Now it’s caught up with Apple. Earlier here, here, here, etc. More: video from Washington Legal Foundation.
{ 2 comments }
Posts tagged as:
Apple
- More outcry over report of big new Treasury tax break for injury lawyers [Chris Moody, Daily Caller, Wood/ShopFloor]
- Geologists’ annoyance over bill to oust asbestos-containing serpentine as California state rock makes NYT front page [yesterday; Dan Walters, Facebook group, Calif. Civil Justice, Bailey via Adler, earlier]
- Great moments in international human rights: “Known al-Qaeda Operative Could Not Be Deported [from UK]” [Foster, NRO]
- “Is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act a Government Cash Cow?” [Koehler, FCPA Professor]
- Franklin Mint case cont’d: “Manatt Tries to Beat Back Malicious Prosecution Lawsuit” [Baxter/American Lawyer, earlier]
- “Washington’s parasites take aim at Apple” [David Boaz, Philadelphia Inquirer]
- Gubernatorial bid by Rhode Island attorney general Patrick Lynch seems to have fizzled [Jessica Taylor, Politico via Law and More]
- Go explicit or go home: Georgia abolishes implied private rights of action [PoL, my Reason take years ago]
{ 1 comment }
- “Kagan refused to identify anything the government couldn’t do under its Commerce Clause power” and “consciously left herself plenty of breathing room to cite foreign law inappropriately” [Ilya Shapiro, more]
- Multiple civil/criminal hats? “The odd responses of the attorney general to the oil spill” [WaPo editorial]
- Phillies Phanatic, “‘Most-Sued Mascot in the Majors’ Is Back in Court” [Lowering the Bar, which also hosts Blawg Review #271 this week]
- Federalist Society has a new blog;
- California will pay $20 million to woman abducted for nearly two decades [AP]
- Charges dropped against teen who tried to help lost kid in shopping mall [Lenore Skenazy, earlier]
- Two libertarians arrested after videotaping police in Greenfield, Mass. [Balko, earlier here and here]
- “‘Ambulance Chaser’ Lawsuits Hound Apple Over iPhone 4″ [Atlantic Wire]
{ 2 comments }
Lowering the Bar has the word on a potentially time-beguiling app (at least if legal process is your thing). But maybe this counts as one too [CrunchGear on "class action lawsuit generator against AT&T" that documents dropped calls]
{ 1 comment }
Farhad Manjoo at Slate thinks the tech firm’s suits against competitors illustrate why “the patent system is in desperate need of reform”. And the New York Times “Bits” ran a chart last week showing the spaghetti-like tangle lawsuits among various mobile phone makers. More: Ryan Kim, San Francisco Chronicle.
If, as Tyler Cowen suggests, the key market objective of the iPad is to obtain significant university adoption as a replacement for the paper textbook, one wonders how Apple’s lawyers are planning to handle the inevitable litigation from disabled-rights advocates.
{ 5 comments }
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a 2008 lower court ruling throwing out the class action against Apple [Reuters, Food Liability Law, earlier here and here]. More: California Civil Justice.
