Slashdot Mirror

It doesn't matter what everyone else does. What matters is if Apple designed their systems in such a way that dust can get into the screen and other problematic areas. This photo illustrates it well: https://www.hbsslaw.com/case-f...

Apple are not the only ones to suffer from this problem, lots of other all-in-one systems do too.

So I have now taken Seagate off my list of potential hardware suppliers.

I've taken Seagate off my list of potential hardware suppliers because their hard drive quality has taken a real dip in recent years. I have a failing hard drive and while searching around for the model, I find that there's a class-action lawsuit against Seagate given the unreliability of the Seagate Barracuda 3TB model.

This is a link to the attorneys that are representing the national class action lawsuit.

http://www.hbsslaw.com/ciq/

On a different page of their site, this same law firm HBSS explains what a class action is all about, from their special point of view perhaps:

---
Step 3: The judge directs notice be given to all parties having a similar claim during a particular time period so they may be informed and have input on the case. This first notice gives people an opportunity to "opt out" (not be part of the class or represented by the party who brought the case).
---
http://www.hbsslaw.com/class_action_faq.jsp

If the due procedure were indeed "opt out" (as opposed to "opt-in") then the law firm would possibly not need an attorney-client agreement in writing.

As my sympathies are with Mr. Tomczak rather than the law firm, I hope the "opt out" version is not applicable.

I am not a lawyer - shouldn't that be "opt in" instead?

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong please.

here it is

http://www.hbsslaw.com/ipod_nano_litigation

it is now an "amended" lawsuit.
details here
http://www.hbsslaw.com/files/1ST_Amd_Complaint%20( v2)1130368932535.pdf

no mention of Jason.
they have a new plaintiff. how convenient!

here it is

http://www.hbsslaw.com/ipod_nano_litigation

it is now an "amended" lawsuit.
details here
http://www.hbsslaw.com/files/1ST_Amd_Complaint%20( v2)1130368932535.pdf

no mention of Jason.
they have a new plaintiff. how convenient!

neither websites show the nano class-action lawsuit listed under their current or closed list of investigations

http://www.hbsslaw.com/frontend?command=Lawsuit&iL awsuitStatusId=1

http://www.dmlaws.com/ConsumerClassAction/CurrentA ctions.aspx

HBSS has an open CAL against apple for the high decibel issue, but not this one.

what happened?

Jason Tomczak is NOT the lead plantiff. He was listed as lead-plantiff when the complaint was originally filed on October 19th, 2005. ( documentation here: http://www.ifoapplestore.com/blog/nano_lawsuit.pdf )

But the lawyers amended their lawsuit 6 days later (October 25th, 2005) naming James M. Wimmer as the lead-plantiff ( documentation: http://www.hbsslaw.com/files/1ST_Amd_Complaint%20( v2)1130368932535.pdf )

But by the time Jason was dropped, the damage was done. He is referenced all over the 'net as a sue-happy whiner.

The lawyers are NOT suing Jason to stop him from dropping out. In fact, as best I can tell from Jason's letter, he is suing them for all the problems they caused him.

BTW: Its significant to note that this is the same law firm suing Apple over hearing-loss issues related to iPods.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP works hard to prevent this kind of fraud. Look:
http://www.hbsslaw.com/report_a_fraud.jsp