Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over Potential Hearing Loss
freaktheclown writes "A man is suing Apple, claiming that the iPod can cause hearing loss for those who use it." From the article: "The iPod players are 'inherently defective in design and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss,' according to the complaint, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., on behalf of John Kiel Patterson of Louisiana. The suit, which Patterson wants certified as a class-action, seeks compensation for unspecified damages and upgrades that will make iPods safer."
The world has enough proof that there is no intelligent life in the US.
Well too me this seems rather unfair on Apple.
/. for keeping me a wake all night to try and get first posts.
In short he had the volume control and it was in his power to change it to the correct level for him.
It sounds all too like the person who burgled and empty house and fell though the rotten floor boards. Then he sued.
He shouldn't have had the volume high enough to damage his hearing anyway.
It seems like saying I should sue
I'm sure if he wins many more will follow though.Could this be the demise of Apple?
This just shows how ignorant people can be... it's like suing the maker of a handgun because you were careless with it. Take responsibility for your actions people... if you listen to your iPod too loud then deal with the consequences of your stupidity.
This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
Good idea!
I'll start suing the manufacturers of the various amplifiers, receivers, and speakers I've had over the past ~25 years of brutalizing my ears. And I'll name all the bands, especially Motorhead, who have given me pleasure in a separate suit!
My hearing probably isn't what it should be but the last thing I'd consider doing is suing the product makers.
written as the sweet sounds of Slayer fill my office...
Trolling is a art,
There are at least a few problems here (all of which have been discussed over the months since the first of these ridiculous complaints):
First, I've seen ZERO evidence that this has anything to with the iPod per se as opposed to just the nature of in-ear earphones.
Second, you only incur damage if you play the sound too loud. We've been quite saturated with information on that sort of effect for decades (Townshend?). If you cant figure out that it doesn't matter where the sound is coming from, just how loud it is, then screw you.
There's more, but this alone is enough to dismiss this crap...
"Stumble before you crawl"
He's infringing my patent: US PAT 99846321-666 "A method for obtaining stupidly large amounts of financial compensation from commercial organisations by suing them because they failed to point out (rightly or otherwise) something mind-numbingly obvious about a potential (real or otherwise) hazard related to the use of their product/s that anyone with a small degree of common sense would be competent to identify for themselves and thus take appropriate action."
AT&ROFLMAO
Actually I want my iPod to go louder.
If I have a big pair of earphones on, then the iPod doesn't really have enough power to drive them. I have heard a rumor that a US firmware (as opposed to EU) will give it more volume (apparently the EU has a law that forces output to be capped at a *safe* level), but I have been unable to find any regional firmware at all.
And I'm suing slashdot for the mental anguish caused by a certain goatse picture.
Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
I can only assume that you haven't paid attention to the goings-on in the US for the last, oh, two point five decades or so. There is no need to assume responsibility for your actions, as long as you can find a lawyer (you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one) to plead your case. The goal isn't to win a trial, but to win a settlement. Cash in, as it were. There's a whole industry built around these nuisance suits. The worst part is that the ones that do go to a jury trial are likely to be succesful anyway as the jurors apparently sit there thinking, 'Well, if we give this guy a big award, when it's our turn...' Entitlement mentality.
On top of that, you get the 'junk science' lawsuits. Dow Corning and the silicone breast implant bankruptcy is a prime example. There never was and is not any scientific evidence that silicone breast implants lead to any of the medical conditions (real or imagined) that were the cause of those lawsuits. I believe there are still silicone implants available, too (although DC is no longer maufacturing them).
Some times I think I went to bed last night in one timeline. A timeline where normal, common sense prevails. Yet, somehow I've woken up in another timeline. One where everything is slightly off kilter. Not enough to be grossly disorienting, but just enough to be maddeningly noticeable.
--
Sig sour
Right, so now explain why he's singling out Apple instead of suing everybody who makes earbud-style headphones.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
... they want their lawsuit back.
Wasn't the same thing done over the Sony Walkman?
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I knew someone would bring up the McDonald's Coffee case.
.. Other establishments sell
m cdonalds.htmo naldsCoffeecase.aspx
The knee-jerk reaction to any seemingly stupid/frivolous litigation (or patent) is to assume that the summary = the case, when in fact things tend to be more complex.