{ 2 comments }
- Woman jailed for “camcordering” after recording four minutes of sister’s birthday party in movie theater [BoingBoing]
- Senate hearing airs trial lawyer gripes against Iqbal [Jackson and earlier, PoL, Wajert, Beck & Herrmann (scroll)] Franken and other Senators sidestep substance, browbeat witness re: “study” terminology [Alison Frankel, AmLaw]
- Still time to cancel? “2009 is also the first year of global governance” — new EU president [Small Dead Animals]
- Miller-Jenkins battle: judge orders custody switch to law-abiding spouse [Box Turtle Bulletin, background]
- Speedy by government standards? 17 years ago DoT proposed Southeast high-speed rail on existing rights of way, ruling on environmental impact statement is expected next year [McArdle]
- “New York’s New DWI Bill: Compounding Stupidity” [Greenfield; felony to drive intoxicated with passenger 15 or younger]
- “Apple Told To Pay Patent Troll OPTi $21.7 Million” [Business Insider]
- This year’s ABA Blawg 100 listing left out some legal blogs that aren’t half bad [Turkewitz]
{ 3 comments }
- Greenwich, Connecticut real estate board may discipline member whose blog (often linked in this space) regularly pokes fun at overpriced houses. Antitrust/First Amendment problem? [Chris Fountain, For What It's Worth]
- “Religious group sued for allegedly inciting harm through prayers” [USA Today]
- Legally driven waste of water in parched California should reopen Endangered Species Act debate [Max Schulz, American Spectator] “More Unintended Consequences — Endangered Species Edition” [Ronald Bailey, Reason; related AEI panel]
- “Apple v Woolworth re Apple Logos In Australia” [Trademark Blog]
- Speaking of Australia, Consumers Union’s Consumerist site publishes fake “Aussie McDonald’s fraud plot” memo as real — revises post later, but without mentioning it was taken in by hoax [HardArticle]
- Pennsylvania couple learns about squatter’s-rights law the hard way [Hazleton Standard Speaker]
- Maybe Saratoga Springs, N.Y. will let middle schoolers bike — or even walk! — to school [Albany Times-Union, Lenore Skenazy/Free Range Kids, Patrick at Popehat, Doug Mataconis/Liberty Papers]
- Milberg, the disgraced class action firm of Mel Weiss and Bill Lerach fame, is hot again [NLJ]
{ 2 comments }
- “Plaintiffs’ Attorneys to Get $800,000 in Preliminary Settlement, Class Members Receive Zero” [Calif. Civil Justice covering Bluetooth settlement in which Ted was objector; earlier here and here]
- “Lawyer Jailed for Contempt Is Freed After 14 Years” [Lowering the Bar, earlier]
- Money makes the signals go ’round: another probe of red-light cameras yields few surprises [Chicago Tribune, Chicago Bungalow, Bainbridge on Washington, D.C.]
- Previously little-known company surfaces in E.D. Tex. to claim Apple, many other companies violate its patent for touchpads [AppleInsider via @JohnLobert]
- Child endangerment saga of mom who left kids at Montana mall is now a national story [ABC News; earlier post with many comments; Free Range Kids and more]
- Meet Obama Administration “special adviser on ‘green’ jobs” Van Jones ["Dunphy", McCarthy at NRO "Corner"]
- Irrationality of furloughs at University of Wisconsin should provide yet another ground to question New Deal-era Fair Labor Standards Act [Coyote]
- Australia’s internet blacklist is so secret you can’t even find out what sites are on it [Popehat - language] Oz to block online video games unsuitable for those under 15 [BoingBoing]
{ 2 comments }
Anyone suing over anything dept.: a Florissant, Mo. man proceeding pro se (without a lawyer) “is suing Apple because he says two of the company’s iPods contained illegal receivers that allowed the Mafia to send him threatening messages, according to court documents obtained by CNET. … The alleged motive for the threats was that the Mafia wanted McKenna to work as a fashion model for them at a New York modeling agency.” The suit also names the St. Louis County police department and other defendants. [CNet, The Petition Site, AppleInsider, Gizmodo]
{ 8 comments }
“Apple’s lawyers demanded [BluWiki] take down pages that described how to use third-party software on iPhones and iPods.” [ArsTechnica via Ambrogi, Legal Blog Watch]
Massachusetts lawyer and blogger Peter Morin, who has guest-blogged here on more than one occasion, is one of the members of the class entitled to participate in the settlement of class action claims over scratched Apple iPod nano units. He sent the following letter:
February 20, 2009
Apple iPod nano Cases
Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 6104
Novato, CA 94948-6104
Dear Sir:
I have received a Notice of Class Action Settlement For Uncoated First Generation iPod nanos. My control number is xxxxxxxxxxx.
I wish to submit my objection to the terms of settlement.
I have been the recipient of more than a few similar Notices during the past twenty years, but this is the stupidest b—s— I have ever witnessed.
I have owned a first generation nano (“uncoated” ) from the inception of its release. It is one of the most reliable and attractive devices I had ever owned (until the most recent design, which is gorgeous). The fact that a group of class action lawyers would sue Apple on behalf of some “aggrieved” group of nano owners because the device might get a little scratched up without the use of a cover is beyond absurd. It is insanity.
