"Again, whether or not the agreement was entered into voluntarily is not an issue, which is why I emphasised "voluntarily or involuntarily" however many posts up. It's similar to the way that rape is still considered rape even if the victim had previously consented before changing their mind."
Now we're likening this to rape?
The point I was making was that he WAS compensated for his year of unemployment. Funny thing is, he doesn't have to be employed during this time. He can go work at Google, he just can't do what he agreed he wouldn't do. This is hardly 'indentured servitude'. If you don't agree with me, fine, it doesn't matter. The lawyers will argue it. I really don't think they'll succed on that ground. That law was not written with this purpose in mind.
"If the Anti-Peonage Act has been used before to challenge such non-compete clauses, Google ain't finding it. If you're suggesting that the act has been used to challenge such clauses and failed, where are these cases?"
I couldn't find it, either. I'll concede that point. However, they will most definitely have a battle in front of them. It sure sounds evil if Microsoft uses a non-compete clause in their contracts, but they do exist for a reason. The idea behind it is that there are times where individuals are critical to the success of a businesss. Radio DJs come to mind. If a radio DJ makes a radio station successful, what's to keep a bigger station with deeper pockets from poaching them? That's why these clauses often come with a much bigger salary or some other incentive to sign them. If Microsoft is wrong in doing so, there are a LOT of others who are wrong as well. That begs the question: Is the problem that Lee couldn't do his same job at another company, or is the problem that Microsoft is trying to prevent Google from acquiring him? There's a lot of blablabla about how it's the former, but I suspect the real anger here is at the latter. It is really hard to imagine that Lee's undergoing some sort of hardship here, especially considering that this came up almost when the year was up.
"The agreement prevents Lee from voluntarily leaving the terms of the contract and voluntarily laboring for a competitor."
He's prevented from 'laboring' at a similar position from a competitor. He can work there as a janitor if he likes.
He was aware of this when he took up a role at MS.
"The fact that the Anti-Peonage Act has not been used against such clauses does not automatically mean that it cannot or will not. "People got away with it in the past" doesn't make it legal."
This might be a compelling argument if non-compete clauses were new and unchallenged.
Problem 1: Lee's not providing service, he's withholding information. This is not labor.
Problem 2: Microsoft did not invent the non-compete clause. They've been around for quite a while. Obviously this clause is not preventing use of this type of agreement.
Problem 3: For all you know, his salary included severance to compensate him for the year that he wouldn't be working for the competition.
"No, the "million dollars," the salary is for work performed for the company, services rendered. And when the money stops, the employee has no obligation to continue doing anything for their former employer, including honoring some sort of "non-compete" clause."
The 'million dollars' was his salary IF he agreed to the terms of the contract that he willingly signed. Microsoft held up their end of the bargain, he has to hold up his. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they kept paying him after he quit.
"Are you aware that indentured servants 300 years ago willingly signed contracts to become so?"
Are you aware that non disclosure agreements are not indentured servitude? Think about what caused this term to come into being with this context then ask yourself if you really want to liken Lee's plight to the nastiness that a lot of people endured '300 years ago'.
"And the reason we didn't photoshop out all the serial numbers on the pictures is what? To make it as easy as possible for MS to potentially backtrack how you got your hardware and eliminate your source or possibly cost them thier job/contract? Smart."
Yeah, I'm sure Microsoft's going to come down on the dudes for giving them a free blast on Slashdot. "Oh no! People have seen the motherboard! They'll know.... uh... to the Lawyer Cave!"
"I am sure that there is a flaw in that argument..."
There is: People actually sign the contracts. Microsoft says "This is what we'll give you, this is what you gotta do in return." Employee says "Hmm I can swing that." and all is done. If you're valuable enough that MS would pay you all that money and ask you to sign that contract, but if you cannot afford to live unemployed for six months to a year after that, then don't sign the contract. If you do, you have no business crying that Microsoft has made you their bitch.
It's fun to suggest things that would cost Microsoft money, it's also fun to use terms like 'slave' when referring to how people work for Microsoft. But at the end of the day, Lee still signed the fucking contract. Incidently, it's these sorts of contracts that make it harder for Microsoft to poach key employees at their competition.
By an interesting quirk of fate, I went and bought a DS with Advance Wars today.
Cool game, but the stylus interface for it doesn't buy you a whole lot. It's not that the touch screen is a gimmick, but rather their simple grid like interface that worked quite well on the GBA still works quite well. But, if I were playing it on a table or something I'd prefer the stylus. Tell you what, though, I wouldn't mind a port of StarCraft on this system.
