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."
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,
Warning: Nail Clippers will cut nails.
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
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.
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...
#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.
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.
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.