Seattle Man Wins Small Claims Case Against Apple

Status
Not open for further replies.
HOLY COW!!!!

Apple wouldn't have lost this case if mope54 was representing them...they'd still be in court arguing the case. :eek:
 
mope54 said:
Mediation is not used in small claims. Arbitration is used in small claims.
He referenced the proceedings of the arbitration meeting, which violates the confidentiality clause.
Participants are precluded from discussing any details, including whether no agreement was reached and why or why no agreement was reached, up to and including specific details.

He can state that he went through arbitration but he can not state he went into arbitration and no agreement was reached for the same reasons they were in court. Since he provided the original reasoning for the suit, and then states the reasons for the arbitration broke down are for the same reasons, he is releasing details the confidentiality clause prohibits.

You can not sue for punitive damages in small claims.

You have mixed up your understanding of who a respondent and petitioner are in a civil case. In this legal case, Apple was the respondent. The respondent (apple) offered to repair the macbook as I original stated in the quoted portion you are arguing against.


Whether it boots or doesn't boot is only relevant in so far as he had no proof that the GPU was defective. His belief is that it was due to the GPU. Additionally, his claim was based on the press release from apple extending repair coverage for out of warranty MacBooks exhibiting two specific characteristics: garbled video output or blank display. Non-functioning logic boards are not mentioned in the documentation he is claiming covers his issue.


As I wrote earlier, and you quoted, it's not about whether a defective GPU can or can not cause a computer to refuse to post. It's irrelevant whether you personally believe that all 8600GT's are defective and it's irrelevant to argue that all MacBooks have the same 8600GT (although it bears repeating that this claim is factually untrue). What is relevant, and the only thing that is relevant, is what Apple offered to cover and the symptoms they decided to cover.

They offered to cover models that did not include his and they offered to cover issues that his macbook was not exhibiting.


This has little to do with being an apple apologist and more to the fact that frivolous lawsuits damage consumers and lying in court (or misrepresenting the facts, knowingly or unknowingly) should not be tolerated by anyone regardless of how much you like or dislike apple as a company.
Click to expand...

Mediation is most definitely used in small claims.
 
mope54 said:
In Washington State mediation is mandatory for everyone before a trial is set. It's not used *in* (during) a small claims process.
Click to expand...

I guess your definition of the small claims process is different than mine.
 
Steve said:
HOLY COW!!!!

Apple wouldn't have lost this case if mope54 was representing them...they'd still be in court arguing the case. :eek:
Click to expand...

I think they still would have lost. But they would have looked even stupider than they already do. :p
 
rpkelly said:
I guess your definition of the small claims process is different than mine.
Click to expand...
Luckily for us it's not an issue of personal opinion. Washington State offers their court rules on-line for anyone to peruse and educate themselves on the matter.
 
mope54 said:
Luckily for us it's not an issue of personal opinion. Washington State offers their court rules on-line for anyone to peruse and educate themselves on the matter.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about: http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/DistrictCourt/SmallClaims.aspx

where it indicates "The Center provides free mediation services prior to your court date, or the same day as court"?

Just an FYI, the guy's website won't load, so I can't read his actual account of the matter.
 
rpkelly said:
Are you talking about: http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/DistrictCourt/SmallClaims.aspx

where it indicates "The Center provides free mediation services prior to your court date, or the same day as court"?

Just an FYI, the guy's website won't load, so I can't read his actual account of the matter.
Click to expand...
This one would be more relevant:
Mediation is mandatory before a trial is allowed. The court will set
the date for mediation at the time of filing. Both parties must attend the
mediation.
Click to expand...
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rule...=district&set=dispr1&ruleid=districtdispr116a

The blogger's description was that he was ready for trial and the court clerk went down the docket and asked who was willing to go to "mediation". Then they went and nothing came of it so they came back to the court room.
 
mope54 said:
What's the basis for your claim that the Washington State court rules only apply to Pierce County?
Click to expand...
Please show me where you find that information. I can't find anything linking that page and information to Pierce County.
 
rpkelly said:
I never claimed that, however, you linked to Pierce County Local Rules.
Click to expand...
I see what you're looking at. If you go back to the local districts you can actually navigate to their local rules. However, King County links to it's own external site but it hasn't been updated since 2002.