I also picked up Mario 64. (actually, it came with the system...) It has a mini game with it where you have to 'draw' little circuits to guide a Mario head over to a star. That was cool. I really think that would make for a slick little puzzle game.
"I just want to say that I really, really hate the PS2 analog sticks compared to the Gamecube ones."
I hate them for a different reason. If you push down on them, they act as another button. They're called 'L3' and 'R3'. That drove me nuts. GTA kept telling me to push the R3 button, and I couldn't find a button labeled that. The car I was driving would also honk while I was making extreme turns. Took me forever to work out what I was doing. Even after knowing about them, I never really did get to where I could make extreme turns without triggering that button. I really do despise Sony's controllers.
"It seems that the term podcast in this case was applied solely by the submitter to Slashdot."
It seems to me that the term podcast has nothing to do with space ships made out of plastic. I'm glad all these mod points were put to such effective use.
There has been a lot of blablabla over the Revolution controller. There have also been a TON of fake images floating around of it. Here's a list of a few things that should be considered:
1.) The price of controllers cannot skyrocket, so doodads like the touch screen are incredibly unlikely.
2.) This controller will have to play most of Nintendo's library of games, so it's unlikely that the physical resemblance of this controller will be that different from previous incarnations. (i.e. screw the rumor that it's only a helmet.)
3.) We've gotten hints that the revolutionary aspect is simple and has been done before, but hasn't really been used in games. I expect that the revolution won't be in the technology, but rather they mean that the way games are played will be different. (Much like the N64's analog stick really changed the playing field.)
4.) Nintendo's really turned net friendly this time around. It is likely they want the Rev to have an interface that is net friendly so something like an OSK is possible.
5.) Whatever it is, it's simple enough that Sony or Microsoft could throw it in at the last minute. So Nintendo's staying mum on it.
With these details in mind, here are the rumors I think we should be paying attention to:
- Somebody suggested once that the Rev controller would have an eye kinda like the light gun. Although I have reservations about this, it would be interesting to use your controller like a pointer. This would be fairly cheap to do and it would work. Though I do worry that these controllers would only work on CRT TVs. It wouldn't be a death blow, but this would be the last generation Nintendo would be able to pull this off.
- There has been a LOT of talk about gyros. I've also read a few comments already suggesting that gyros/tilt sensors/etc are a gimmick. To that I say: Bullshit. A couple of years ago I got to work with a gyro sensor. (I think it was from Intersense, but unfortunately I do not recall too clearly.) It was very good at detecting the orientation of the sensor. It would have been very possible to play a game like Quake with this sensor. My only reservation about this rumor is that I was under the impression these sensors were expensive. But, since I do not know that for sure, it still remains (in my mind) within the realm of possibility. I'd say this one's pretty likely. This fits the 'Revolutionary' bit as well as the 'not used much in games' bit.
- Gyro inhibitor: This is a fairly new rumor, and sadly I haven't kept up on it. I do remember a supposed 'leaked source' that claimed this device would cause the controlller to provide resistance if you tried to move it. I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, it seems to fit Nintendo's fancy. Afterall, it's like a fancier version of the Rumble Pak. On the other hand, can they really fit something like this into a controller, power it, and make it useful? If anybody has any info on this sort of technology, I'd be really intrigued to hear it. If it works,though, it'd be a neat addition to the gyro.
- Touch interface. Note, I did not say touch SCREEN interface. Rather, like those glide point pads used commonly on laptops. There have been rumors that the handles on the controller are touch sensitive. You can squeeze or rub them somehow to interact with the game. I have to admit, I have trouble picturing this. On the other hand, imagine a small one of these things taking the place of the smaller analog stick on the GameCube controller. That would be a simple mouse-like interface that would make the OSK idea work and it could potentially even control the camera. It fits with the 'been done before, but not really for games' bit, but I would scratch my head if Nintendo called that revolutionary. But if they do manage to make the handles work like I read... well maybe.
- I read somewhere that the controller can get hot. That's right, it heats up. Intentionally, not like a Toshiba laptop heats up. Maybe my imaginat
"And the fact that it took 5 years until someone else could come up with a comparable handheld is proof; 5 years in gaming technology is a loooong time."
About the only thing that statement proves is that battery technology takes a loooong time to advance.
