Slashdot Mirror
iPod Lawsuit Lawyers Sue Their Own Plaintiff?
Guinnessy writes "Jason Tomczak, who is mentioned as the lead to the iPod Nano 'Scratch' Class Action law suit
filed against Apple computers has published an open letter to the mac community. In it he claims that he never asked to be represented by David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, the lawyers in the case. He spoke to them once by phone about his scratched iPod case and asked that his name not be used. In fact, the two firms agree there is no signed document proving that Tomczak asked for representation. However, because Tomczak wants nothing to do with the case, David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro are currently suing him to try and stop him from pulling out. They also say Tomczak is legally liable for their fees if they lose the court case against Apple. Needless to say Tomczak isn't happy with the arrangement, and is likely to still lose thousands of dollars under the best scenario."
Steve Berman from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro was one of the lawyers handling the nano suit. He's one of Microsoft's favorite lawyer, having defending MS in more than 50 class-action suits made by the states and consumers.
Let's say that the following is completely speculative and happens in fantasy-land. (I don't wan't to get sued!)
One day in autumn 2005, Bill Gates is playing golf with his lawyer friend Steve Berman.
-Steve: Did you see the new iPod nano?
-Bill: Yeah yeah I did...nice little player but you know my position about iPods... We had big plans with the RIAA to impose WMA as the audio standard, by this year we were supposed to drop Red-Book audio from all CD sold in the US, replacing the content with DRMed WMA. You can imagine how the iPod and iTMS screws up our plans badly.
-Steve: I guess many big-players are pissed-off by the iPod success.
-Bill: Yes they are, but the iPod seems unstoppable... Even with dozens of our ghost-writers publishing negative articles about the iPod, it keeps dominating the market.
-Steve: I've read that the iPod nano scratches very easily, and that some of the early batches had screens that spontaneously break.
-Bill: I know about it, our ghost-writers are already trying to spread the word... but we need something bigger, we don't have a choice.
-Steve: There's a guy that built a website to complain about his iPod nano screen problems and he's very vocal about it.
-Bill: What if your law firm gave him a hand to help him build a class-action suit against Apple?
-Steve: Yeah we could do that, but what if he doesn't want to be part of the lawsuit?
-Bill: I'm %100 sure your great firm will be able to "convince" him... And by the way, you owe me that, remember that "thing" I sent you last month?
-Steve: Oh right, that "thing" was very enjoyable... I guess I owe you that one...Let me see what I can do!
If he is listed as the lead plantif, why can he not simply ask for the case to be dropped OR dismiss the law firm handling it? People persuing lawsuits seek other legal counsil all the time.
If indeed he did not file the case that would seem the best revenge, but them out of the loop (and the winnings).
I would say the lack of any signed document stating the case is truly in his behalf almost certainly indicates his story is the correct one, for what lawyer would even pick up a pad of paper without a full and binding contract signed in triplicate?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I read his letter yesterday and thought t might be worth writing about. I emailed every contact address I could find on the sites of both law companies, unfortunately I haven't gotten a reply.
info@dmlaws.com
rcarey@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
info@hbsslaw.com
mark@firmani.com
Unfortunately none of them has responded so I can't clarify the truth of the allegations. Perhaps some other people should email them asking for clarification as well.
The filed a lawsuit using his name as the lead defendent.
They would not remove his name from the lawsuit even though they had no proof he wanted to be involved and he explicity stated he want to NOT be involved.
They did not comply so he was forced to file a lawsuit to clear his name. Instead of settling, the offending lawfirm counter-sued using Anti-Slapp laws. Now the guy will be in for a boatload of money because some scum bag lawfirm decided to use a few quotes of his from a blog and his name inappropriately for a class action lawsuit.
The headline says they are suing him because that is the news. This guy should be suing the lawfirm, but them suing him? Now that's news.
Either he is not telling the entire truth here, or these attorneys are out of their minds. I don't see any middle ground here.
If this fella *is* telling the truth, he simply needs to report this incident, along with all evidence of correspondence and communication, to the Bar Assn. An egregious misuse of the law such as this could get the attorneys disbarred.
I don't know. Seems like he'd make an ideal witness for Apple. He's provably not biased toward them (the whole episode started because he had a problem with their products), yet clearly doesn't want this to procede.
To be honest, I think Apple should make peace with him by introducing him to the happy side of their legal department. Shysters against little guy? No problem. Shysters against Apple's legal unit? Not so easy. It'd be relatively cheap for Apple and great PR.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
But,
I would say he possibly has a libel case on his hands, with him being the beneficiary.
Assuming he did not enter into an enforceable verbal (or written) contract, then he is potentially gonna make a buck off of those boneheads. And that's assuming they did more than merely quote him.
If he is so certain his case is so great, and the legal fees are getting him down, then he should find a firm willing to work on contengency.
Better, yet, drop the lawsuit and simply cooperate with the weasily lawyers who did this to him.
Then, at trial simply testify for Apple instead. That would get the lawyers good!
Caution: Contents under pressure
just because the guy writes a letter and tells everyone that he didn't have an agreement / etc. with these lawyers, doesn't make it true, right? this is just his account. it's not proof of anything.
All the lawyers have to do is present the signed agreement and his case is dismissed. If they don't allow anyone to look for such an agreement, or they refuse to produce one, it makes his case harder to dismiss. It sounds like they want to prevent his team from looking for such an agreement, which they likely would do if it didn't exist.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Why do people always seem to assume that "loser pays" is implemented in the most retarded way possible: loser pays all costs incurred by winner regardless of personal ability and winner's invention? In the UK the loser pays, but the judge decides what the loser pays. If you sue Microsoft and lose, and they claim their lawyer cost them a googolplex pounds and you've got a sub-poverty income, the judge will order you to pay a minimal amount, court costs perhaps; the amount will be appropriately punitive. You will *NOT* be reduced to permanent debt to the winner.
Yes, that does mean the winner can lose out overall. That is what keeps the system relatively sane and provides a good incentive to BOTH sides to settle out of court.
Not fair on winners, who haven't done anything wrong and therefore shouldn't lose anything? Maybe. Is it as retarded as US "justice"? No way. Can you buy a favourable outcome if you stump up enough cash, even if you're in the wrong? Definitely not. Personally I prefer our system; it's not flawless by any means but overall I think it does a reasonable job.