All other local jurisdictions that I've clicked on, Clark
http://www.yakimacounty.us/districtcourt/CourtRules/LCRLJ.htm#LCRLJ66

Pierce,

and Yakima
http://www.yakimacounty.us/districtcourt/CourtRules/LCRLJ.htm#LCRLJ66

all make the same claim that mediation is mandatory


Nonetheless, given that it's hardly more than a minor point among a longer list I wrote raising questions about the accuracy of his narrative I'll concede that mediation in King County may be voluntary if that's a major concern for you.
 
mope54 said:
I see what you're looking at. If you go back to the local districts you can actually navigate to their local rules. However, King County links to it's own external site but it hasn't been updated since 2002.

All other local jurisdictions that I've clicked on, Clark
http://www.yakimacounty.us/districtcourt/CourtRules/LCRLJ.htm#LCRLJ66

Pierce,

and Yakima
http://www.yakimacounty.us/districtcourt/CourtRules/LCRLJ.htm#LCRLJ66

all make the same claim that mediation is mandatory


Nonetheless, given that it's hardly more than a minor point among a longer list I wrote raising questions about the accuracy of his narrative I'll concede that mediation in King County may be voluntary if that's a major concern for you.
Click to expand...

The whole problem with all of your arguments mope, is they are based on a number of technicalities. Those are not non-starters for legal cases. Mediation is supposed to be used before a case, many things are supposed to happen before a case, but they don't always happen. So what probably transpired is they got into court, it was asked if they had done mediation, and found out they actually hadn't. So then they were told to do mediation. Most people have no idea about any rules before they go to small claims and they are not always forced to do everything before cases are heard.

Small claims is also far different than other court systems and it is far easier to get judgements in your favor in small claims. That is why people take cases there. You can't try to apply techinical knowledge to legal reasonings. You also can't take the specific language and writing in a warranty or insurance document and try to apply it to legal verdicts. That is why there is a legal system to dispute how warranties and insurance is paid out. Also companies may offer more or less than stated in their warranty/insurance documentation based on any number of factors whether they are stated or not stated in the documentation.

Add to that laws and regulations that states or districts may have that go beyond what the company's warranty may say. A company may only offer certain services in their warranty/insurance, but the state/district may mandate they they have to cover more. So even if their warranty specifically says otherwise, the local rules may still override that.

So there are soo many factors at play, you can't say something is fake or not possible just because it doesn't measure up to your understanding. I have seen some really incredibly ridiculous rules in courts before. Take the whole McDonald's spilled coffee incident. That alone defies most logical thought and even common sense logic.
 
The McDonald's coffee incident is one of the most misused case references ever :\
 
I hope this thread doesn't degrade into another five pages of nonsense over the McD's case :\
 
mope54 said:
I hope this thread doesn't degrade into another five pages of nonsense over the McD's case :\
Click to expand...

Opposed to 5+ pages of you regurgitating the same apple apologists nonsense.
Your logic makes me want to throw my 15" Macbook Pro out the window.
 
The only posts I've made in this thread have been corrections of factual errors made by the litigant and repeated here by numerous [H] members. I haven't presented any defense of Apple, haven't provided any excuses, and as far as I know haven't provided my personal opinion about what the company did or should have done.

For the most part I've simply ignored your and others' personal attacks.
 
mope54 said:
The only posts I've made in this thread have been corrections of factual errors made by the litigant and repeated here by numerous [H] members. I haven't presented any defense of Apple, haven't provided any excuses, and as far as I know haven't provided my personal opinion about what the company did or should have done.

For the most part I've simply ignored your and others' personal attacks.
Click to expand...

My mistake I did not realize you had been present at the court hearing.

