, the device scratches in circumstances that ARE considered "reasonable use." if cell phones or other devices scratched this easily, trust me, you'd hear about it. so enough of this "wah wah. it scratches because you're using your hands rather than moving it telekinetically" garbage. as many previous users pointed out, the previous generation ipods didn't have this problem.
because Apple says it will fit in there, doesn't mean it's the
preffered mode of carry.
Don't wan't scratches? Quit putting it in your pocket... Dumb *****.
Keep suing and you won't have anything left to sue about because
companies will quit making stuff.
Clearly what is being described here is scratching far beyond what a reasonable person would expect. I have a 3G iPod that I carry around in my pocket all the time, unprotected. There's barely a scratch on the face - certainly no noticeable scratches, and none that interfere even slightly with reading the display. And yet what we're hearing about Nanos is that the face is getting scratched to the point where the display is unreadable, in a very short time.
So statements like "put anything plastic in your pocket it will get scratched" and "don't wan't scratches? Quit putting it in your pocket" are simply ignorant. Sure, on the face of it, they seems like obvious statements, but in this instance are apparently made in complete ignorance of the facts.
i have a two year old sony minidisc player. i've dropped it numerous times onto sand-ridden wooden and concrete floors, put it in my pockets with my keys, wallet, phone, and even glass objects. the display, despite a large crack, is still *very* legible.
the new ipod nanos are becoming scratched to the point of illegibility not by being dropped on the ground, but by scratching against the fabric that comprises pockets, fingers passing over them, EVEN THE INSIDE OF THE PLASTIC CASES SOLD TO PROTECT THEM. unless you expect people to go into a semiconductor foundry and use a small robotic crane to play their ipod nano, the device scratches in circumstances that ARE considered "reasonable use." if cell phones or other devices scratched this easily, trust me, you'd hear about it. so enough of this "wah wah. it scratches because you're using your hands rather than moving it telekinetically" garbage. as many previous users pointed out, the previous generation ipods didn't have this problem.
propensity for saving EVERY human life that allows idiots like
this to survive and reproduce!
If you are stupid enough to 1. Put a shiny plastic object in your
pocket and not expect it to get scratched an then, 2. clean said
shiny plastic thing with a PAPER TOWEL you deserve to have you
ass beaten for even considering suing the manufacturer!
It's the ability to file suits like this, and even worse, the
accptance of the American public to this mentality, that are
really destroying this world. If you wipe a dirty black car with a
paper towel you will scratch it. Do you really expect the
manufacturer to refund your money AND give you a share of the
profits as well?!
IDIOTS!!
propensity for saving EVERY human life that allows idiots like
this to survive and reproduce!
If you are stupid enough to 1. Put a shiny plastic object in your
pocket and not expect it to get scratched an then, 2. clean said
shiny plastic thing with a PAPER TOWEL you deserve to have you
ass beaten for even considering suing the manufacturer!
It's the ability to file suits like this, and even worse, the
accptance of the American public to this mentality, that are
really destroying this world. If you wipe a dirty black car with a
paper towel you will scratch it. Do you really expect the
manufacturer to refund your money AND give you a share of the
profits as well?!
IDIOTS!!
To make the record very clear, no paper towels were used to clean the screen.
I own two other full size iPods and they have nary a scratch on them.
Regards,
Larry Winward
counter all day, how come it managed to scratch itself?
Hmmm
To make the record very clear, no paper towels were used to clean the screen.
I own two other full size iPods and they have nary a scratch on them.
Regards,
Larry Winward
counter all day, how come it managed to scratch itself?
Hmmm
Though I can't comment on legal merits, I do think consumers have unrealistic expectations. Scratches affect the appearance, not the function, of a portable audio player. If it were a video player and the screen were starting to darken in spite of adequate protective action, then consumers would have a reason to worry.
The move to manufacturing identical electronic equipment in different colors was bad enough. (Remember the color phone surcharge from the Bell System?) Only iSheep (a great term that another commentator has coined, for Apple's more extreme followers) would sit down and compare the scratches on their MP3 players.
It is NOT an "unrealistic expectation" to expect to be able to still read your iPod's display after a few days of normal use. This isn't just "a few scratches" marring the appearance that people are complaining about.
Despite your insistence to the contrary, scratches certainly DO affect the function of the player if they interfere with viewing the display.
If this was just some "iPod user mania" as you and others seem to believe, then we would have heard complaints about previous model iPods. But as many people have already pointed out, this wasn't a problem with previous model iPods, and it is a genuine problem with the Nano.
You're welcome to your opinion, but please at least research the issue before COMING to an opinion on the matter.