There are a lot of details to the McDonald's case that the unwashed masses tend to not know:
Some important points:
"McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle."
"[she] suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas."
"During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks."
"it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste.
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees."
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_
http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/Mcd
Every single set of headphones/earphones has a different sensitivity level. That is, feed the same amount of power to 2 different sets of phones, and one will be louder than the other because of the efficiency of the speaker drivers which convert electricity into vibrations.
Basically, at a given volume level on the portable player (say 75% of total) may produce 80 dB of sound output with Brand X headphones and 84 dB of sound output with Brand Y.
IMO if you damage your hearing it is your own damn fault. It is quite easy to tell if you are listening to something that is too loud. If your ears always ring after you listen to a couple of MP3's on your portable player, turn the freaking volume down, nimwit. Same deal if your ears bleed....
My spoon is too big.
Think about that statement for a minute, then explain it to me once again, answering the following question: how can REALLY low noise impair your hearing? Be specific, make sure you talk about the decibel level at which that REALLY low noise can impair your hearing.
The problem with that is that earbuds have been around for years, probably a decade or more now, so there's been plenty of time to document such side-effects and make people aware of them, or pull such headphones off the market.
I don't get why people use those things anyways. They always hurt my ears (and I have friends bitch about that all the time as well), so I tend to use larger headphones that just cover my ears entirely. They do pretty much the same thing, and they're not a PITA to wear (though maybe a PITA to carry around; then again, I wear them most of the time. Like right now, for instance.)
Yeah but, you are in USA, where, you know, people is stupid..
I got a great example with product warnings (agree, some are from Tesco, a UK company) but lot of them are from USA companies.
I love these:
Sears hairdryer:
Do not use while sleeping.
Nytol sleep aid:
Warning: may cause drowsiness.
Disposable razor:
Do not use this product during an earthquake.
Hand-held Massaging Device
Do not use while sleeping or unconscious. [O MY F GOD]
Microwave Oven:
Do not use for drying pets.
Anyway, better take a look at them, really funny... but makes you think... in a country where anyone can sue anybody for anything... what can you expect.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Except those are no more likely than earbuds to damage your hearing. In order to cause damage, the volume has to be high enough to hurt. You ever hear something at 110+ decibels? Holy shiat, you deserve what you get if you cannot respond properly to pain stimuli.
And while I'm ranting... what about concerts? I went to an Aerosmith concert a few years ago, and the sound was so loud it was distorting in my ear. I mean... LOUD. Shouldn't we be suing them too? Especially since we can't turn down the volume in that situation.
Oh wait... personal responsibility. Almost forgot it existed. As it seems the person who brought the suit did as well. Either that or he's just looking for money. That might explain going after Apple instead of smaller fish. No, it can't be, he's definitely looking out for all of our best interests...
Apple has countersued John Kiel Patterson's finger for moving the iPod's volume beyond the 93db range, which has possibly caused damage to his hearing.
His finger will be required to testify in court that it indeed did raise the volume beyond acceptable levels, his ears were also subpoenaed in to testify about their injuries.
Noone is sure about Patterson's brain, it has gone missing and possibly is living out of the country.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
"The iPod players are 'inherently defective in design and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss..."
So basically, he's telling us that if there was a big sticker pasted on the side that said "Hey, Asshat, don't turn it up too loud, you will lose your hearing!" that everything would have been OK, and he would not have sued?
*sigh*
What an asshat.
Because you can only sue people that actually did damage.
#1
No one, NO ONE else in that town or the surrounding area sold coffee anywhere NEAR that hot.
#2
If you spilt coffee on you from a restraunt or that you made yourself you would probably not even manage FIRST DEGREE burns These were THIRD degree burns, the kind your more used to seeing from actual fires and not boiling water.
#3
The city AND state had filed health warnings with McDonalds due to the complaints, which McDonalds prompty ignored.
#4
The lady inquestion only sued after McDonalds refused to cover her health expenses. (Which they HAD done in the previous two instances in this state.)
#5
A company memo existed that flat out said that it would be cheaper and better marketing slogun to be able to say they had the "Hottest Coffee" and pay off any lawsuits that would happen from burn victims then to lower the tempurature and lose the possibility of lording it over their competitors.