Just curious where you one of the apple lawyers, the judge or maybe the bailiff?
 
mope54 said:
I hope this thread doesn't degrade into another five pages of nonsense over the McD's case :\
Click to expand...

LOL. Talk about a "pot, kettle, black" situation.

mope54 said:
The only posts I've made in this thread have been corrections of factual errors made by the litigant and repeated here by numerous [H] members. I haven't presented any defense of Apple, haven't provided any excuses, and as far as I know haven't provided my personal opinion about what the company did or should have done.

For the most part I've simply ignored your and others' personal attacks.
Click to expand...

Your arguments don't make any sense and you come off as looking like an extreme Apple shill/fanboy. If you honestly think Apple was in the right here then there is no hope for you.
 
MavericK96 said:
LOL. Talk about a "pot, kettle, black" situation.



Your arguments don't make any sense and you come off as looking like an extreme Apple shill/fanboy. If you honestly think Apple was in the right here then there is no hope for you.
Click to expand...
What evidence are you using to make this determination about me?
 
The guy has a MacBook Pro with an 8600M GT GPU. According to the earliest known web archive record which is here (which is essentially unchanged from the current one) the replacement program states

Specific products affected:

MacBook Pro 15-inch and 17-inch models with NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT graphics processors
MacBook Pro (17-Inch, 2.4GHz)
MacBook Pro (15-Inch, 2.4/2.2GHz)
MacBook Pro (Early 2008)
These computers were manufactured between approximately May 2007 and September 2008
Click to expand...

The "Early 2008" line is a question that must be answered. According to the Wikipedia specs here, Apple was selling MacBook Pro's with the 8600M GT GPU from mid 2007 to late 2008. From this alone we can't narrow down his system. But the guy helps us. He stated he paid $300 for an additional 100 mhz, which put his system at 2.6ghz. Meaning he originally bought a 2.5ghz (T9300) model, narrowing his system itself somewhere between "Early 2008" and "Late 2008" according to the Wikipedia chart. Now that we narrowed that down, we can see this user had a 256mb or 512mb model 8600M GT GPU. According to the press release itself it states at the bottom line:

These computers were manufactured between approximately May 2007 and September 2008
Click to expand...

In conclusion, he correctly qualifies for the replacement program, and the given excuse that he doesn't because his CPU didn't match up is invalid.
 
You raise good points, PornoSatan, but he could have owned a late 2008.
The recall specifies only "early" 2008 macbook pro's.

Also, if you read his actual blog (as opposed to the consumerist article) you can go all the way back through his initial description of what he encountered and the timeline he provides problematizes the conclusion that he has an early 2008.
 
So it's been confirmed that when he paid $300 to have it factory overclocked, they actually just installed a faster chip?
 
XamediX said:
So it's been confirmed that when he paid $300 to have it factory overclocked, they actually just installed a faster chip?
Click to expand...
Apple doesn't OC or install anything.

The processor you order determines when and where your macbook will be assembled.
As far as I know, this is the same with any vendor unless they do custom fabrication.
 
mope54 said:
Apple doesn't OC or install anything.

The processor you order determines when and where your macbook will be assembled.
As far as I know, this is the same with any vendor unless they do custom fabrication.
Click to expand...

So then what the fuck was he paying for then? He specifically stated that he paid them to factory overclock it. And now I'm hearing that Apple doesnt do that. So who the hell is lying?
 
XamediX said:
So then what the fuck was he paying for then? He specifically stated that he paid them to factory overclock it. And now I'm hearing that Apple doesnt do that. So who the hell is lying?
Click to expand...
He's misinformed.

When he ordered his laptop he paid an extra $100 dollars for a 2.6 penryn (or meron) instead of a 2.5. Then he received a macbook pro with those specifications. Like any other vendor (Dell, HP, Compaq) you can configure how you want the computer to be to a limited extent and that will determine the production line your computer comes from. It's not like Apple assembly line workers pull a 2.5 configured mbp off the line and resolder a 2.6 into the logic board.
 
