Please cite me the case law that says that. This is your assertion. It's not based on any actual case law, is it?
It's based on engineering. I can't say if Apple will successfully snow job the court or not, but there exists plenty of evidence that a combination of inadequate stiffness and/or inadequate soldering tends to cause connections to the chip that drives the touchscreen to break.
So, if a significant number of a particular make of car died after just 7 years (total loss, trip to scrap yard), you would suggest that's just fine?
Essentially, a manufacturer can be held to reasonably expected standards for quality and durability, particularly when they boast of their quality. If one or 2 units fail outside of warranty, it's likely just bad luck, but if a significant number do so, well before the failures would be expected, it's reasonable to suspect the defect existed from day 1.
There is an entirely different class action covering the same issue in the U.S. and another in Canada. That is likely why we seem to have conflicting information.
Perhaps the amended complaint will clarify. Notably, there seem to be 3 suits over this issue. That may be contributing confusion as well.
Personally, I would argue that the whole debacle is a design defect, much like the old XBox red ring of death debacle (caused by excessive heating and mechanical strain on a solder pad).
Plaintiffs argued reasonable expectations. Apple replied with warranty information. Didn't you RTFA?
Please specify how to do qualify "class of product" Please specify why any of that should nullify a legal contract.
Well, let's see. Apple says it's the very best cellphone. They claim it's the best quality. The slickest design, etc, etc. It is certainly priced to match such claims, so I would say it's fair to classify it as high end for the purposes of reasonable expectations.
Make claims that big, and for a product that offers consumers little way to evaluate it under the hood (it's sealed shut and the design details are far from public) and you can well expect to be held to a high standard by the courts. You have implied strongly that people should expect more than they will get from a dirt cheap no-name burner. Certainly the customer has a right to expect more than a flimsy device that pops it's own solder joints before you're even done paying for it.
As for the rest, no cellphone ever should be expected to fail in less than 2 years unless abused. 100% should be forced to offer at least 2 years warranty. There are no moving parts, there's no excuse for less than 2 years.
The sad part though is the corporations even existing is already government interference. God doesn't hand out corporate charters and did not create corporate persons. A proper Libertarian should object to corporate entities even existing.
The whole warranty term thing is a red herring dropped by Apple, and you're on it like a hound!
The actual class action is that the problem in the iPhone 6 is a defect that results in a premature failure. Specifically, the "touch disease" defect where weak solder and an excessively flexible phone combine to make the touch screen fail early under normal use. The suit essentially alleges that a consumer has a right to expect better than that for that class of product. The term of contracts, loans, elephant babies, etc all notwithstanding.
There are two kinds of warranties out there. The one you're stuck on is an express warranty. There are also implied warranties. Implied warranties are imposed in law and cannot generally be disclaimed by a manufacturer (though many try). Those cover such things as merchantability, fitness for purpose and often set a minimum for durability.
They're going beyond that. They're claiming it's not reasonable for people to expect more than 1 year out of an iPhone. The offered warranty is really irrelevant to the legal question of how long a reasonable person should expect a product in that price range to last.
As for the Hondas, if a significant fraction of Hondas failed in a particular way just outside of warranty such that a repair nearly as much as the car was worth, consumers might very well win a lawsuit alleging a defect.
Or more likely, that they get a lot more careful where they stick their retirement funds, and perhaps start demanding contractual obligations on fund managers to steer clear of criminal corporations.
You seem to have a minor god complex going on there, thinking you're somehow better or smarter than others. Naturally, I would choose from one of the dwindling free and open options first. It's just that unlike your dumb ass, others here see that that list is dwindling and would like to take action before it's gone.
I'm really not the sort of person who goes for the new shiny.
I wouldn't say there is a case where extradition to the U.S. would be fine for this sort of crime. I would, however, say that for someone with autism, any sort of extradition to a different culture would be problematic, many have enough trouble coping with their own native culture.
It's like the situation where an unknown person is found unconscious. A responder doesn't legally need their (impossible to give) consent to save their life. It is assumable that any reasonable person would give that consent rather than die if possible.
If you are evacuating and prefer to get stranded rather than take a minuscule bit of battery lifetime off of your car, by all means, pull over. But don't complain if you find yourself blowing in the wind. Pretty much everyone else will take the temporary extra range.
Your argument is AKA the hermit in the cave. You forget that in industry after industry, product after product, less and less acceptable alternatives exist. The solution is rapidly going the way of the dodo and you stand there fiddling.
you're likely to have removed some critical proprietary software pieces that make the hardware work though.
In other words, you really can't practically wipe the phone and install a fresh version. You can only get rid of the shovelware in the sense that you can just toss the phone in a tree chipper.
That makes no sense. If Russia (for example) won't investigate and prosecute a crime one of it's citizens commits against a victim elsewhere, what makes you think they'll go to the trouble of extradition?
Sure, but since he's not getting off scott free even if he remains in the UK, it's not exactly fair to claim he's going to go unpunished nor is it fair to claim that his actions would somehow be state sponsored, now is it?
More like if you leave your shop with the door unlocked, the lights on, and the "yes, we're open" sign still displayed on the door, should I be charged with trespass if I go inside?
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that you can use a public library system to log in if necessary, that seems unlikely to be a problem.
The person in TFA was a paying customer.
How about no sooner and no later than I log in to my account from a browser and say I no longer need my backups.
Google it. There are 3 suits.
Please cite me the case law that says that. This is your assertion. It's not based on any actual case law, is it?