#6
And finally it was not the defendant who sued for millions, it was the jury who awarded it becuase it was "unspecified" and the jury specifically said 3million was picked because it was the sales for one days worth of coffee at McDonalds and the jury thought that they needed to prove the company memo wrong.
Which, interestingly[1], is why the volume goes so high in the first place. Steve Jobs is partially deaf, and he tested the iPod before it was released.
[1] Or not. Mods, you decide.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Just for the record, sounds don't have to be loud enough to hurt in order to cause hearing loss. Sounds ~85dB (around the level of a busy street or a factory) or higher are enough to cause permanent damage to hearing. Now, obviously, exposure time necessary for significant damage are inversely proportionate to the volume of the noise.
And I totally agree that Mr. Patterson is a fruitloop. There's a volume control for a reason. And if I want to ruin my hearing, or say, I don't know, use an iPod for something other than earbuds, like, maybe unpowered speakers, or multiple set of headphones, that's my right! I might need the power that the iPod can put out. Just 'cause some people lose their hearing 'cause they're dumb or not careful enough to protect themselves by turning the volume down a bit, doesn't mean everyone else should suffer. Think of it as evolution in action.
Because Apple pionered the idea of earbuds or at least popularized it of course.
Are you kidding? And let me guess: Linux invented the command line, Google invented XmlHttp, and BeOS invented the graphical operating system.
Earbud headphones have been around, and popular, for DECADES. Just because you weren't looking doesn't change reality.
Na, you'll make more money when you sue for mental anguish over shrinkage...
"There's no warning on the cold water saying it'll shrink! I yelled "Oh my god! Its shrinking, its going away!" My girlfriend ran in because of the screaming and just laughed at me. I thought my sex life was over. Judge, she calls me Turtle now. I can't go out to any clubs anymore.
If some idiot can sue and win over tripping over a crack on your property, yea, I could see you winning the above.
Did ANYONE read the article? The guy's hearing wasn't even damaged - it specifically says that in there. He is suing because he thinks his iPod MIGHT damage his hearing if he keeps turning it up so loud.
Also, he evidently can not control himself to lower the volume because the warning that Apple ALREADY ships with the damn thing is not sufficient to alter his idiotic behavior.
Oh, and as to the "now she's rich" part, that too is bogus. She initially asked for enough to recover her exact medical costs only. McDonalds refused so she sued for a larger amount. That amount was first granted, but then later was significanlty reduced. I forget what the final dollar value was but suffice to say it wasn't enough for her to go off and live a rich millionaire fantasy life.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
FTFA:
You can't take the sky from me...
At one time people took responsibility for their own actions and products were MUCH more dangerous.
The lawyers will argue that by bringing up all the product lawsuits we now have safer cars, and
other products. But lawsuits are still brought against companies whose products are missused by
stupid people. There has to be a limit some where.
ALL headphones, ear buds or over the ear types, can cause hearing damage by delivering a sound level
that's too high. Listening with speakers can cause the same damage too (while peeling the paint
off the walls and cracking the windows). I suppose a form of active feedback could be added to
headphones with a transducer to measure the sound level being delivered to the ear and back off the
volume before it reaches the danger point. Would consumers buy such a product? (that would be like
having a car that wouldn't go above 55mph by having a speed regulator. Some trucking companies actually
put such a gizmo in their trucks to keep their drivers honest). Would you like the government to demand
that makers of portable audio players put such a circuit into such players?
At some point our tort system exists only to make a profit for the lawyers and for "whiplash Willies" to
abuse the system for a quick buck. The small aircraft business was almost destroyed by product liability
lawsuits. Those cases involved 20-50 year old planes that were built before todays standards were
developed. How can you justify calling such a product "defective"? Should you be allowed to sue Ford if you were hurt when your 80 year old model "T"'s gas tank exploded today?
In fact, it's probably not entirely his fault either. He probably went to the doctor with hearing problems, had expensive tests and treatments, and then his insurer asked him to sue Apple. That's the way it works.
I accidentally cut my finger open using a Leatherman tool, and had to go to the ER. When it came time to pay up, my insurance company sent me a letter asking where the accident occurred, what products were involved, and asking me to sue anyone who might be liable in order to recoup the costs. The letter really didn't have a checkbox for "It was my own stupid fault"; it just assumed that it would be possible to sue somebody.
