Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday April 03 2021, @07:19PM   Printer-friendly

Defective Macs 'Knowingly Sold By Apple' In Stage Light Case - 9To5Mac:

A federal judge has ruled that Apple is assumed* to have knowingly sold defective Macs, in response to an application for a class action lawsuit against the company. The lawsuit is over the MacBook Pro “stage light” fault, in which the backlight takes on the appearance of stage lighting at the bottom of the screen before later failing completely.

*Update: Legal commentators have pointed out that the judge has not ruled that Apple did so, but in deciding that there is merit to the case, he in law assumes the allegations to be true.

The judge said the court would also consider allegations that Apple deleted forum posts complaining about the issue …

Apple at first denied warranty repairs on affected machines, before creating a Display Backlight Service Program to address it in the 13-inch model, but excluded the 15-inch model. The plaintiffs in the class action suit allege that Apple continued to sell 15-inch models that it knew were prone to this fault, without warning consumers.

[...] U.S. District Judge Edward Davila determined that the consumers’ allegations of Apple conducting intensive pre-release testing, which the consumers say was conducted by a team of “reliability engineers” who carried out stress tests and other procedures that would have alerted Apple to defects behind the display failures, sufficiently demonstrate that Apple was aware of the alleged defect.

[...] “The court finds that the allegations of pre-release testing in combination with the allegations of substantial customer complaints are sufficient to show that Apple had exclusive knowledge of the alleged defect,” the judge wrote in his opinion.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 03 2021, @07:33PM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 03 2021, @07:33PM (#1132937)

    That "Update" is bordering on absurd. A judge "agreeing" to hear a case does not mean he assumes the allegations are true. Quite the opposite in fact as the assumption of innocence is maintained. All it means is that the case cannot be dismissed on technical grounds like lack of standing, incorrect jurisdiction, and other similar technical issues. It has nothing to do with the merit of the case. A case judged on lack of merit would be called summary judgement and has to be requested by the defendant.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 03 2021, @08:36PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 03 2021, @08:36PM (#1132960)

      >> All it means is that the case cannot be dismissed on technical grounds like lack of standing, incorrect jurisdiction, and other similar technical issues.

      Or it could mean that the judge is on Facebook's payroll.... Zuck did say he wants to sink Apple.

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday April 04 2021, @07:32AM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday April 04 2021, @07:32AM (#1133069) Journal

        Or it could mean that the judge is on Facebook's payroll

        In the same way as your comment could mean that you are on Apple's payroll. The amount of evidence for both possibilities is about the same.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Saturday April 03 2021, @09:24PM (9 children)

      by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday April 03 2021, @09:24PM (#1132969) Journal

      I'm guessing after reading TFA that this was a motion to dismiss or at least limit some of the issues filed by Apple. It would be freakin' uber-useful if reporters would link to primary source materials rather than merely link to other articles by other reporters, because the average reporter seems to be one or all of incompetent, untrustworthy, and/or deceptive for ideological purposes. In this instance, the reporter linked to another reporter's misunderstanding. That's a fail. Primary sources or it should be considered unethical journalism because we need the ability to fact check these people.

      Anyway, post-rant, and after locating the primary source myself, I'm going to guess here a reporter read the order which contains the standard boilerplate setting up the ground rules for deciding summary judgment motions, and mistook the judge's discussion using those ground rules as a ruling on the merits. As you point out, the update just adds more confusion because it is so poorly written. It should have said that this was a summary summary judgment motion Apple brought, and that in the context of such a motion, the ground rules require presuming for the sake of argument that the plaintiff's allegations are true, because if the law doesn't allow recovery even if everything the plaintiffs claim is true (either because the law provides no remedy or the plaintiffs haven't alleged enough to be covered by a law), there's no point in having a trial because winning is not possible (or as is often the case, some claims are sufficient and some not, and so the trial is limited to only those claims that have a chance of winning). Plaintiffs get to proceed to trial on some claims, not on others. The trial will determine whether the allegations are proven to the level required for this type of case.