It's based on engineering. I can't say if Apple will successfully snow job the court or not, but there exists plenty of evidence that a combination of inadequate stiffness and/or inadequate soldering tends to cause connections to the chip that drives the touchscreen to break.
So, if a significant number of a particular make of car died after just 7 years (total loss, trip to scrap yard), you would suggest that's just fine?
Essentially, a manufacturer can be held to reasonably expected standards for quality and durability, particularly when they boast of their quality. If one or 2 units fail outside of warranty, it's likely just bad luck, but if a significant number do so, well before the failures would be expected, it's reasonable to suspect the defect existed from day 1.
There is an entirely different class action covering the same issue in the U.S. and another in Canada. That is likely why we seem to have conflicting information.
The amount of time it takes to pay something off is a decent measure of people's minimum reasonable expectations, yes?
Perhaps the amended complaint will clarify. Notably, there seem to be 3 suits over this issue. That may be contributing confusion as well.
Personally, I would argue that the whole debacle is a design defect, much like the old XBox red ring of death debacle (caused by excessive heating and mechanical strain on a solder pad).
*NO*. *READ TFA AGAIN*.
Plaintiffs argued reasonable expectations. Apple replied with warranty information. Didn't you RTFA?
Please specify how to do qualify "class of product" Please specify why any of that should nullify a legal contract.
Well, let's see. Apple says it's the very best cellphone. They claim it's the best quality. The slickest design, etc, etc. It is certainly priced to match such claims, so I would say it's fair to classify it as high end for the purposes of reasonable expectations.
Make claims that big, and for a product that offers consumers little way to evaluate it under the hood (it's sealed shut and the design details are far from public) and you can well expect to be held to a high standard by the courts. You have implied strongly that people should expect more than they will get from a dirt cheap no-name burner. Certainly the customer has a right to expect more than a flimsy device that pops it's own solder joints before you're even done paying for it.
As for the rest, no cellphone ever should be expected to fail in less than 2 years unless abused. 100% should be forced to offer at least 2 years warranty. There are no moving parts, there's no excuse for less than 2 years.
The sad part though is the corporations even existing is already government interference. God doesn't hand out corporate charters and did not create corporate persons. A proper Libertarian should object to corporate entities even existing.
The whole warranty term thing is a red herring dropped by Apple, and you're on it like a hound!
The actual class action is that the problem in the iPhone 6 is a defect that results in a premature failure. Specifically, the "touch disease" defect where weak solder and an excessively flexible phone combine to make the touch screen fail early under normal use. The suit essentially alleges that a consumer has a right to expect better than that for that class of product. The term of contracts, loans, elephant babies, etc all notwithstanding.
There are two kinds of warranties out there. The one you're stuck on is an express warranty. There are also implied warranties. Implied warranties are imposed in law and cannot generally be disclaimed by a manufacturer (though many try). Those cover such things as merchantability, fitness for purpose and often set a minimum for durability.
So DOUBLING the warranty is a huge burden, but AppleCare+ is low cost and an incredible value? Which of those is true?
They're going beyond that. They're claiming it's not reasonable for people to expect more than 1 year out of an iPhone. The offered warranty is really irrelevant to the legal question of how long a reasonable person should expect a product in that price range to last.
As for the Hondas, if a significant fraction of Hondas failed in a particular way just outside of warranty such that a repair nearly as much as the car was worth, consumers might very well win a lawsuit alleging a defect.
Or more likely, that they get a lot more careful where they stick their retirement funds, and perhaps start demanding contractual obligations on fund managers to steer clear of criminal corporations.
Sure, I would love for consumers in general to suddenly gain 20 IQ points and solve the problem, but I'm not holding my breath for it.
At some point, the free open and expensive option gets to be so expensive that you can't afford it. At that point, it might as well not exist.
You seem to have a minor god complex going on there, thinking you're somehow better or smarter than others. Naturally, I would choose from one of the dwindling free and open options first. It's just that unlike your dumb ass, others here see that that list is dwindling and would like to take action before it's gone. I'm really not the sort of person who goes for the new shiny.
I wouldn't say there is a case where extradition to the U.S. would be fine for this sort of crime. I would, however, say that for someone with autism, any sort of extradition to a different culture would be problematic, many have enough trouble coping with their own native culture.
It's like the situation where an unknown person is found unconscious. A responder doesn't legally need their (impossible to give) consent to save their life. It is assumable that any reasonable person would give that consent rather than die if possible.
If you are evacuating and prefer to get stranded rather than take a minuscule bit of battery lifetime off of your car, by all means, pull over. But don't complain if you find yourself blowing in the wind. Pretty much everyone else will take the temporary extra range.
Your argument is AKA the hermit in the cave. You forget that in industry after industry, product after product, less and less acceptable alternatives exist. The solution is rapidly going the way of the dodo and you stand there fiddling.
you're likely to have removed some critical proprietary software pieces that make the hardware work though.
In other words, you really can't practically wipe the phone and install a fresh version. You can only get rid of the shovelware in the sense that you can just toss the phone in a tree chipper.
That makes no sense. If Russia (for example) won't investigate and prosecute a crime one of it's citizens commits against a victim elsewhere, what makes you think they'll go to the trouble of extradition?
Sure, but since he's not getting off scott free even if he remains in the UK, it's not exactly fair to claim he's going to go unpunished nor is it fair to claim that his actions would somehow be state sponsored, now is it?
Nobody has said anything about not holding him accountable. If not extradited, he will be tried in the UK under the legal system he is familiar with.
More like if you leave your shop with the door unlocked, the lights on, and the "yes, we're open" sign still displayed on the door, should I be charged with trespass if I go inside?