"NEC was. It took the rest of the industry 10 years to catch up to the turbografx handheld."
Oh please. I used to have one of those, and it was neat, but it was not some pinnacle of gaming everybody aspired to attain. It was BIG. There was no way this thing was fitting in your pocket. It was EXPENSIVE. $299, if I recall. And that was back in the early 90's before game consoles came out at that price. It required six AA batteries that died within about 3 hours. It sucked as a portable system.
I took this thing on a 3 week camping trip. The only thing that made it worthwhile was that my dad hooked up a big ass rechargable battery to it. It lasted about 10 hours. Fortunately, I mostly played it in the car or in the tent so I didn't have to lug it (along with the honkin' battery) anywhere. If my dad didn't make that battery for it, it would have stayed at home. It just wasn't that practical as a 'long-trip' machine. The following year, I had a Game Boy, now that thing worked out really well.
With that said, there are some admirable traits of the TE. It had an AWESOME screen. Far better than the GBA SP's. (Sadly, defective pixels were common.) It also had a TV Tuner attachment. Most people may not care, but it was great to have on a camping trip. Though the TurboGrafx system wasn't too popular in the USA, it still had a decent library of games. For those who aren't aware, the TurboGrafx system used tiny little cards roughly the size of credit cards for its games. They were a great size for portable gaming. It's worth mentioning that the nature of this system meant that the games for it weren't watered down like portable games tended to be.
NEC was not the pioneer of handheld gaming. It had some great things going for it, but in ways that seriously mattered, it failed miserably. Instead of giving the industry a new direction to go, it taught them a bitter lesson and reaffirmed that Nintendo knew what they were doing.
"People don't always buy the superior product over a more popular, but lesser one."
It's easy to say that, but the truth is that superiority is in the eye of the beholder. The Newton was superior to the Palm Pilot, right? Nope. The Palm Pilot was seriously smaller, cheaper, and it had a much better battery life. For a significant number of people, it was a much better buy despite being 'inferior'.
The PSP seemed plenty superior to me until I sat through a couple of loading screens on it. For nearly double the price, I get slightly nicer graphics and games that take longer to load. Wee.
"Interesting commentary on today's society...people would rather invest in a virtual dog than accept the responsibility of owning an actual pet."
So... how many people do you know that can have a dog (i.e. they live in a place that allows dogs, or they're not allergic, etc..), but they don't already have a dog, and they chose to buy Nintendogs instead? Is there a data set large enough there to actually make a comment on society?
Personally, I wouldn't draw up commentaries on society based on assumptions I've made about the motivations of a number of people (that don't exactly represent a large fraction of the population) who bought a popular game. Maybe I'm just lacking ambition.
"i cant see myself dishing out $250-$300 for a system... Of course the screen is beautiful, but with threats of dead pixels and broken buttons... I'd definitely expect more..."
I had a chance to play a PSP the other day. What's the first thing I bumped into? "Loading...." Frankly, that bothers me a hell of a lot more than the thought of a dead pixel or two.
Sony has a lot of nerve calling anything Nintendo has done with the DS 'gimmicky'. If they had kept the price down, the battery life up, and the load times reasonable, they'd have a lot more room to talk.
" Apple provided the same lithium ion batteries as every other manufacturer. So because of the natural physical properties of the battery, it's going to diminish in charge capacity over time. There's no secret to this."
It may not be a 'secret', but the iPod is a mass-market device and as such it cannot be safely assumed that the general public really understands this.
"I guess I should sue Sony and IBM for providing laptop batteries that fail after 2 years too?"
You'd feel that way if Sony and IBM made laptops where you couldn't get at the battery to replace it. You'd feel like Sony and IBM intentionally designed it to make sure you buy a new product of theirs every 2 years.
It's fun to defend Apple and assume the world's full of idiots and that lawyers are greedy selfish bastards, but at the end of the day, Apple could have avoided this by making the battery easy to replace. Afterall, if it's no secret that batteries diminish over time, then Apple has no excuse for this teeny weeny little oversight.
Slashdot Mirror
Big fucking deal.
Will do. Thanks! :)
"Again, whether or not the agreement was entered into voluntarily is not an issue, which is why I emphasised "voluntarily or involuntarily" however many posts up. It's similar to the way that rape is still considered rape even if the victim had previously consented before changing their mind."
Now we're likening this to rape?
