Where does it say that he sued for punitive damages? And it doesn't say that he got full purchase price, it said he was awarded "enough to replace the computer". The link you provided earlier shows the early and late 2008 models(which would still likely be covered by a 4 year warranty in early 2012) with an 8600m gt available with a 2.6 ghz cpu. All he claimed in court regarding hardware is that it had the same gpu and logic board which the apple lawyers agreed with and I see nothing in your link to refute that.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Seattle Man Wins Small Claims Case Against Apple
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
- Status
Where does it say that he sued for punitive damages? And it doesn't say that he got full purchase price, it said he was awarded "enough to replace the computer". The link you provided earlier shows the early and late 2008 models(which would still likely be covered by a 4 year warranty in early 2012) with an 8600m gt available with a 2.6 ghz cpu. All he claimed in court regarding hardware is that it had the same gpu and logic board which the apple lawyers agreed with and I see nothing in your link to refute that.
Wow, that is so stupid. Apple is literally saying:
"We will not replace the defective GPU because the customer paid us more money for a factory overclock on the CPU."
It's like the OJ Simpson case, just throw whatever you can and hope that it sticks. I don't like that. We can't use one anecdotal case to draw conclusions about Apple as a whole but that's not an honorable way of doing business. Apple didn't care about the customer, it dropped the ball big time.
"We will not replace the defective GPU because the customer paid us more money for a factory overclock on the CPU."
It's like the OJ Simpson case, just throw whatever you can and hope that it sticks. I don't like that. We can't use one anecdotal case to draw conclusions about Apple as a whole but that's not an honorable way of doing business. Apple didn't care about the customer, it dropped the ball big time.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,898
There are plenty of other examples to use against Apple, but...yeah, they really did on this. Blatantly and obviously.
No, apple identified the models that were exhibiting this defect. His wasn't part of the recall list. He argues they are all identical inside. They aren't. It's not a factory over clock as you are believing it to be. You're believing the people who don't know what they're talking about in this thread. The 2.6 is a different processor than the 2.5. The 2.6 version is a different model than the those listed as exhibiting the defect.
On top of that, he wasn't asking for it to be repaired. He wanted it *replaced*. When Apple offered to repair the logic board and GPU he complained to the judge that they could only replace it with another 8600GT. His argument that every single 8600GT is defective is wrong, first of all, and no one is entitled to a brand new computer when their 4+ year old laptop takes a dump. It's not like that for any other vendor and apple is no exception. They went beyond expectations to offer coverage past their normal warranty periods. Why people believe it should be any different than anywhere else in any other consumer product or company is unexplained in this thread other than anti-apple perspective.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,898
Seems like you didn't even read the article...
Oh wait, that's right, you think it's all lies. Nevermind then.
Here is the important info:
- Customer notified Apple of a defect.
- Apple promised to repair the defective part as soon as it stopped working.
- Customer followed up once part stopped working, and got the run-around.
- Apple did not honor it's initial agreement and tried to "throw shit at the wall" to get out of it.
LMK if there are any factual errors or missing important details in this assessment.
Here is his claim that the $4,000 dollars was the initial purchase price.
Here is where he claims the court encouraged him to go into mediation. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that this was an honest mistake and assume he means arbitration.
Here he claims that the proceedings are confidential but violates the confidentiality.
Well, let's see...
This is actually true. As everyone on here is undoubtedly aware, only the specifically listed makes and models affected by a soft (or full) recall are going to be honored. Anyone who has done any sort of warranty claim knows that one needs to provide data down to the batch number to qualify. Apple has a compressed product line. One can determine the production run by the specs of the computer. Customers don't have the option of mixing and matching computer components.
It's not an "up-clocked" 2.5. It's a completely different processor. The internals of his computer are from a completely different production run than the 2.4's and 2.5's that exhibit the potential defect. If you read the chart I provided a link to earlier, you'll see that three different 8600's were offered depending on the rest of the computer's specs. It's unclear from the details he gives whether Apple ever stated that *all* 8600's (the 128mb, 256mb, and 512mb) versions were exhibiting higher than normal failure rates. He certainly claims that to the judge but that's not the evidence out in the public domain and nothing other than his opinion was offered as evidence of the claim.
The main problem is he isn't an expert witness. More to the point, his knowledge of the details about the technology is rudimentary.
This isn't true. I already provided a link to the evidence proving this claim of his to be false. Even if it was true, only affected batches would be covered...not every single 8600M in every single Apple laptop.
