Federal judge says no one in America gives a hoot about Apple's notch

Federal judge says no one in America gives a hoot about Apple's notch
In February 2017, a full seven months before the Apple iPhone X would be unveiled, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo leaked out incredibly accurate information about what would subsequently be called the TrueDepth Camera. Two months later, a render of the phone hinted at the notch, but the angle of the images was misleading. It wasn't until photos of the phone's front and rear panels leaked that we clearly saw what would become known as the notch. Actually, we can't remember who we should credit for coming up with the notch name first.

Regardless of how you feel about the notch, you probably never considered suing Apple over it. And even if you did, finding a lawyer to take the case wouldn't be that easy-or would it be? You might recall that a suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California back in December. The plaintiffs complained that Apple was misleading consumers because the advertised screen sizes and resolution for the displays on certain models counted space and pixels taken up by the notch. The models involved are the iPhone X, iPhone XR, iPhone XS, and the iPhone XS Max. Keep in mind that the suit was filed before Apple released the new iPhone 11 family.

In the suit, the plaintiffs stated that Apple is misleading consumers by counting false pixels "as if they were true pixels." In addition, the suit points out that "the screen size deception is simply based on Apple cutting corners-Defendant (Apple) rounds off the corners of the products' screens and the products have notches without pixels at the top of their screens, but Defendant calculates the screen size of the products by including non-screen areas as the corners and the cut-out notch at the top of the screen.

No one in America cares about the notch on the Apple iPhone says a federal judge


The papers submitted to the court also included examples from Apple's own online store advertising what the plaintiffs claim is a misleading screen resolution on the iPhone X. The plaintiffs also note that Apple made a direct comparison of the iPhone X screen with the non-notched iPhone 8 Plus. While Apple claimed that the display on the 5.8-inch iPhone X screen, at an advertised resolution of 1125 x 2436, was better than the display used on iPhone 8 Plus (with a 1080 x 1920 resolution), the suit states that this is not the truth. Thanks in part to the notch, the plaintiffs claim that the number of subpixels on the iPhone X, at 5.481 million, is less than the 6.221 million on the iPhone 8 Plus. The calculation takes into account the fact that the iPhone X does not use true subpixels with red, blue and green subpixels in each pixel. The suit argues that the subpixel count makes the iPhone 8 Plus screen superior to the one on the iPhone X. In addition, the 5.8-inch display on the iPhone X measures only 5.6875 inches according to the suit.


If all of this sounds familiar, it is because we covered this last December and even explained why the plaintiffs were wrong. But now, according to Law360 (via The Verge), the federal judge hearing the case, U.S District Judge Hawood S. Gilliam Jr, has weighed in with a comment. "There doesn’t really seem to be anyone in America who seems to be concerned about it," he said. And while the plaintiffs hope to have the suit certified as a class-action, Judge Gilliam says that there is some legal precedent that could prevent this from taking place.

The plaintiffs, besides seeking to have their suit certified as a class-action, seek an injunction blocking Apple from continuing to advertise its notched iPhones in this manner. They also are asking Apple to pay damages to the plaintiffs.

FEATURED VIDEO

30 Comments

1. Subie

Posts: 2387; Member since: Aug 01, 2015

These law suits are ridiculous IMO. And if anyone truthfully did buy one of those iPhones without knowing about the notch - Apple has a good return policy if unsatisfied.

8. Cat97

Posts: 1923; Member since: Mar 02, 2017

On the other hand, over time there have been countless rulings on false advertising, despite "return policies". Apple may not be guilty according to that judge, but that type of false advertising proves that it is no different than a poor Chinese company that makes $50 smartphones. Next time you see the Chinese doctoring their marketing pictures to hide flaws and poor design, remember: the top US tech company does the same.

26. mackan84

Posts: 548; Member since: Feb 13, 2014

Everyone with a notch or hole hides it with a wallpaper so far. So any tech company really. What I wonder is who determines which is the better display, thru sub pixel per inch or just pixel per inch? If sub pixel wins the iPhone XR/11 gets some redemption

30. Alcyone

Posts: 481; Member since: May 10, 2018

Thats among other things. Google iphone wireless charging limit. It amazed me that they limit the rate certain pads charge wirelessly. It was interesting find.

14. DBozz

Posts: 66; Member since: Sep 19, 2019

What is more ridiculous is apple sued Samsung and other companies for their rectangular and round cornered shapes years ago... this man is way better than apple even while he is being stupid

2. maherk

Posts: 6946; Member since: Feb 10, 2012

Sure this is an absurdly stupid lawsuit, but isn't ironic how the same fanbase that think this is a ridiculous story(and rightfully so), are the ones that used to defend Apple's lawsuit about rounded corners?

3. Phullofphil

Posts: 1822; Member since: Feb 10, 2009

One or twenty people making a comment don’t make it a fan base. I don’t think you should be able to sue for anything like this if you bought the phone and don’t like it return it.