Hmmm and all of this is documented in the case? I got lost in all the rebuttals and links to info so I lost track. Cause it seems that the guy in question is smart enough to know the difference between them installing a faster cpu and them "factory overclocking"" it.
 
mope54 said:
He's misinformed.
Click to expand...


Choice, coming from you, when nearly every single one of your posts are arguments based on hypotheticals. He could have done this, he could have had that, maybe it was that...

Being the only one to continue to argue to a flawed position doesn't make that position any more legitimate.
 
mope54 said:
I hope this thread doesn't degrade into another five pages of nonsense over the McD's case :\
Click to expand...

Oh, so people have posted information regarding that McDonald's coffee case? so I made a massive post in another thread for nothing? Oh darn.
 
XamediX said:
Hmmm and all of this is documented in the case? I got lost in all the rebuttals and links to info so I lost track. Cause it seems that the guy in question is smart enough to know the difference between them installing a faster cpu and them "factory overclocking"" it.
Click to expand...
It's documented by the various models that apple offers and the knowledge that neither they nor any other pre-built laptop vendor offer factory over clocks.

He either owns a meron T7800 (if a 2007 model) or a penryn T9500 (if a 2008 model).
 
mope54 said:
He's misinformed.

When he ordered his laptop he paid an extra $100 dollars for a 2.6 penryn (or meron) instead of a 2.5. Then he received a macbook pro with those specifications. Like any other vendor (Dell, HP, Compaq) you can configure how you want the computer to be to a limited extent and that will determine the production line your computer comes from. It's not like Apple assembly line workers pull a 2.5 configured mbp off the line and resolder a 2.6 into the logic board.
Click to expand...

mope54 said:
It's documented by the various models that apple offers and the knowledge that neither they nor any other pre-built laptop vendor offer factory over clocks.

He either owns a meron T7800 (if a 2007 model) or a penryn T9500 (if a 2008 model).
Click to expand...

No, he paid $300 for an extra 100mhz, which put him at 2.6ghz. The "100mhz" is key here. He had to have originally bought the 2.5ghz T9300 to make his statement correct. The T7800 is 2.6ghz as well yes, but the T7700 is 2.4ghz, so the boost would have been 200mhz.
 
PS I didn't read The Consumerist that much, only enough to find the original link. The whole "Shoppers bite back" thing doesn't give me a good vibe.
 
PornoSatan said:
No, he paid $300 for an extra 100mhz, which put him at 2.6ghz. The "100mhz" is key here. He had to have originally bought the 2.5ghz T9300 to make his statement correct. The T7800 is 2.6ghz as well yes, but the T7700 is 2.4ghz, so the boost would have been 200mhz.
Click to expand...
Oh good catch. I didn't notice the 2007 offerings didn't include a 2.5 option.

He must have either an early or late 2008.
 
mope54 said:
Oh good catch. I didn't notice the 2007 offerings didn't include a 2.5 option.

He must have either an early or late 2008.
Click to expand...

All irrelevant since he still had a Macbook with a 8600M GT GPU.

You know. The GPU that was found to be universally defective and subject to an industry wide recall?

Or are you too busy splitting hairs over when the damned thing was made?
 
mope54 said:
It's documented by the various models that apple offers and the knowledge that neither they nor any other pre-built laptop vendor offer factory over clocks.

He either owns a meron T7800 (if a 2007 model) or a penryn T9500 (if a 2008 model).
Click to expand...

OK cool. So it wasn't documented in the case that he said he paid for a factory oc but actually got a different chip and that he was just confused in the beginning. Or in other words this is your assumption based on other documents and nothing from the court's documentation of what happened in the courtroom.

For a second there, I ... ahh nevermind. At least this guy won.
 
Anyone else see any court documentation that explains that this guy was misinformed or actually right?
 
Mope. It's literally pointless to argue anything Apple on these boards. Save your breath for people with a brain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top