If his 8600M was defective the computer would have still booted. The problems associated with the failure ranged from garbled output, flashing displays, and in the most severe cases no output. The reason his computer wasn't booting *at all* is because his logic board was damaged. Logic board damage is not covered under the soft recall.
He could have dropped it, opened it to try and fix it himself, it could have died from age. No one knows. What we do know is that his computer was not refusing to boot because his video card was inoperative.
This is where he makes it clear that repair is not an option to him. His argument to the court is that a repair would simply saddle him with an 8600M and, in his "expert" opinion, *all* 8600's are defective. Do you think he just started to believe that? Or do you think that was his position to Apple before the trial? Do you think it's more likely he demanded a new laptop or do you think it's more likely the Apple legal team went into a court room and told a judge that his computer is in fact covered under the recall but they (inexplicably) refuse to repair it (although they're offering to repair it in his own quotes)?
Starcrossed
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 2,160
We need to storm the castle and take back the kingdom!!
He had an apple macbook with a 8600M and an extended warranty. The warranty states that they would fix the machine if it failed, and the recall states that apple would fix it for "free" at Nvidia's expense if the GPU failed.
Now in either case, say the GPU was OK and the CPU failed, the warranty should have covered it, yet apple denied his warranty that he payed for. If the GPU had failed (like on similar models), then it would cost apple nothing to fix it, yet they still refused to honor his warranty for a silly claim that it's a different CPU.
It's still the same motherboard, same chipset, just a different CPU. What it boiled down to was that Apple was refusing to honor their warranty, so he had to sue to get the money he payed back. I don't think he was trying to get much more out of them.
I honestly doubt this is the first time Apple has tried to cheat their way out of a warranty an user has payed for. Just glad that at least someone followed through with a suit instead of sucking up a 4k loss.
He didn't have an extended warranty.
Apple has offered to cover affected 8600 past the normal (and extended) warranty period.
His was not part of the models Apple identified as being affected by the defective 8600's.
I provided a link for you to look over so you can correct your belief that they are all the same chipsets and GPU's. They aren't. And even if they were they would still be different production runs. If you haven't submitted hardware for a recall then please educate on the process before opining.
Apple has offered to cover affected 8600 past the normal (and extended) warranty period.
His was not part of the models Apple identified as being affected by the defective 8600's.
I provided a link for you to look over so you can correct your belief that they are all the same chipsets and GPU's. They aren't. And even if they were they would still be different production runs. If you haven't submitted hardware for a recall then please educate on the process before opining.
mope: You have too much garbage there to respond to all that's wrong but I will address a couple of things. If you read what apple says about this on there site you will see that it mentions the 8600m gt as the defective part without specifying the amount of memory, the third "specific model" listed is "macbook pro (early 2008)" which sounds like it might be what he had. The cpu he had is not the material issue, whether or not he had the defective gpu is what matters. Quoting what he says he paid for it doesn't mean that he sued for punitive damages or that he asked for or received that as the settlement, I really don't see where you're going with that one.
I wonder if you would defend hp or dell with this much fervor over a similar issue, my guess is that you wouldn't.
I wonder if you would defend hp or dell with this much fervor over a similar issue, my guess is that you wouldn't.
I've tried to explain a number of times and I provided the wikipedia article detailing the internals of the different models.
Here:
2.6 2.2 GHz (T7500) or 2.4 GHz (T7700) Intel Core 2 Duo Merom with 4 MB on-chip L2 cache
Optional 2.6 GHz (T7800) with 4 MB on-chip L2 cache 2.4 GHz (T8300) Intel Core 2 Duo
Penryn with 3 MB on-chip L2 cache, or 2.5 GHz (T9300) with 6 MB on-chip L2 cache
Optional 2.6 GHz (T9500) with 6 MB on-chip L2 cache 2.5 GHz (T9300) Intel Core 2 Duo
Penryn with 6 MB on-chip L2 cache
Optional 2.6 GHz (T9500) with 6 MB on-chip L2 cache
Apple, and as far as I know everyone else, does not over-clock a pre-existing processor.
If you pay for a higher clock speed in a laptop you have a different processor.
Additionally, those processors come with various different iterations of the 8600M.
nVidia identified the defect with some of the 8600M's and Apple identified those to be in their 2.4 and 2.5 models. If Intel recalled their January I7 Sandy Bridge you couldn't give them an I5 Sandy Bridge nor could you give them a Bloomfield I7. They are different production runs. Even if they are identical internally that isn't the criteria that determines whether something is or is not covered in a recall.
