Seattle Man Wins Small Claims Case Against Apple

Status
Not open for further replies.
wonderfield said:
What would that have to do with anything?
Click to expand...
So far in this thread I've been deconstructing Rex' legal argument and showing how it's faulty. I also argue for a more expansive ruling against Apple based on what Rex could and should have argued.

In response, I'm being accused by mac users of being a shill and agent provocateur for Apple. It demonstrates he has a vested interest in trying to discredit me rather than address the facts.
 
mope54 said:
So far in this thread I've been deconstructing Rex' legal argument and showing how it's faulty. I also argue for a more expansive ruling against Apple based on what Rex could and should have argued.

In response, I'm being accused by mac users of being a shill and agent provocateur for Apple. It demonstrates he has a vested interest in trying to discredit me rather than address the facts.
Click to expand...

My only interest is pointing out that you have no real idea of what went down or what model he has. Yet you feel the need to discredit him using incorrect information.
 
Bash said:
My only interest is pointing out that you have no real idea of what went down or what model he has. Yet you feel the need to discredit him using incorrect information.
Click to expand...
I'm using his information.

He told the judge that all macbook pro's have the same cpu, the same logic board, and the same gpu. None of that is factually true.

He also told the judge that he has an over clocked 2.5 processor.
That's not factually true. It's not even possible.

I also read his blog. I suspect that barely anyone else has.
In his blog, he describes when he bought it and when his applecare expired.
The timeline he provides places his purchase at sept/oct. which is a late model 2008.
that's my speculation, but it's supported by the fact that the court didn't rule in his favor because his early 2008 was included in the recall list. It ruled in his favor on the basis of his argument that they are all the same and he really has a 2.5.

That's all information straight from him. So if it's inaccurate that's because he's providing us inaccurate information (which is unsurprising given what he told the judge under oath).
 
PornoSatan said:
I thought I settled this in my posts in this thread, but I guess not
Click to expand...
Well, you didn't answer the question I asked you.

The recall lists includes *all* early 2008 models.

If he had an early 2008 why didn't he just say that instead of going through all the debate over the processor in his macbook?
 
PornoSatan said:
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



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:



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.
Click to expand...


You did clear it all up, but some people are thick headed. I will re quote your post for good measure.
 
If he had a 512mb 8600 then his model is excluded from the recall, bash

that's the part pornosatan glossed over. pornosatan only partially quoted the recall list to make his point valid. he left off the part that excludes the late 2008's from the recall.
 
mope54 said:
If he had a 512mb 8600 then his model is excluded from the recall, bash

that's the part pornosatan glossed over. pornosatan only partially quoted the recall list to make his point valid. he left off the part that excludes the late 2008's from the recall.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect, as the chart clearly shows he could have gotten the 512mb model in "Early 2008" as well. That's why I mentioned in my post he had either the 256mb or 512mb 8600M GT.
 
PornoSatan said:
That's incorrect, as the chart clearly shows he could have gotten the 512mb model in "Early 2008" as well. That's why I mentioned in my post he had either the 256mb or 512mb 8600M GT.
Click to expand...
The problem is you are wrong because you copied the recall list incorrectly.

It's a bulleted list. The 512mb 8600 was *only* offered in late 2008.
 
mope54 said:
The problem is you are wrong because you copied the recall list incorrectly.

It's a bulleted list. The 512mb 8600 was *only* offered in late 2008.
Click to expand...

Xb86k.png


Wrong again it was offered in early 2008, thanks for playing.
 
If I remember correctly, it was you among others questioning the validity of wikipedia.

Do you have a more reliable source?
 
Every one of you selectively respond to my points but none of you have answered the straightforward question:
mope54 said:
The recall lists includes *all* early 2008 models.

If he had an early 2008 why didn't he just say that instead of going through all the debate over the processor in his macbook?
Click to expand...
 
mope54 said:
If I remember correctly, it was you among others questioning the validity of wikipedia.

Do you have a more reliable source?
Click to expand...

I never question the validity if Wikipedia I told you I copied info from the wrong column early and proceeded to correct the error in my next post.

It must be a conspiracy between Rex, the judge and Wikipedia.
 
What's a conspiracy?

Just answer the question as to why he didn't simply tell the judge he had an early 2008, which was included in the recall list, if he had one.
 
Bash said:
My only interest is pointing out that you have no real idea of what went down or what model he has. Yet you feel the need to discredit him using incorrect information.
Click to expand...

Precisely why I put the knucklehead on ignore. Everything he has "brought" (and I use that term very, very loosely) to this discussion has been nothing but deflection and distracting from what really matters: His MacBook had a defective 8600 GPU that was subject to an industry wide recall and Apple tried to weasel out of replacing a defective product. Full stop. It actually doesn't fucking matter when precisely this laptop was made. It had a defective GPU.
 
techrat said:
It actually doesn't fucking matter when precisely this laptop was made. It had a defective GPU.
Click to expand...
And here we have the actual truth of the matter as these people arguing against me believe.