According to the Notice, in order to qualify for a fund payment, I “must have experienced scratching of [my] iPod nano that impaired [my] use or enjoyment of it.”
Impaired my use or enjoyment of it? This must be a joke. Is a federal judge to believe that a bit of scratching on this device is going to reasonably impair someone’s enjoyment of it? What does one do, sit and stare at his nano, beholding its sleekness and polish? Obviously not. It is tucked inside sweaty pockets in gyms, in classes, on subways. It is not an item to display, except to the most insanely vain. It is an item to store and play music. That it does, in a most reliable and effective fashion. How could such a class be certified?
I wish to make one final point.
As asinine as it is to claim that one’s enjoyment of the nano is “impaired” by a few scratches upon it (I for one considered the scratches the equivalent of battle scars), it pales against the idea that some group of lawyers would actually be paid the gargantuan sum of $4.5 million for perpetuating this idiocy.
It would be my preference that every lawyer participating in the group of Plaintiffs’ Counsel be marched into a Shea Stadium full of satisfied iPod owners and pelted with the electronic detritus of their choice. I predict that the “uncoated” iPod nano will not be among them.
Count me out!
Respectfully,
Peter B. Morin
{ 7 comments }
Class action lawyers and Apple have reached a deal to settle claims that early versions of the pocket-sized device have an exterior that scratches too easily. Apple will offer $25 each to some users and the lawyers will cart away more than $9 million. (Ars Technica; settlement site; earlier here and here).
{ 7 comments }
- Bulgarians employ “decoy lawyers” to get around corruption in official bureaus [Cowen, MargRev]
- Forum-shopping vol. MMMCCXII: Taiwan company claims Apple broke California unfair-practices law so of course it sues in Texarkana [AppleInsider]
- “U.S. produces far too many lawyers for society to absorb” and one reason is that law schools want warm seats on chairs [Greenfield]
- Second Circuit: lawyers can’t buy their way out of sanctions for filing meritless lawsuit [Krauss, PoL]
- Some reasons furor over free speech in Canada is relevant this side of the border [Bernstein @ Volokh]
- We’re quoted on the subject of those websites that offer “point-and-click access to trial lawyers” [Business First of Columbus]
- Tight lid kept on study of disposable diapers’ environmental impact since findings were … inconvenient [Times Online (U.K.) via Stuttaford]
- Judge backs Kentucky’s bid to seize domains of online gambling sites, implications for everyone else [Balko, "Hit and Run"; earlier here and here]
For something like two decades, your computer firm has been known for the cult-like devotion of its followers and its single-button mice, so when it comes time to introduce a two-button mouse, how to placate the hurt feelings of those who’ve spent 20 years arguing that the One Way is One Button? First, it helps if the new device doesn’t actually appear to have two buttons—maybe they won’t notice?—and second, you give it a slightly-deprecating-yet-somehow-still-smug name: “Mighty Mouse” is the all-too-obvious choice and the one that Apple inc., in fact, made.
Don’t assume, just because this is Overlawyered, that Apple is being sued by CBS, which owns the rights to the cartoon superhero—too obvious.
Was the litigation a factor? The UK’s Daily Mail is reporting that Apple is developing a way for future iPods and iPhones to turn down volumes automatically after a certain period of use to protect users from endangering their hearing. One columnist predicts that the feature if implemented “will be hacked in a matter of minutes” by users who don’t want the protection. (Christopher Breen, “Auto-volume may be a turn-off for some”, MacWorld, Dec. 26).
{ 2 comments }
Everyone else is getting publicity by filing suits over the iPhone, so they may as well too: “Environmentalists have threatened to sue Apple if it does not make its iPhone a “greener” product or tell consumers of the toxins allegedly used in the device’s manufacture. The Center for Environmental Health (CEH), a campaign group based in Oakland, California, said that it would launch legal action in 60 days unless Apple took action.” (Rhys Blakely, Apple faces legal threat over ‘toxic’ iPhone”, Times Online (U.K.), Oct. 17; InfoWorld; ArsTechnica). The CEH is invoking California’s ultra-liberal Prop 65 toxics-warning law, on which see posts here, here, here, etc.
{ 5 comments }