I've had batteries recalled by Dell and Nikon. Both times I had to verify my batch, down to the production month, matched the identified defective units. I've had to do the same thing with an sdcard, hard drives, and both AMD and nVidia desktop graphic cards.
That's actually the one thing that mope appears to be correct about, the 2.6 ghz model does use a different cpu however it still uses the 8600m gt which is the only relevant component in this discussion.
This is why it's important to understand the way Apple links their CPU's to their build dates and the rest of the components inside their laptops.
The 2.6 version of his macbook came with a different 8600GT than the 2.4 and the 2.5.
Even the 2.4's and 2.5's had different 8600GTs depending on their production date.
Not every 8600GT is under recall.
When he claims that his 2.6 is the same internally as the rest his statement is false.
That fact is important because his 8600GT is not covered under the recall.
*Only* the 2.4 and 2.5 8600GT's are covered.
The 2.6 version of his macbook came with a different 8600GT than the 2.4 and the 2.5.
Even the 2.4's and 2.5's had different 8600GTs depending on their production date.
Not every 8600GT is under recall.
When he claims that his 2.6 is the same internally as the rest his statement is false.
That fact is important because his 8600GT is not covered under the recall.
*Only* the 2.4 and 2.5 8600GT's are covered.
Then why does apple's own site say the affected systems are: "MacBook Pro 15-inch and 17-inch models with NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT graphics processors", with one of the specific models listed as "MacBook Pro (Early 2008)". I copy pasta'd those from here so I see nothing that backs your claim that his computer isn't covered.
night_2004
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 31, 2007
- Messages
- 2,229
I'm pretty sure nVidia never really owned up to the full scale of the problem. I've got buddies with laptops and desktops that died with the same symptoms yet didn't have a chip on the recall list. Desktops weren't even on that list if I remember correctly.
You claim to quote it but I'm not sure why you left out the details:
Perhaps his macbook was a 2008 but neither you nor I know.
What we do know is that in all other recalls you get another of the same model, not a new computer (or component) years afterward.
Read the portions I quoted above. He specifically argued to the judge that a repair was not sufficient because all 8600GT's were defective (in his opinion).
He wasn't trying to get his warranty repair he was trying to get a new computer and Apple wasn't going for it.
I agree with you on this point.
Keep in mind, however, that his problem wasn't a defective GPU but rather a non-functioning logic board. He used the product recall to try and (differing accounts) procure a free replacement of his logic board and/or an entirely new laptop in 2012.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
Just goes to show you that small claims courts are fucking awesome!
I never said that it was 100% for sure covered, just that your claims that it wasn't covered because he had a 2.6 ghz processor were wrong. I'm not sure why you keep digging but you should cut your losses and consider yourself lucky that most of your bs in this thread has been ignored.
night_2004
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 31, 2007
- Messages
- 2,229
Apple should have been able to prove that then. Given what little technical detail is available I'd say it is possible that the GPU did fail, and somehow that failure took out the motherboard. There's a lot of holes in this case for sure but it seems to me the guy could still be right.
TheSoldier
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 175
Every company in the world has released a substandard product in it's lifetime, this is no different. The problem being is the Apple vs. Anti-Apple crowd. Nobody here knows what in the hell they are talking about, they are pulling crap from wikipedia (truly reliable) and Apple's page (which probably has been revised 8, 9, or even 10 times since the problem was discovered).
Apple should have provided technical diagnostics to court proving the GPU was not the issue but it did not. However it does not matter if you are the worlds most wealthy business, there is no reason that Apple should have to provide a new laptop for a dirtbag, none of my computers have lasted 4 years without serious repairs. (A little math... 4,000/48 months = $83.33 a month. For being an Apple, thats definitely worth it, quit trying to push his luck.
Apple should have provided technical diagnostics to court proving the GPU was not the issue but it did not. However it does not matter if you are the worlds most wealthy business, there is no reason that Apple should have to provide a new laptop for a dirtbag, none of my computers have lasted 4 years without serious repairs. (A little math... 4,000/48 months = $83.33 a month. For being an Apple, thats definitely worth it, quit trying to push his luck.
night_2004
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 31, 2007
- Messages
- 2,229
Apple should have provided a technical report, but they didn't. Oh, BTW, some of us actually do know what they are talking about. If the GPU failed in some way as to affect the power circuity feeding the chip its possible that the board could have been damaged as a result. Especially if Apple did not design the power circuity with redundancy and/or protection in mind.