The point I was making was that he WAS compensated for his year of unemployment. Funny thing is, he doesn't have to be employed during this time. He can go work at Google, he just can't do what he agreed he wouldn't do. This is hardly 'indentured servitude'. If you don't agree with me, fine, it doesn't matter. The lawyers will argue it. I really don't think they'll succed on that ground. That law was not written with this purpose in mind.
"If the Anti-Peonage Act has been used before to challenge such non-compete clauses, Google ain't finding it. If you're suggesting that the act has been used to challenge such clauses and failed, where are these cases?"
I couldn't find it, either. I'll concede that point. However, they will most definitely have a battle in front of them. It sure sounds evil if Microsoft uses a non-compete clause in their contracts, but they do exist for a reason. The idea behind it is that there are times where individuals are critical to the success of a businesss. Radio DJs come to mind. If a radio DJ makes a radio station successful, what's to keep a bigger station with deeper pockets from poaching them? That's why these clauses often come with a much bigger salary or some other incentive to sign them. If Microsoft is wrong in doing so, there are a LOT of others who are wrong as well. That begs the question: Is the problem that Lee couldn't do his same job at another company, or is the problem that Microsoft is trying to prevent Google from acquiring him? There's a lot of blablabla about how it's the former, but I suspect the real anger here is at the latter. It is really hard to imagine that Lee's undergoing some sort of hardship here, especially considering that this came up almost when the year was up.
"The agreement prevents Lee from voluntarily leaving the terms of the contract and voluntarily laboring for a competitor."
He's prevented from 'laboring' at a similar position from a competitor. He can work there as a janitor if he likes.
He was aware of this when he took up a role at MS.
"The fact that the Anti-Peonage Act has not been used against such clauses does not automatically mean that it cannot or will not. "People got away with it in the past" doesn't make it legal."
This might be a compelling argument if non-compete clauses were new and unchallenged.
Heh.
Problem 1: Lee's not providing service, he's withholding information. This is not labor.
Problem 2: Microsoft did not invent the non-compete clause. They've been around for quite a while. Obviously this clause is not preventing use of this type of agreement.
Problem 3: For all you know, his salary included severance to compensate him for the year that he wouldn't be working for the competition.
"No, the "million dollars," the salary is for work performed for the company, services rendered. And when the money stops, the employee has no obligation to continue doing anything for their former employer, including honoring some sort of "non-compete" clause."
The 'million dollars' was his salary IF he agreed to the terms of the contract that he willingly signed. Microsoft held up their end of the bargain, he has to hold up his. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they kept paying him after he quit.
"And even if we stop giving you things, you still have to do stuff for us?"
"We'll give you a million dollars if you don't work for a competing company for a year."
Don't be so dramatic.
"Are you aware that indentured servants 300 years ago willingly signed contracts to become so?"
Are you aware that non disclosure agreements are not indentured servitude? Think about what caused this term to come into being with this context then ask yourself if you really want to liken Lee's plight to the nastiness that a lot of people endured '300 years ago'.
You should read this article.
"And the reason we didn't photoshop out all the serial numbers on the pictures is what? To make it as easy as possible for MS to potentially backtrack how you got your hardware and eliminate your source or possibly cost them thier job/contract? Smart."
Yeah, I'm sure Microsoft's going to come down on the dudes for giving them a free blast on Slashdot. "Oh no! People have seen the motherboard! They'll know.... uh... to the Lawyer Cave!"
"I am sure that there is a flaw in that argument..."
There is: People actually sign the contracts. Microsoft says "This is what we'll give you, this is what you gotta do in return." Employee says "Hmm I can swing that." and all is done. If you're valuable enough that MS would pay you all that money and ask you to sign that contract, but if you cannot afford to live unemployed for six months to a year after that, then don't sign the contract. If you do, you have no business crying that Microsoft has made you their bitch.
It's fun to suggest things that would cost Microsoft money, it's also fun to use terms like 'slave' when referring to how people work for Microsoft. But at the end of the day, Lee still signed the fucking contract. Incidently, it's these sorts of contracts that make it harder for Microsoft to poach key employees at their competition.
"When you're talking about billions of degrees the temperature scale is pretty irrelevant."
"Is that fahrenheit, or celcius?"
"First one, then the other."
By an interesting quirk of fate, I went and bought a DS with Advance Wars today.
Cool game, but the stylus interface for it doesn't buy you a whole lot. It's not that the touch screen is a gimmick, but rather their simple grid like interface that worked quite well on the GBA still works quite well. But, if I were playing it on a table or something I'd prefer the stylus. Tell you what, though, I wouldn't mind a port of StarCraft on this system.
