Lowering the Bar

Lawsuit Seeks $1 Million for Those Who Bought Full-Price iPhone

Dongmei Li, one of the many consumers who bought the original iPhone for $599 only to see the price go down to $399 two months later, has now sued Apple on behalf of herself and other "early adopters," alleging "price discrimination."

Facing a consumer backlash, Apple refunded the $200 difference for those who had bought the more expensive iPhone less than two weeks before the price cut, and offered a $100 credit to those who bought it earlier.  Still unhappy, Li has sued in federal court, saying that Apple (and AT&T) have engaged in unfair business practices.

In the lawsuit, Li apparently claims that the price reduction injured early adopters like herself because they now cannot resell their iPhones for the same profit as those who bought the phones after the price cut.  In other words -- if I understand this correctly -- those who bought an iPhone before the price cut paid more those who bought one after the price cut; and so if later buyers want to resell their phone today, they will be better off in doing so than those who, certainly through no fault of their own, were cruelly forced to buy an iPhone at the earlier, higher price; and this is unlawful price discrimination.

That settles it -- the free market is illegal.  Or maybe it's just price cuts that are illegal?  My head hurts.

Steve Jobs, shown here illegally failing to tell
consumers that iPhone prices may later be reduced.

The article doesn't make clear exactly what kind of price protection or guarantee Li claims "early adopters" were entitled to expect, given that gadget prices have historically dropped pretty quickly.  But it appears that, at least in this case, an award of approximately one million dollars would be enough to heal the wounded hearts, repair the shattered expectations, and pay the creative attorneys of those who trusted Apple not to lower the price of the iPhone, ever.

Link: MSNBC.com

Defendant Learns Why Blogging About Your Own Trial is a Bad Idea

A tool or device probably can't be considered inherently bad in and of itself.  A case could be made that some, like the atomic bomb or the BlackBerry, are so dangerous or destructive that they should be banned entirely because there is just no good way to use them without unacceptable risk.  But such examples are pretty rare.  Same for blogging.  Blogging can be a great way to share information, or it can be a very bad idea; it depends how you blog, and who or what you blog about.

Here's a suggestion -- blogging about your own trial is probably not a good idea.  If you are the defendant, do not (for example) reveal the defense strategy of the case, or accuse jurors of not paying attention.  This is because blogs appear on something called the "Internet," which can be viewed by something called "the public."  And this can come back to bite something called "your ass."

This lesson was learned by Dr. Robert Lindeman last month.  Lindeman is a pediatrician who had been sued for malpractice.  He also writes, or until recently wrote, a blog called "drfleablog," in which a blogger named "Flea" writes about medical issues, including issues relating to, let's say, the ongoing trial of a malpractice suit against a pediatrician.  A week or two before that trial began, the plaintiff's attorney had learned about the blog, and apparently monitored it to see what might turn up there during trial.  "Flea" began to post some fairly embarrassing comments, which led to an unusual cross-examination question: "Are you 'Flea'?"  He was.

Plaintiff's counsel did not go into much, if any, detail about drfleablog at that point, but had gotten her point across.  Lindeman settled the next morning for what was described as a "substantial" sum.

Link: Boston Globe