I wrote "It was my own stupid fault" on the form and sent it back... but don't be surprised if you see someone suing Leatherman for making knives sharp enough to cut into fingers.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
That's not how courts work.
You can get a bunch of scientists together and claim it's impossible.
I can get a bunch of "victims" together who claim that they lost 75% of their hearing from listening at REALLY low levels. They'll cry. They'll force the lawyers to yell the questions. They'll spend the court's time fiddling with hearing aids. They'll talk about how they lost their jobs and how their babies were run over by a bus because they couldn't hear the bus until it was too late. It'll be really tragic. And there's no way to prove they can still hear just as well as before.
The jury can decide either way: for the huge super-rich corporation or for the tragic half-deafened victims.
During the trial, some ridiculous "public interest group" will send out a press release warning people of the hearing loss, even at REALLY low levels. It'll be in every newspaper and on every TV newscast. Slashdot will post it 4 times in 3 days.
Apple will settle the case for $10 per iPod. Lawyers will get $9.02 of it and Apple will give iPod owners 98 cents off their next iTMS music purchase.
They'll artificially limit the sound level on future iPods and put a warning label on them. They'll raise the price $20.
The lawyers will buy new houses and fast cars. Then they'll start looking for their next big score. (Maybe Apple will have a hit against earnings because of the case. Did they warn the shareholders sufficiently? I smell a shareholder lawsuit.)
The McDonalds coffee suit has NOTHING to do with frivolous lawsuits such as TFA. Here are a few important facts about the McDonalds case:
1. McDonalds coffee was held at temperatures at 180 degrees, 40-50 degrees higher than normal coffee, which is hot enough to produce a 3rd degree burn in as little as two seconds.
2. The plaintiff, a 79-year old woman, spent eight days in the hospital recieving skin grafts for 3rd degree burns covering 6% of her body.
3. There were 700 similar incidents, including some as serious as the plaintiff's.
4. She only asked for a $20,000 settlement; McDonalds refused.
6. The actual compensatory award was $200,000, the other $2.7 million (2 days of McD coffee sales) was punishment for McDonalds' "reckless, callous and willful" conduct. This was later reduced to only $480,000.
There are some stupid lawsuits, but most of them don't win. And if you're going to argue the point with anecdotal evidence, at least research your anecdotes.
Power corrupts. Knowledge is power. Study hard. Be evil.
Etymotic, with their earphones that absolutely seal into your ear canal, blocking out almost all outside noise, and putting themselves very close indeed to your eardrum.
I've been using a pair of Etymotic ER-4S headphones for about five years now. In practice, I find Ety's are far safer than normal earbuds for just the reason you cite. Since the outer part of the earbud is essentially an earplug with excellent noise blocking, the headphone doesn't have to compete volume-wise with ambient noise. You get the same clarity of sound with a lower volume level due to this.
It's also worth noting that due to the Ety's proximity to the eardrum, they don't need to be very loud at all. Their drivers run intentionally quiet for this reason. For comparison, with conventional headphones or earbuds if I set them at a comfortable listening level then set them down on the desk, I find that I can still hear the sound to some extent. With Ety's, I can't even tell whether they're on unless the volume is particularly loud or it's *very* quiet in the room.
Of course, it's critical with any headphone, Ety's or otherwise, to train yourself to moderate playback volume for extended listening.
the medical profession now reckon that ANY overload of your hearing causes at least SOME permanent loss of hearing, so if you do regularly get a ringing in your ears, or if peaks of volume make your ears hurt, you're setting yourself up for big trouble later in life. My mother works at a charity for acquired deafness (people go go deaf rather than being born without hearing) and she says that whilst once hearing loss was associated with heavy industrial work with lots of noise, she's seeing younger and younger people develop the problem - it's no longer an elderly "disease"
So, moral of the story, resist the urge to increase the sound level as you listen - don't let it creep up. If you're listening in a noisy environment, consider noise-cancelling closed-cup phones, so you can listen at a lower level.
The Clue Club has been recalled because of the danger of splinters. If you have received injury due to splinters in the act of wielding the clue club, you might qualify to be part of the class action suit. Operators are standing by.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.