Apple and the Law
No Newtonian philosophy here. This is in fact my first rant against Apple.
I now live in the Bay Area where Steve Jobs has declared himself Emperor for evermore, but I have yet to be converted. No Ministry of any sort will make my intense annoyance with Apple wan.
I don't *hate* the company, but I don't like for much of what it stands - style over substance, new over classic, Photoshop over Excel.
They probably create some fine products that would make my Windows-centric life a little less crude, but they command a premium price for not much advantage.
And I abhor their advertising. I'm not a fan of Seinfeld and Gates frolicking together on suburban trampolines, but the Mac character just makes my inner un-cool dork rile up with bile (!) at the hip iDork that is Mac.
So, let this be the first rant on lj about Apple; surely not the last, but I'll keep them sparse and limited to their practices rather than their products. And my rants won't be nearly as jarring to your Apple Sensibility as The Simpsons on Sunday night. Jive on with your earbuds!
~~~
Apple Ads should not be taken Seriously <3 S.Jobs
This is in reference to a blog entry, but here's the keypoints.
Apple's new 3g iPhone has been criticized for not being that fast. It might be a problem with a percentage of their chips, but I'll let the hardware guys figure it out. I'm the almost-law student/consumer watchdog, so I'll take care of one of the pending lawsuits against Apple for the problems with the iPhone.
One of the lawsuits is about the iPhone's tagline, "twice as fast for half the price," claiming the product does not live up to their cliche'd claim because the 3g is having problems with the speed of their 3g network.
Apple's answer is that no reasonable person would believe the aforementioned claim. I mean, why would somebody believe it, just because Apple said so? Oh, wait, this is Apple, whose entire product line is steeped in image and style, built on the poor backs of MadMen, and worshipped and praised for every stylish, yet user-friendly 23rd century gimmick. but i digress...
In the legal sense, Apple's lawyers did just what they should do. They shot the lawsuit with every spork, kitchen sink, and road apple that they could, hoping some rebuttal(s) would stick, and they could settle quickly. With lawsuits, you need to put out whatever possible reason you could have to file a claim/defend yourself before a certain time, else you lose it. Apple's lawyers likely have 20 different reasons why they shouldn't be sued, but why answer with one, when 20 are available and you can fudge 5 more? Because if that one reason gets tossed before trial, you can't bring up any others, you are unable to mount a credible case/defense, and the court rules against you.
So, yeah those lawyers earned their ridiculous paychecks this time.
But man, are their PR people going to be working overtime.
Because that's the problem with the law. Even if you are working for Saint His Holiness Himself, you need to argue everything, even things that make you feel like Alberto Gonzales defending mr. waterboarding malaprop. You need to find every loophole, even if you need to go back to 1809 where the curse My Dear! was declared illegal and never taken off the books and say that the crazed psychopath shouted it as he kidnapped you and sliced off your legs, and that's why you demand damages from him. And if you're getting paid top-dollar (see Apple lawyers) to defend claims (and protect your client from a class-action lawsuit), you damn well better name every possible reason you are saintly.
So the takeaway lesson is...
Microsoft really isn't selling blue screen of death relaxation teas, and Apple doesn't look that good in a tight black tee shirt, and you're an unreasonable person for believing that.
I now live in the Bay Area where Steve Jobs has declared himself Emperor for evermore, but I have yet to be converted. No Ministry of any sort will make my intense annoyance with Apple wan.
I don't *hate* the company, but I don't like for much of what it stands - style over substance, new over classic, Photoshop over Excel.
They probably create some fine products that would make my Windows-centric life a little less crude, but they command a premium price for not much advantage.
And I abhor their advertising. I'm not a fan of Seinfeld and Gates frolicking together on suburban trampolines, but the Mac character just makes my inner un-cool dork rile up with bile (!) at the hip iDork that is Mac.
So, let this be the first rant on lj about Apple; surely not the last, but I'll keep them sparse and limited to their practices rather than their products. And my rants won't be nearly as jarring to your Apple Sensibility as The Simpsons on Sunday night. Jive on with your earbuds!
~~~
Apple Ads should not be taken Seriously <3 S.Jobs
This is in reference to a blog entry, but here's the keypoints.
Apple's new 3g iPhone has been criticized for not being that fast. It might be a problem with a percentage of their chips, but I'll let the hardware guys figure it out. I'm the almost-law student/consumer watchdog, so I'll take care of one of the pending lawsuits against Apple for the problems with the iPhone.
One of the lawsuits is about the iPhone's tagline, "twice as fast for half the price," claiming the product does not live up to their cliche'd claim because the 3g is having problems with the speed of their 3g network.
Apple's answer is that no reasonable person would believe the aforementioned claim. I mean, why would somebody believe it, just because Apple said so? Oh, wait, this is Apple, whose entire product line is steeped in image and style, built on the poor backs of MadMen, and worshipped and praised for every stylish, yet user-friendly 23rd century gimmick. but i digress...
In the legal sense, Apple's lawyers did just what they should do. They shot the lawsuit with every spork, kitchen sink, and road apple that they could, hoping some rebuttal(s) would stick, and they could settle quickly. With lawsuits, you need to put out whatever possible reason you could have to file a claim/defend yourself before a certain time, else you lose it. Apple's lawyers likely have 20 different reasons why they shouldn't be sued, but why answer with one, when 20 are available and you can fudge 5 more? Because if that one reason gets tossed before trial, you can't bring up any others, you are unable to mount a credible case/defense, and the court rules against you.
So, yeah those lawyers earned their ridiculous paychecks this time.
But man, are their PR people going to be working overtime.
Because that's the problem with the law. Even if you are working for Saint His Holiness Himself, you need to argue everything, even things that make you feel like Alberto Gonzales defending mr. waterboarding malaprop. You need to find every loophole, even if you need to go back to 1809 where the curse My Dear! was declared illegal and never taken off the books and say that the crazed psychopath shouted it as he kidnapped you and sliced off your legs, and that's why you demand damages from him. And if you're getting paid top-dollar (see Apple lawyers) to defend claims (and protect your client from a class-action lawsuit), you damn well better name every possible reason you are saintly.
So the takeaway lesson is...
Microsoft really isn't selling blue screen of death relaxation teas, and Apple doesn't look that good in a tight black tee shirt, and you're an unreasonable person for believing that.