Judge Koh throws out mobile data tracking lawsuit against Apple
0. phoneArena 27 Nov 2013, 23:35 posted on
Judge Lucy Koh, who presides over a number of Apple-related lawsuits, just dismissed a case against the manufacturer that involved a pair of consumer protection laws. Koh ruled that the four plaintiffs failed to prove that they were harmed by any alleged misrepresentation by the Cupertino based tech titan, leading to her ruling...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. PapaSmurf (Posts: 7357; Member since: 14 May 2012)
"The plaintiffs also said that they suffered damages from paying too much for the iPhone."
Every single person since 2007 has.
2. james004 (Posts: 471; Member since: 15 May 2013)
and this b*tch has some balls to be so bias towards apple. who is securing her job? even obama veto-ed the restriction on iphones.
america is fu*king bias towards its own company. so much for the "justice"
6. PapaSmurf (Posts: 7357; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Apple has a tendacy of only winning in the US since it's an American based company. Obama used his video, Koh is dismissing everything. In Europe however....
9. JakeLee (limited) (Posts: 651; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
In Europe, Germany to be specific, Sammy's patents against Apple gonna be declared invalid.
And you know the story about antitrust against Sammy.
11. androiphone20 (Posts: 1393; Member since: 10 Jul 2013)
Took those words straight from my mouth, haters gonna hate, potatoes gonna potate. I had no idea that a large number of users blindly hate apple on this site. Most of the things they hold against Apple are just irrational. Apple is the kind of company you love to hate
28. PapaSmurf (Posts: 7357; Member since: 14 May 2012)
An Apple hater who has a Mac. The iorny huh?
22. Finalflash (Posts: 1438; Member since: 23 Jul 2013)
Who cares now, we know the bias exists by the veto alone, let it be. There is nothing that can be done about it and the Apple crowd likes getting shafted so let them. As long as you are out of the system, get your friends and family to switch out before they get screwed over. Aside from that, let the Apple fans have their simple tech, they need it since they probably can't figure out anything else.
It doesn't matter who holds Apple's hand and who doesn't. In the end, we will always have the newest stuff first, we'll have the better hardware first and we will have them at a reasonable price and excellent choice.
33. stealthd (Posts: 913; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
Except the veto doesn't prove any sort of bias. The ban was vetoed because it's universally agreed in legal jurisdictions across the planet that FRAND patents shouldn't be used to get a ban. But of course you care more about Apple being punished (or persecuted more like) than about keeping patent law from getting worse for he entire industry.
And you've got your up somewhere if you really people choose ios because they "can't" use anything else. Some people just feel android is pointlessly complex and redundant. It doesn't really enable you to do much of anything you can't do on ios, it just gives you more ways to do the same things. Some people like having lots of options, some people find more options pointless.
5. rawbow (Posts: 406; Member since: 30 Mar 2012)
as if apple reached into their pockets or held a gun to their head. Your cent your game. Stupid a$$ litigation this one
7. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5530; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
"Every single person since 2007 has."
Which is why they wanted to make it a class action lawsuit.
19. darkkjedii (Posts: 10102; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Nahhh not really, those who can afford it buy it, those who can't don't. Too many floating around eBay, and Craigslist to say they cost too much. To me a Bugatti costs too much, to Kobe it doesn't. I've been buying them since 07, and don't feel I've paid too much, but I can afford em. That statement was very fanboyish, which is very unlike the Smurf.
29. PapaSmurf (Posts: 7357; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Definitely wasn't going with the fanboy route, but it's true. Every single iPhone is expensive, especially the very first two models. What I said was a fact, and mostly everyone can agree on it.
Don't worry darkk, I still love Apple and my Mac. :')
30. darkkjedii (Posts: 10102; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
I think you love apples,and Mac n cheese lol. Jk happy thanksgiving bro, I'm loving the smell coming from the kitchen rite now.
3. woodshop20 (Posts: 459; Member since: 14 Sep 2013)
I wonder how much Apple is paying her...
12. JakeLee (limited) (Posts: 651; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
That's a serious accusation.
And against a US judge? That's quite an insult to US people.
14. o0Exia0o (Posts: 317; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
Ok....Well then....How much is Apple paying you?
20. o0Exia0o (Posts: 317; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
Jellous, no. Just wondering what the current going rate is for a voice to defend a company who starts things like this is going for these days. Seems kind of low though, but I guess that with this (like any other job) the better you are at it the better you get paid. I guess that would make you like the fast food worker of the tech company defense world right?
13. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1196; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
While I don't agree with their claim that they suffered damage for paying too much for their iPhone, the thing about them collecting personal and location data and not harming them I do not agree with. If that's the case, then the whole NSA fiasco with them collecting user info is no worse, yet everyone is appalled by that. To me it's just as bad as if they had placed a GPS tracker on them, but legally you need a warrant for that. Now I know some will say that by turning on your GPS you agree to this, but people want the GPS for their own use, not so someone else can track them if they want to. There is the difference.
15. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Google loves to use the "no harm, no foul" rule. In fact, Google pushes the boundary of that rule. Google understands, the plaintiffs must show damages.
21. o0Exia0o (Posts: 317; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
Could you please elaborate on your "Google loves to use the "no harm, no foul" rule. In fact, Google pushes the boundary of that rule. Google understands, the plaintiffs must show damages." comment? How does google uses it to thier advantage vs how other companys in the same field do business?
23. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1196; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Where in this article or in my posting was Google mentioned? Yes, I know they collect data as well, so do many others, but they aren't on trial at this point. The point I was TRYING to make was that these companies are taking something valuable, if it wasn't they wouldn't want it so bad. And when a lawsuit is brought under consumer protection, the judge is their not only to interpret the law but to protect the consumer. Again people aren't switching on the GPS for Apple's, or Google's, or whoever the f else's benefit, but for our own personal use. To me this is GPS tracking and surveillance without a warrant.
27. darkkjedii (Posts: 10102; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
You making that statement means, chances are you're a Samsung b*tch. Only difference is Koh's in position to really piss you off, while you can't even touch her. Hmmmmm so who's really who's b*tch?
31. JakeLee (limited) (Posts: 651; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
You are wrong on this.
He could touch her while asking her for an autograph.
32. darkkjedii (Posts: 10102; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
LMAOOOOO!!! That's true, then the bailiff would beat his a$$.