It's irrelevant to them because they believe that all 8600's were defective.

As soon as I press that point and ask for the evidence of such a claim, and provide evidence that apple did not recall all of their 8600's, then it goes back to personal attacks against me.
 
Not that it matters, but after digging a little deeper, I have confirmed he had a 512mb 8600M GT. If you read Apples own tech specs link here you can confirm it.

NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT graphics processor with dual-link DVI support; 256MB of GDDR3 memory on 2.4GHz configuration; 512MB of GDDR3 memory on 2.5GHz and 2.6GHz configurations

Since we established that he had to have originally bought a 2.5ghz T9300 system to make his "$300 for 100mhz" upgrade statement correct (2.6ghz), we can see from Apples diagram above that they only offer 512MB 8600M GT's with the 2.5Ghz and 2.6Ghz configurations. Next up, was it a 17 inch MacBook Pro, or a 15 inch? :p Kidding
 
Just confirmed that as well.

The amount I was awarded is enough to replace the computer, which means that I should once again have a 17″ laptop
Click to expand...


This man originally bought a 2.5ghz T9300 (upgraded to 2.6ghz for $300) MacBook Pro with a 512MB 8600M GT and 17" screen sometime between "Early 2008" and "Late 2008".
 
PornoSatan said:
Case solved.

102mb7o.jpg
Click to expand...
Pretty good stuff but we still don't know whether he had an early or late 2008.

The 2.6 with a 512mb 8600GT in early 2008 would have had the same internals as the late 2008 (that's how their refreshes work--they "push" their product lines downstream) and likely wasn't identified in their internal documentation as exhibiting the defect.

That's why I wish he would have argued a more valid position. He could have subpoenaed apple's failure records and the ruling from *that* would have actually widened the legitimate claims for the rest of the consumers.

The faulty argument he made, however, creates a binding precedent that will have some detrimental effects on both consumer rights as well as recalls and warranty claims in general.
 
I had the issue of the GPU overheating, artifacting, then eventually quitting altogether with my 2007 MacBook Pro with the GeForce 8600M. They replaced the logic board for me for free last fall. They even replaced my battery when it literally swelled and cracked its casing, even though I had had the computer for four years by that point. It seems odd that they would do this for me and not extend the courtesy to others when the way that it was explained to me by Apple, it was their fault and under their quality assurance program there would be no cost to me for the repair or the battery.
 
@pornosatan
I have to go meet with a student but I wanted to say that I think you're doing good research...keep it up!
(mentioned it before but not sure if it was lost in the shuffle)
 
mope54 said:
@pornosatan
I have to go meet with a student but I wanted to say that I think you're doing good research...keep it up!
(mentioned it before but not sure if it was lost in the shuffle)
Click to expand...

It was an enjoyable thread, and all the debate just made me curious on his actual model. Not like it helps or hurts his case since it's already over.
 
mope54 said:
Pretty good stuff but we still don't know whether he had an early or late 2008.
Click to expand...

Maybe this will settle one thing.

I've read his blog posts as well and I can tell you 100% he had an early 2008 model based on his blogs.

Fact: Late 2008 model was not unveiled until October 14, 2008.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/10/14New-MacBook-Family-Redefines-Notebook-Design.html


From his blogs:
"The amount I was awarded is enough to replace the computer, which means that I should once again have a 17″ laptop." We know he has a 17" model.

"...I paid about $300 extra for them to up-clock the chip from 2.5Ghz to 2.6Ghz." This limits the models he can potentially have to just the Early 2008 and Late 2008 models according to Wikipedia spec sheets.

"In September of 2011, my Apple Care expired." AppleCare for a Macbook Pro is a 3 year plan from product's original purchase date. Which means he had to have purchased his laptop in September 2008.

"I explained, calmly, that a $4,500 laptop that fails in 3 years and 3 months is defective."... "On the morning of December 31, 2011, the $4,500 machine died while playing a video, and will no longer boot." 3 years and 3 months from Sept. 2008 is Dec. 2011.