What evidence? The only claim you've backed up with evidence(from wikipedia I might add) is that the 2.6 ghz model has a different cpu of course this is irrelevant since I showed you(the evidence you claim I don't have) that any macbook pro from early 2008 with an 8600m gt is covered. I also don't see how calling out your posts for being full of bs is a personal insult especially considering I've pointed several fallacies in your argument and you have yet to concretely refute any of them.
Hi bought a 2.5 GHz Macbook and paid extra for Apple to replace the CPU with one running at 2.6 GHz. So he essentially had the 2.5 GHz Macbook, just with a different CPU.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
This isn't isolated. Some people I knew paid crApple for a post sale ram upgrade which they were informed "voided their original warranty". Then trying to sell people extra time on 1 year warranties, even though the EU sets the minimum allowed as 2 by default, for free, probably still do.
It's a thoroughly shitty company, which I can't wait to crumble and disappear. The more people educated not to buy their shit, the weaker they become. The faster they vanish for good.
It's a thoroughly shitty company, which I can't wait to crumble and disappear. The more people educated not to buy their shit, the weaker they become. The faster they vanish for good.
Your argument falls apart if you actually read your own posts! According to the qoute (again, from wiki I might add), MacBook Pro 15-inch and 17-inch models with NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT graphics processors are covered. I fail to find any reason for further posts by you, as by your own research, his MacBook is covered. Thanks for playing.
Is this really Steve Jobs posting from beyond?
Trepidati0n
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
- Messages
- 9,269
Apple needs to be careful there. The judge can upgrade his rulling to "with prejiduce" and burn Apple pretty badly. The only reason they (apple) wouldn't pay is they plan on appealing.
wankelguy13b
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 282
Exactly, you don't need to change the board to change the CPU.
mope54 can't seem to get past the fact the gpu was defective, the CPU has no bearing that the gpu was faulty or was going to be faulty later on
the customer knew he had an defective gpu but waited until it did fail
your just talking out of your back side, for the most part all 8600m based mobile parts fail it's fact and some desktop parts are affected based the the similar chipset for that time (below from my own computer work fixing pcs), you just seem to think that the CPU changes what's FACTORY chipset used at that time with all macbook pros around 2008
this issue is not limited to laptops as well as I have seen loads of dead or half dead NVIDIA chipset video cards as well from around that time (getting constant stream of dead HP NVIDIA small form factor systems now) but that's my view on the Desktop systems just they are better cooled then laptops so take longer to fail (but you can predict they fail after 3 years)
every time I seen an NVIDIA logo + Compaq I knew it was chipset before powering it on and getting the nice colorful squares on the screen , was getting to the point where I guessed on the phone that it was Compaq laptop with the green logo on it (as it was something I could not fix apart from recovering there data) most of them are dead now so I get no more calls relating to it
the customer knew he had an defective gpu but waited until it did fail
your just talking out of your back side, for the most part all 8600m based mobile parts fail it's fact and some desktop parts are affected based the the similar chipset for that time (below from my own computer work fixing pcs), you just seem to think that the CPU changes what's FACTORY chipset used at that time with all macbook pros around 2008
this issue is not limited to laptops as well as I have seen loads of dead or half dead NVIDIA chipset video cards as well from around that time (getting constant stream of dead HP NVIDIA small form factor systems now) but that's my view on the Desktop systems just they are better cooled then laptops so take longer to fail (but you can predict they fail after 3 years)
every time I seen an NVIDIA logo + Compaq I knew it was chipset before powering it on and getting the nice colorful squares on the screen , was getting to the point where I guessed on the phone that it was Compaq laptop with the green logo on it (as it was something I could not fix apart from recovering there data) most of them are dead now so I get no more calls relating to it
You actually don't know that the GPU was defective. According to the claimant his macbook wouldn't boot, which is not listed as a symptom of the defective 8600GT in the press release.
The CPU has bearing on the case because it determines the model of the computer. The recall was limited to specific models. If the claimant's argument is that *all* 8600GT's are defective then he needs to provide proof of his claim. He didn't do that. Instead he argued that *all* MacBooks are identical regardless of CPU speed. That claim is factually incorrect and the ruling was faulty based on that erroneous claim.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
Wow..just wow. Apple apologist much? Where to start...
You can sue for punitive damages but you won't likely get any in small claims court, which is why he didn't. But you can most definitely sue for loss of use or time, or anything measureable in small claims as long as you have some record of what was actually lost.
Absolutely you can get that in small claims. It is what would make him 'whole' again. This is up to the judge to decide.
He didn't actually say that, he said his model and those like it were essentially identical, which is marginally true, if not exactly factual. And on top of that, it doesn't matter if the defendants agree. Which they may being lawyers and not technocrats and depending on the phrasing of the questions.