      Here's the actual ruling: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2020cv03122/359134/55/ [justia.com] and here's the ground rules boilerplate I bet confused the first reporter and established a long chain of lazy sub-reporters parroting the confusion.

      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a plaintiff to plead each claim with enough specificity to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” ... A complaint which falls short of the Rule 8(a) standard may therefore be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ... “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” ... When deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all “well pleaded factual allegations” and determine whether the allegations “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” ... The court must also construe the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. ... While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

      In the end, based on the above ground rules, Apple won some and lost some. The judge ruled that plaintiffs could proceed on the claims of A) Deceptive Trade Practice and B) Fraudulent Concealment "to the extent those are based on alleged omissions" and dismissed claims A and B to the extent they were based on "affirmative misrepresentations" and then dismissed all the other plaintiff claims as well, but gave the plaintiffs the opportunity for a do-over if they could beef up the dismissed claims. As for A and B, the consequences to Apple are presumably smaller if the claims are based on omissions rather than lies. So, Apple has reduced the scope of the trial (a win for Apple) and plaintiffs still get a trial on the remaining issues (a win for Plaintiffs) but nothing on the remaining claims is decided yet. Plaintiffs might win those, they might not.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 03 2021, @11:36PM (7 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 03 2021, @11:36PM (#1132989)

        Yes, a defendant filing motion to dismiss is essentially the defendant saying "so what if I did?"

        The court is asked to decide "if everything the plaintiff says is true, does the law entitle them to anything at all from the defendant?" The purpose of such a decision is to avoid wasting everyone's time, because if the answer to that question is "no" then proceeding with the case is completely pointless.

        These decisions are almost always uninteresting. In this case it sounds like some of the claims were actually dismissed however which would be the only part of the decision that could be interesting. But I have never understood why the media always manages to turn these boring procedural decisions into bullshit sensational headlines. Brings in the ad revenue I guess.

        • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Sunday April 04 2021, @12:46AM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday April 04 2021, @12:46AM (#1133015) Journal

          "So what if I did?"

          That's the best TLDR for this type of situation that I've ever heard.

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday April 04 2021, @05:19AM (5 children)

          by sjames (2882) on Sunday April 04 2021, @05:19AM (#1133056) Journal

          Not relevant to this particular case, but IMHO, a judge should at least do a first pass at this before the defendant is even notified of a suit. Any number of nuisance suits would just disappear this way. For example, the suit that Claimed that David Copperfield usurped the plaintiff's divine powers.

          I realize that is not current procedure and I don't think a judge can even choose to do this now.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Sunday April 04 2021, @07:02AM (4 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Sunday April 04 2021, @07:02AM (#1133068) Journal
            "Not relevant to this particular case, but IMHO, a judge should at least do a first pass at this before the defendant is even notified of a suit. Any number of nuisance suits would just disappear this way. For example, the suit that Claimed that David Copperfield usurped the plaintiff's divine powers."

            While that makes sense at a high level, if you understand how the courts are supposed to work you can see this would be a problem.

            The judge is supposed to be a strictly neutral arbitrater. The plaintiff is one side, and they have their counsel; the defendent is the other; with another counsel. The counsel's are supposed to make arguments; the judge is /not/ supposed to make arguments. None at all. Strictly neutral arbitrer, he /only/ rules after hearing both sides, and he /only/ decides the things they don't agree on.

            Now, for the judge to do what you propose - to consider a motion to dismiss before the defendent can argue for one - would violate that paradigm. Without a motion from the defense laying out the reasons that the suit should be dismissed the judge would have to lay those reasons out himself. And in doing that the judge would no longer be acting strictly as a judge - he'd be acting as counsel for the defense; giving at least the appearance partiality.

            Not that judges don't do that occasionally, there are a lot of petty judges and you can find some very odd precedents. But generally speaking they'll avoid the appearance of advocating for one side or another, which means they can only dismiss the case after hearing not only the plaintiff's complaint but also a motion from the defense *specifically* asking for dismissal and making the arguments for it.