"About a month after I received the computer, I began seeing headlines in the tech press about a defective GPU that had been manufactured by NVIDIA." ..."Finally, Apple issued a statement." Apples Official statement was released on Oct. 10, 2008. You can see that from different posts all over the web. It links back to the same support article TS2377 that Apple has updated a few times because they have extended the warranty.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1136002/nvidia.html
http://gigaom.com/apple/apple-officially-admits-to-faulty-nvidia-gpus/
http://hothardware.com/News/Apple-Admits-Nvidia-GPU-Defect-in-MacBook-Pros/
http://www.slashgear.com/apple-blame-nvidia-for-macbook-pro-video-failures-1018896/
http://appleinsider.com/articles/08...ook_pros_affected_by_faulty_nvidia_chips.html

The laptop was already about a month old before Apple officially acknowledged the issue with the faulty Nvidia GPUs. A month before the official acknowledgement would have meant September 10, 2008. So there it is, no way he had a Late 2008 model because all this happened before the Late 2008 model was even available.

In conclusion, it was an Early 2008 model. Thanks for reading!
 
Good work yadnom, the final piece of the puzzle is in place. The [H] ate this case and shat it back out.
 
and nice job putting together the pieces yadnom and pornosatan. :p






I HATE NO EDIT BUTTON.
 
Absentee said:
seriously?

it was on the wikipedia page you posted...
Click to expand...
When I used wikipedia a bunch of people dogpiled it as invalid as a source.

It doesn't change much other than he may have been covered by the offer from Apple.
As far as I know not one single person has disputed that in this thread.
 
mope54 said:
When I used wikipedia a bunch of people dogpiled it as invalid as a source.

It doesn't change much other than he may have been covered by the offer from Apple.
As far as I know not one single person has disputed that in this thread.
Click to expand...

Still fighting the good fight i see.
 
Bash said:
Still fighting the good fight i see.
Click to expand...
What does that information change for your opinion, Bash?

I know that every time you get the slightest bit of information you feel supports your biased viewpoint you jump all over it like a rabid dog and won't let it go. So just get it off your chest and let us all know the major significance this information holds for you.
 
Bash said:
Still fighting the good fight i see.
Click to expand...

My impersonation at mope54 at this point: "Derp derp derrrrrrrrrrp derp I still matter! derp derp derp! Listen to me! DERRRRRRRRRP."
 
Yea at this point people have degraded to just making fun of the poor guy. I mean understand not agreeing with him but jeez guys, some of yous look more like the trolls you accusing him of being.

I tell you what, I want Mope on my side when I have to return anything! Guerrilla marketer or not!
 
It baffles me why people have such a difficult time understanding what appears to me to be fairly simple and straightforward:

1. Whether he *may* have had an early 2008 (we certainly don't have proof, merely a compilation of evidence he's provided in various narratives that allow us to semi-piece together and reach a reasonable likelihood of being right that he does) does not change the fact that he still should need to demonstrate to the judge his card was defective

2. an unbootable laptop (due to a non-functioning logic board) is *not* enough sufficient evidence that his GPU was defective

3. Doesn't change the nonsense he told the judge

4. Doesn't qualify him for his full purchase price after four years simply because he believes that all repairs will result in him receiving the same defective unit


5. and the most subtle concern, which is unfortunately going to be lost on people experiencing difficulty understanding finer points of an issue, is that the press re-release may have been a poor reflection of apple's internal data identifying en masse failures whereas their data may have not recognized the 2.6/8600 512 as having the issue. That is, at least based off the way apple refreshes work, that processor/gpu/board configuration in mid-september is more likely to be the same one they used in mid-october where the problem (according to some people in this thread) was addressed by nVidia.


So while the early vs. late 2008 issue is an interesting point, and it's been resolved for me personally, it's not a concrete fact that he had a 2008 and there's still a long bridge to him having an early 2008 to him deserving a legal remedy of a full refund four years after purchase and after warranty expiration.
 
Since it bears repeating:

What he should have had to do, given that small claims is supposed to be limited to awarding *actual* damages, was pay the Genius bar the repair cost *then* sue Apple for whatever costs and monetary damages associated with that bill if they didn't address it themselves.

What he could have done, after having established legal grounds for his suit, was subpoena Apple's records concerning failure rates in regards to his actual model (rather than arguing they're all the "identical" inside) and used that to expand their recall to include the 8600 512mb card for the rest of the consumers.

That would have actually been a very good thing and created a precedent for late 2008 model owners to be covered by the out of warranty repair.
 
mope54 said:
4. Doesn't qualify him for his full purchase price after four years simply because he believes that all repairs will result in him receiving the same defective unit
Click to expand...

Who ever said he got the full purchase price? We have no idea how much money he got (or rather, still hasn't gotten yet as far as we know).
 
MavericK96 said:
Who ever said he got the full purchase price? We have no idea how much money he got (or rather, still hasn't gotten yet as far as we know).
Click to expand...
Earlier in the thread you argued against me that he was justified in getting his purchase price back. Do you just enjoy arguing with me because it's me rather than the facts even if you end up arguing against your own positions? Almost all of the things you criticize me for in this thread could have been resolved quicker and easier if you read Rex' blog entries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top