No, he said they would honor the replacement program for the 8600. Which they most certainly were not. And were not even interested in trying to do until he wanted to take it to court.
Reading comprehension, legal comprehension, awareness....
Smalls claims is up to $5000 in Seattle. Mediation (and not arbitration) is used to keep the arguments, issues, and results confidential. Arbitration is a completely different process. He didn't discuss what happened in mediation, he discussed what happened in the trial, which is public record and not at all confidential. So he didn't violate confidentiality.
Except that none of that really is true. Any agreement can be argued and found ineffective. The model of the processor does not matter for the model of the GPU. Was it a different model of GPU than their recalls? This was asked by the judge and the Apple lawyers said directly that the model of GPU the defendant had was covered by the recall. So all your arguments of different models of this and that is totally rendered obsolete by that claim alone. It doesn't matter if the the defendant the judge or the Apple lawyers know what the hell they are talking about, it only matters what is said and rebutted. In this case the Apple lawyers said the model was the same as those covered in the recall.
This all depends on the definition of "boot". We don't have the exact details. Also cracking of the solder and overheating of the card could lead to potential physical damage to the motherboard as well. Just because not 'every' instance of what occurs is listed for recalls does not mean other possibilities are not out there. I do know cases of people's laptop motherboards that were damage by the 8600m part. I have seen it first hand too in Dell laptops. So yes, in fact it can cause the laptop to become no bootable. And certainly it would keep the laptop from booting up fully into the OS.
Even in normal warranty and recalls anything could have happened. So what exactly is your point here? And yes, the system would refuse to boot fully into the OS if the GPU was defective and not operating. So what are you getting at?
It was exactly his position before the trial. He purchased the Apple care after he found out about the recall on the GPUs, doesn't say it was after his computer actually stopped working. We don't know exactly when he purchased the Apple care. But that doesn't really matter when the lawyers agreed his laptop could fall under the replacement program.
Mediation, it is different look it up. Can be offered anywhere for any reason, and definitely an option for small claims court.
You can sue for punitive damages but you won't likely get any in small claims court, which is why he didn't. But you can most definitely sue for loss of use or time, or anything measureable in small claims as long as you have some record of what was actually lost.
Absolutely you can get that in small claims. It is what would make him 'whole' again. This is up to the judge to decide.
He didn't actually say that, he said his model and those like it were essentially identical, which is marginally true, if not exactly factual. And on top of that, it doesn't matter if the defendants agree. Which they may being lawyers and not technocrats and depending on the phrasing of the questions.
No, he said they would honor the replacement program for the 8600. Which they most certainly were not. And were not even interested in trying to do until he wanted to take it to court.
Reading comprehension, legal comprehension, awareness....
Smalls claims is up to $5000 in Seattle. Mediation (and not arbitration) is used to keep the arguments, issues, and results confidential. Arbitration is a completely different process. He didn't discuss what happened in mediation, he discussed what happened in the trial, which is public record and not at all confidential. So he didn't violate confidentiality.
Except that none of that really is true. Any agreement can be argued and found ineffective. The model of the processor does not matter for the model of the GPU. Was it a different model of GPU than their recalls? This was asked by the judge and the Apple lawyers said directly that the model of GPU the defendant had was covered by the recall. So all your arguments of different models of this and that is totally rendered obsolete by that claim alone. It doesn't matter if the the defendant the judge or the Apple lawyers know what the hell they are talking about, it only matters what is said and rebutted. In this case the Apple lawyers said the model was the same as those covered in the recall.
This all depends on the definition of "boot". We don't have the exact details. Also cracking of the solder and overheating of the card could lead to potential physical damage to the motherboard as well. Just because not 'every' instance of what occurs is listed for recalls does not mean other possibilities are not out there. I do know cases of people's laptop motherboards that were damage by the 8600m part. I have seen it first hand too in Dell laptops. So yes, in fact it can cause the laptop to become no bootable. And certainly it would keep the laptop from booting up fully into the OS.
Even in normal warranty and recalls anything could have happened. So what exactly is your point here? And yes, the system would refuse to boot fully into the OS if the GPU was defective and not operating. So what are you getting at?
It was exactly his position before the trial. He purchased the Apple care after he found out about the recall on the GPUs, doesn't say it was after his computer actually stopped working. We don't know exactly when he purchased the Apple care. But that doesn't really matter when the lawyers agreed his laptop could fall under the replacement program.
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.
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.
- Status