I also picked up Mario 64. (actually, it came with the system...) It has a mini game with it where you have to 'draw' little circuits to guide a Mario head over to a star. That was cool. I really think that would make for a slick little puzzle game.
"I just want to say that I really, really hate the PS2 analog sticks compared to the Gamecube ones."
I hate them for a different reason. If you push down on them, they act as another button. They're called 'L3' and 'R3'. That drove me nuts. GTA kept telling me to push the R3 button, and I couldn't find a button labeled that. The car I was driving would also honk while I was making extreme turns. Took me forever to work out what I was doing. Even after knowing about them, I never really did get to where I could make extreme turns without triggering that button. I really do despise Sony's controllers.
"It seems that the term podcast in this case was applied solely by the submitter to Slashdot."
It seems to me that the term podcast has nothing to do with space ships made out of plastic. I'm glad all these mod points were put to such effective use.
There has been a lot of blablabla over the Revolution controller. There have also been a TON of fake images floating around of it. Here's a list of a few things that should be considered:
1.) The price of controllers cannot skyrocket, so doodads like the touch screen are incredibly unlikely.
2.) This controller will have to play most of Nintendo's library of games, so it's unlikely that the physical resemblance of this controller will be that different from previous incarnations. (i.e. screw the rumor that it's only a helmet.)
3.) We've gotten hints that the revolutionary aspect is simple and has been done before, but hasn't really been used in games. I expect that the revolution won't be in the technology, but rather they mean that the way games are played will be different. (Much like the N64's analog stick really changed the playing field.)
4.) Nintendo's really turned net friendly this time around. It is likely they want the Rev to have an interface that is net friendly so something like an OSK is possible.
5.) Whatever it is, it's simple enough that Sony or Microsoft could throw it in at the last minute. So Nintendo's staying mum on it.
With these details in mind, here are the rumors I think we should be paying attention to:
- Somebody suggested once that the Rev controller would have an eye kinda like the light gun. Although I have reservations about this, it would be interesting to use your controller like a pointer. This would be fairly cheap to do and it would work. Though I do worry that these controllers would only work on CRT TVs. It wouldn't be a death blow, but this would be the last generation Nintendo would be able to pull this off.
- There has been a LOT of talk about gyros. I've also read a few comments already suggesting that gyros/tilt sensors/etc are a gimmick. To that I say: Bullshit. A couple of years ago I got to work with a gyro sensor. (I think it was from Intersense, but unfortunately I do not recall too clearly.) It was very good at detecting the orientation of the sensor. It would have been very possible to play a game like Quake with this sensor. My only reservation about this rumor is that I was under the impression these sensors were expensive. But, since I do not know that for sure, it still remains (in my mind) within the realm of possibility. I'd say this one's pretty likely. This fits the 'Revolutionary' bit as well as the 'not used much in games' bit.
- Gyro inhibitor: This is a fairly new rumor, and sadly I haven't kept up on it. I do remember a supposed 'leaked source' that claimed this device would cause the controlller to provide resistance if you tried to move it. I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, it seems to fit Nintendo's fancy. Afterall, it's like a fancier version of the Rumble Pak. On the other hand, can they really fit something like this into a controller, power it, and make it useful? If anybody has any info on this sort of technology, I'd be really intrigued to hear it. If it works,though, it'd be a neat addition to the gyro.
- Touch interface. Note, I did not say touch SCREEN interface. Rather, like those glide point pads used commonly on laptops. There have been rumors that the handles on the controller are touch sensitive. You can squeeze or rub them somehow to interact with the game. I have to admit, I have trouble picturing this. On the other hand, imagine a small one of these things taking the place of the smaller analog stick on the GameCube controller. That would be a simple mouse-like interface that would make the OSK idea work and it could potentially even control the camera. It fits with the 'been done before, but not really for games' bit, but I would scratch my head if Nintendo called that revolutionary. But if they do manage to make the handles work like I read... well maybe.
- I read somewhere that the controller can get hot. That's right, it heats up. Intentionally, not like a Toshiba laptop heats up. Maybe my imaginat
"And the fact that it took 5 years until someone else could come up with a comparable handheld is proof; 5 years in gaming technology is a loooong time."
About the only thing that statement proves is that battery technology takes a loooong time to advance.
"NEC was. It took the rest of the industry 10 years to catch up to the turbografx handheld."