6. maherk

Posts: 6946; Member since: Feb 10, 2012

I'm not condoning it, and I'm pretty sure I made that clear enough. And are you sure it was just 20 people? Lol

10. apple-rulz

Posts: 2191; Member since: Dec 27, 2016

You do know that Samsung admitted to copying those "rounded corners", in addition to a lot else, and paid, yes paid, Apple over $500M in penalties. Then again why would facts matter to majerk the troll.

11. Silva5 unregistered

Can you share your source please?

17. apple-rulz

Posts: 2191; Member since: Dec 27, 2016

Umm, feel free to Google it. Unlike majerk, I speak facts and encourage people to double and triple check anything I claim here. Majerk just has a chip on his shoulder and caters to the dimwits that blindly follow any anti Apple sentiment, regardless if true or not.

13. maherk

Posts: 6946; Member since: Feb 10, 2012

Admitted? When? Lol And the only reason why Apple won that lawsuit was because the American judicial system favored the American based company. That's why Apple never, and I mean NEVER, won this stupid rounded corners case outside of the US. And isn't it funny that you accuse me of turning my blind eye to facts, when and in FACT, in another article about Apple and Spotify, you kept deflecting when the subject of Apple stealing from app developers was mentioned. Now watch him go into another article, gently bash Apple, in hopes of getting recognized as the credible former Apple fanboy.

15. DBozz

Posts: 66; Member since: Sep 19, 2019

He comes and s**ts in every article like that... the best way is ignore him and make him to think he disappeared like john cena !! :D

16. apple-rulz

Posts: 2191; Member since: Dec 27, 2016

Oh yes, because it was a court in the USA, that's why Samsung admitted guilt. Admitted and paid. All because of the USA. Well keep telling yourself that, whatever makes you feel better. As for your deflecting obsession, you clearly need to reread what I wrote. No deflection, again but whatever makes you feel better. Now keep ignoring the facts of the articles, to suit the narrative in your mind.

29. apple-rulz

Posts: 2191; Member since: Dec 27, 2016

Majerk see the links I provided below for teddy.

19. tedkord

Posts: 17410; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Wow, the revisionist history is strong in this one. Samsung admitted to nothing. Most of the patents involved were invalidated over time due to either obviousness or Apple stealing them in the first place. The trial was a farce. Apple's entire history is one of theft, all the way back to the GUI.

21. apple-rulz

Posts: 2191; Member since: Dec 27, 2016

So then teddy why did Samsung admit to copying and pay? “The trial was a farce.” Of course you’d have that belief, that Samsung can do no wrong is the dogma of your kind.

24. tedkord

Posts: 17410; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Again, since you're apparently slow, they did not admit to copying. They paid (much less than the original, ridiculous verdict) for the same reason Apple had paid when the courts ruled against them for patent infringement - because they had no choice

27. apple-rulz

Posts: 2191; Member since: Dec 27, 2016

I refer you to paragraph four teddy. I await how you will try to spin it in your mind. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/supreme-court-samsung-iphone-apple-patent-infringement

28. apple-rulz

Posts: 2191; Member since: Dec 27, 2016

Oh teddy and here is the patent that is referring to design; https://patents.google.com/patent/USD593087

4. Whitedot

Posts: 827; Member since: Sep 26, 2017

federal judge owns Iphone :)

5. MrMalignance

Posts: 300; Member since: Feb 17, 2013

I think the lawsuit is ridiculous. That being said, I also think the judge claiming no one cares is equally as ridiculous. Unless he did some quick surveys or is a mobile device aficionado, he shouldn't claim to know what others are thinking. It's true that a lot of people don't care, but some just live with it, due to not having a choice

7. umaru-chan

Posts: 371; Member since: Apr 27, 2017

I bet the complainer is actually a member of SDF. Being a member of a brain dead cultist s/he thought it was a good idea and must had imagined how pleased her/his Lord Sameeesuuung would be with that ridiculous action. LMAO. Stupidity of SDF members never failed to amuse me.

20. tedkord

Posts: 17410; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

You ate lots of lead paint chips as a child, didn't you?

9. jellmoo

Posts: 2622; Member since: Oct 31, 2011

Did... Did you include an affiliate link to an Amazon product for the Google Pixel based on the generic term for a pixel?

12. Silva5 unregistered

Lol they did!! Haha. Nice catch.

18. tedkord

Posts: 17410; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

"... the advertised screen sizes and resolution for the displays on certain models counted space and pixels taken up by the notch." And that is exactly why it IS a notch.

22. gadgetpower

Posts: 283; Member since: Aug 23, 2019

Its plain and simple, if they don’t like apple products then buy something else.

25. tedkord

Posts: 17410; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

While I don't support the lawsuit, Apple should be required to advertise truthfully, which they're not doing in this instance.

31. dspkblympkbl

Posts: 52; Member since: May 23, 2013

Actually I agree with the suit: nobody wants to spend $1k on a roller-deck/index card look alike anything. Apple just lucky I had not updated my phone for six years

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.