            Though this avoids the obvious rocks, it's not without problems, particularly when considered in conjunction with questions of jurisdiction. If the court doesn't have jurisdiction; then the defense has no obligation to even appear. But it's extremely rare for a court, particularly a US court in this century, to recognize a lack of jurisdiction sua sponte; for much the same logic I suspect. The court (judge) doesn't want to be seen as a party, making arguments; if it doesn't have jurisdiction it still wants the defense to make that argument so it can act exclusively as an impartial arbiter. But if the defense recognizes (correctly) that there is no jurisdiction they shouldn't even be showing up to make that argument... so jurisdiction only expands.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 04 2021, @08:53AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 04 2021, @08:53AM (#1133088)

              In the US it varies. Some courts require the defendant to answer or they default even if the court doesn't have jurisdiction. Others consider responding at all (even a notice denying jurisdiction) as an admission and acceptance of jurisdiction. In both cases you need to talk to a lawyer from that state to even know if you should answer or not. Frankly it wouldn't surprise me if it all depends on the whim of the judge hearing the case. I remember a case years ago where a California court claimed jurisdiction over a dispute in Ontario because one party filed suit there without telling the other. The defendant was only notified after they lost. Truly the best legal system money can buy.

            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday April 04 2021, @06:05PM (2 children)

              by sjames (2882) on Sunday April 04 2021, @06:05PM (#1133200) Journal

              I can see that, but arguably the Judge is only making a ruling on law. In the case of Copperfield, the ruling would be that the courts do not recognize divine power in Earthly beings, so could never rule that someone had usurped those powers (that don't exist).

              Essentially, the plaintiff has moved to compel the defendant to answer and appear, this is the judge ruling on that motion. Reasons to rule against include insufficient cause, for example if the plaintiff could not win as a matter of law (you cannot sue the defendant for being ugly and dressed funny by his mother).

              • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday April 04 2021, @06:51PM (1 child)

                by Arik (4543) on Sunday April 04 2021, @06:51PM (#1133209) Journal
                "I can see that, but arguably the Judge is only making a ruling on law."

                Yes, but would still be ruling on it *absent a request by one of the parties to rule on it.*

                I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm not even saying they can't do that (as far as I'm aware, they generally can) I'm just pointing out why it happens so rarely. If there's no positive obligation to do it, and it takes you out of your comfort zone, could conceivably even make you look biased and get you in trouble somehow, then you probably won't do it.

                "(you cannot sue the defendant for being ugly and dressed funny by his mother)"

                As far as I understand it, you can sue anyone for anything you want in US Civil law. If the case is baseless, you'll still have to file a motion to dismiss in most cases. If it's bad enough, it's conceivable that the court could award legal fees to the defendant, but it's rare. If the case is bad enough, the plaintiffs lawyers could also face professional discipline, even potentially lose their license to practice, but that's also relatively rare. Shouldn't be any surprise that a system designed by lawyers tends to give them generous benefit of the doubt. It may be better to allow some frivolous suits to proceed, and eventually lead to sanctions against the plaintiff, than to throw out cases too soon when there *might* have been merit to them.

                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 05 2021, @02:23AM

                  by sjames (2882) on Monday April 05 2021, @02:23AM (#1133351) Journal

                  The plaintiff (one of the parties) has made a motion to compel the defendant to answer and appear. Making a motion is a request for the judge to make a ruling.

                  You CAN sue anyone for anything, but there are many suits you cannot win as a matter of law.

      • (Score: 2) by Frosty Piss on Sunday April 04 2021, @08:57AM

        by Frosty Piss (4971) on Sunday April 04 2021, @08:57AM (#1133089)

        TL;DR

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Sunday April 04 2021, @03:40AM (1 child)

      by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Sunday April 04 2021, @03:40AM (#1133048)

      >assumption of innocence

      Civil cases don't have that. They're decided by "preponderance of the evidence".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 04 2021, @04:38AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 04 2021, @04:38AM (#1133053)

        Sort of -- the defendant in a civil case does not have the initial burden, that's on the plaintiff. This works like a presumption of innocence.