Oh please. I used to have one of those, and it was neat, but it was not some pinnacle of gaming everybody aspired to attain. It was BIG. There was no way this thing was fitting in your pocket. It was EXPENSIVE. $299, if I recall. And that was back in the early 90's before game consoles came out at that price. It required six AA batteries that died within about 3 hours. It sucked as a portable system.
I took this thing on a 3 week camping trip. The only thing that made it worthwhile was that my dad hooked up a big ass rechargable battery to it. It lasted about 10 hours. Fortunately, I mostly played it in the car or in the tent so I didn't have to lug it (along with the honkin' battery) anywhere. If my dad didn't make that battery for it, it would have stayed at home. It just wasn't that practical as a 'long-trip' machine. The following year, I had a Game Boy, now that thing worked out really well.
With that said, there are some admirable traits of the TE. It had an AWESOME screen. Far better than the GBA SP's. (Sadly, defective pixels were common.) It also had a TV Tuner attachment. Most people may not care, but it was great to have on a camping trip. Though the TurboGrafx system wasn't too popular in the USA, it still had a decent library of games. For those who aren't aware, the TurboGrafx system used tiny little cards roughly the size of credit cards for its games. They were a great size for portable gaming. It's worth mentioning that the nature of this system meant that the games for it weren't watered down like portable games tended to be.
NEC was not the pioneer of handheld gaming. It had some great things going for it, but in ways that seriously mattered, it failed miserably. Instead of giving the industry a new direction to go, it taught them a bitter lesson and reaffirmed that Nintendo knew what they were doing.
"People don't always buy the superior product over a more popular, but lesser one."
It's easy to say that, but the truth is that superiority is in the eye of the beholder. The Newton was superior to the Palm Pilot, right? Nope. The Palm Pilot was seriously smaller, cheaper, and it had a much better battery life. For a significant number of people, it was a much better buy despite being 'inferior'.
The PSP seemed plenty superior to me until I sat through a couple of loading screens on it. For nearly double the price, I get slightly nicer graphics and games that take longer to load. Wee.
"Interesting commentary on today's society...people would rather invest in a virtual dog than accept the responsibility of owning an actual pet."
So... how many people do you know that can have a dog (i.e. they live in a place that allows dogs, or they're not allergic, etc..), but they don't already have a dog, and they chose to buy Nintendogs instead? Is there a data set large enough there to actually make a comment on society?
Personally, I wouldn't draw up commentaries on society based on assumptions I've made about the motivations of a number of people (that don't exactly represent a large fraction of the population) who bought a popular game. Maybe I'm just lacking ambition.
"i cant see myself dishing out $250-$300 for a system... Of course the screen is beautiful, but with threats of dead pixels and broken buttons... I'd definitely expect more..."
I had a chance to play a PSP the other day. What's the first thing I bumped into? "Loading...." Frankly, that bothers me a hell of a lot more than the thought of a dead pixel or two.
Sony has a lot of nerve calling anything Nintendo has done with the DS 'gimmicky'. If they had kept the price down, the battery life up, and the load times reasonable, they'd have a lot more room to talk.
"Screw K9*, the FA stated that Elisabeth Sladen was coming back as Sarah Jane Smith. That's much better news!" ... but she's old now.
"claiming MPH was being pushed back for no good reason... EAT YOUR HEARTS OUT."
Anybody who thinks that any game would be delayed just for shits and giggles is being idiotic to begin with. I wouldn't pay much attention to them.
" Apple provided the same lithium ion batteries as every other manufacturer. So because of the natural physical properties of the battery, it's going to diminish in charge capacity over time. There's no secret to this."
It may not be a 'secret', but the iPod is a mass-market device and as such it cannot be safely assumed that the general public really understands this.
"I guess I should sue Sony and IBM for providing laptop batteries that fail after 2 years too?"
You'd feel that way if Sony and IBM made laptops where you couldn't get at the battery to replace it. You'd feel like Sony and IBM intentionally designed it to make sure you buy a new product of theirs every 2 years.
It's fun to defend Apple and assume the world's full of idiots and that lawyers are greedy selfish bastards, but at the end of the day, Apple could have avoided this by making the battery easy to replace. Afterall, if it's no secret that batteries diminish over time, then Apple has no excuse for this teeny weeny little oversight.
I apologize, I didn't realize they had announced the prices of the acccessories.
(Note: I could have sworn I had posted this apology already but it's not showing up...)