        In most cases, the standard of evidence for civil cases is a preponderance of the evidence (which means the evidence would lead a reasonable juror to be over 50% certain, even if only a smidge, that the evidence favored the plaintiff -- if the evidence is 50/50, defendant wins). Because the plaintiff has the initial burden, if the plaintiff fails in that meet that burden, the court can dismiss the case after plaintiff rests and the defendant doesn't have to prove squat. Given that the preponderance standard is so squishy though, such dismissals are rare.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 03 2021, @10:52PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 03 2021, @10:52PM (#1132979)

    faulty Apple products!

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 03 2021, @11:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 03 2021, @11:03PM (#1132981)

    All Apple products are defective by design.

    It wasn't like that in Apple's beginning. Ask Woz.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 03 2021, @11:07PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 03 2021, @11:07PM (#1132982)

    Problem solved.

    Unfortunately my family and people I know buy them, against my advice, and I am expected to try and troubleshoot them when things go wrong.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 04 2021, @01:37AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 04 2021, @01:37AM (#1133031)

      Unfortunately my family and people I know buy them, against my advice, and I am expected to try and troubleshoot them when things go wrong.

      It could be worse. They could insist on using Windows.

      While there are undeniably problems with Apple products, the volume of troubleshooting I've been called upon to do by family and friends dropped damn close to zero when they started buying Macs. The crap I've had to deal with personally plunged similarly when I made the switch.

  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday April 03 2021, @11:36PM (5 children)

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday April 03 2021, @11:36PM (#1132990) Homepage

    Once upon a time there were things called alpha testing and beta testing.

    Soon, Jews realized that software beta-testing could be offloaded to the final end-users, ensuring full profits on incomplete products, earlier release dates to pad metrics, too, because it was palatable to the customer that bugs could be fixed with software updates.

    Then, Jews realized that end-user beta-testing could be used for hardware, because consumers are so enamored with products that they'll wait a few painful days without while their products are somewhere else receiving free "hardware upgrades."

    After that, Jews in the medical and pharmaceutical industries realized they could make more money doing the same -- except with untested procedures, vaccines, and live people. The eaten cost in that case wasn't lost time or getting stuck with faulty appliances right outside the warranty periods, it was dead or disfigured human bodies. This is how the Jew inches its way into genocide while accusing you of perpetrating the same.

    • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 04 2021, @12:04AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 04 2021, @12:04AM (#1132995)

      Share some love with the Arabs.

      Look at Steve Jobs, a Syrian adoptee, an honorary Jew. In fact, he out-jewed many other jewish jews.

      It's like the old biblical adage: Semites gonna semite.

      • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 04 2021, @12:31AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 04 2021, @12:31AM (#1133005)

        Anti-semites gonna anti-semite.

      • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 04 2021, @12:43AM (2 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday April 04 2021, @12:43AM (#1133013) Journal

        It's almost like all three Abrahamic religions are insane Bronze-Age holdovers full of blasphemy and evil ideas about God, and will lead human civilization down the path to ruin if given free reign or something...

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 04 2021, @12:57AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 04 2021, @12:57AM (#1133019)

          You know, the world would be a better place if the Indians conquered the world, by that I mean Buddhists, Jains,, Avikgayas, Sikhs.

          • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 04 2021, @01:36AM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday April 04 2021, @01:36AM (#1133030) Journal

            I really don't know about that. Buddhism isn't as nice and fluffy as a lot of us Westerners think it is. There seems to be something about the human condition that just leads inexorably to utter bastardry with enough power in one place. But religions that explicitly say "you are chosen and everyone else will spend eternity on fire" are probably the single worst force multiplier for these tendencies we've ever come up with :/

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(1)