What is Digg?222 Comments
- Wolverine1, on 10/10/2007, -14/+172What an idiot. Prices drop on every form of tech product known to man. Li's precedent is what?
I hope Apple files a slap suit and recovers their attorney's fees and court costs. That'll give Li something to cry about. Some starving lawyers out there, I guess... - theblacknight, on 10/10/2007, -2/+97WTF? How do you get $1 million in damages from what amounts to a $100 price drop?
- MacDo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+80What a whack-o! Total publicity stunt. The lawyer is probably her friend, doing it for nothing but the limelight. Do they realize that they don't have a leg to stand on?? I love the line that states "forced customers into contracts"...HAAAA... Yeah, right... Don't you hate it when I company puts a gun to your head to buy their stuff?? I hate when that happens....
- eggyacid, on 10/10/2007, -2/+72I need that lawyer's info because i want to sue McDonalds... they have a special on BigMac this week for $1.00 each instead of $2.49
Come on baby, show me the money... I'll sue them for "One Billion Dollars" - Vazelos, on 10/10/2007, -6/+70Some people will sue any move by a company with a good cash flow. It's almost a profession nowdays.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+39This chick is a moron. No one forced her to buy.
- mf0thrilla, on 10/10/2007, -2/+32Hooray for humans!
I'm gunna sue you for suing me back when I tried to sue you for suing me the first time. - atdigg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31By claiming that that made you look stupid (which ironically makes you look even stupider)
- ronmexico, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31Makes you wonder how much of a product's price goes towards legal fees. This isn't just Apple, it's virtually all corporations.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -7/+35she's just having her period
- dazparkour, on 10/10/2007, -13/+32She bought it to show it off, like most people with anything from Apple.
Now it has less *flash* value, she's suffered $1m damage to her ego. You know what those mac heads are like?
(this comment burried in 5... 4...) - Shigglyboo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+23i'm an apple hater (that kinda sounds funny :p, but c'mon. since when is it against the law to lower a price?
- Spankypoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19> WTF? How do you get $1 million in damages from what amounts to a $100 price drop?
The same way the RIAA claims $750 in damages per $.99 song: lawyers. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20Lol they are trying to mess with Apple's Lawyers? Good luck
- grr74, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Welcome to the U.S. Land of lawsuits.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18You should give up comedy. It's not your strong suit.
- fuegosecret, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15I would certainly like to see how paying more for an iPhone could cause her a million dollars in damage (gotta be like the price she paid startled a butterfly, which flapped its wings which caused a stampede that caused an air current in S.America to form a low pressure system over the Gulf of Mexico which ultimately moved over her vicinity, developed into tornados, and detroyed her whole town...). Point is, you actually have to incur the damages you claim... A million dollars in damages? Sheesh!
- xtc46, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14@wheresaldo
I logged in to digg you down. I was debating buying the iPhone on launch day, I had the money, my friend even called me when he was at the counter buying phones for a bunch of our friends, and I decided "I bet there will be a price drop before Christmas, Ill wait" Its not because I'm cheap, its because I value my cash more than I valued the ability to have a very cool phone right from the start. I work in the technology industry and and in the retail industry and KNOW that every major company will do what ever they can (including slash prices) to get sales up an running for the holidays (and in this case back to school) My bet paid off, they slashed the prices, but I still didn't buy one, not because of the price, but because I played with one for a few hours and decided i didn't like that it was missing some features that are key for me.
Apple did it right. They inflated their price for the early adopters, recouped their advertising/launch costs and slashed the prices so a much broader group could get their hands on the product. Every company does this. Only apple sold enough product fast enough and decided to not be as greedy as others and slashed their prices once the costs were repaid.THEN gave people $100 bucks to go buy come accessories. That was just plain nice of them. I wish every company did this. - Jeffler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I'm luvin it!
- FatShady, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Why is everyone so pissed off about this? This is a totally reasonable amount of money to ask for: $200 for the price drop, $100 for her troubles, and the rest to pay off her lawyers.
- zwilliams, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Not only do I hope she loses, I hope Apple, Jobs, and AT&T sue her right back for $1m.
"OMG! A company has dropped a price on a product! How dare they! Who do they think they are; making their product more affordable and attractive to a broader range of customers. Those bastards! I should be refunded the full price I paid to have a bleeding-edge product."
What is next? She turns around and sues a computer company because they refuse to swap her month old PC for a new one that is cheaper and faster?
She needs a good kick to the head. - allaboutdatiki, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11IN OTHER NEWS: lawyers are lining up to file suit on every Wal-Mart price drop and automaker incentive program ...
- EclipseGSX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I don't see the dumbasses that bought PS3s for $1200 on eBay filing suit against Sony for purposely driving up demand. Anyone that actually sides with this moron, or anyone else that's bitching about this, needs to get their head straight. If you're waiting in line to drop hundreds of dollars on a PHONE, then something tells me you aren't hurting for cash. If you are? Then that's a life lesson for you. And believe me, it's not Apple that made you people look like idiots. You're doing that all yourselves.
- OswaldKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8No. AT&T, through it's normal policy, put people into 2 year contracts. Apple does not control the network, only the hardware.
- compgeek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8lmfao. she'll be crying after she loses and is in debt up to her eyeballs. just because a company discontinues a product does not mean that because it was only produced for a few months that that amounts to grounds for a lawsuit. and the contract thing PUH LEASE she knew going in that AT&T was the provider for the iphone she didn't have to buy it if she didn't want to commit to their service and so what if people sold their devices for profit after unlocking them? non of her lawsuit has any legal merit she'll be lucky if she doesn't get laughed out of court buried as lame
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7who says they raised the price? You? The advertised price was always the launch price.
Plus, it makes sense. The demand fo the iPhone was at its highest at launch. Simple supply and demand Economics 101 says that the higher demand would warrant a higher price. The iPhone is not the first product to cost more for one month after it is released. - dazparkour, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Apple can't win can they? I mean, they've got people bitching that they are too expensive, then people suing them for cutting prices!
- YongaSun, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13Oh man.. where is this world (or better, the U.S.) going? What a joke that everyone can be sued over everything in the blink of an eye. And that some people actually do it. This cannot be good for a people. Some funny laws over there in the U.S...
- Pingspike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8lol, good luck to her. Ye, how dare they sell a desirable product!
And what do they think they're doing, giving us money back (all be it vouchers)!
Whats this woman on? I want some. - harrypl0tter, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8:LOL good luck dumbass
- realyst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6If you didn't think the iPhone was worth 599$, you shouldn't have paid it. That simple.
You did and it means either or all of the following:
1) You though it was worth $599 and thus the purchase was justified, regardless of the drop in value
2) You're an idiot with money(increasingly likely)
3) You wanted it first and were this willing to pay the premium first-adopter rate.
4) It wasn't worth $599 which means you didn't adequately research it or wait for reviews on it prior to purchase.
5) You're an ***** who bought one to sell it back at an inflated cost and it backfired.
All three of those options have nothing to do with Apple and all to do with you, and all the crying in the world will not change that. All those options combined with your current weeping just makes you that much more of a disgusting, ignorant consumer-whore. - geezshock, on 10/10/2007, -20/+26she should have went back to china and got a fake one off the street for a dollar.
- ismith, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Apple did not manipulate you. They sold a product, you orgasmed when you saw it, then bought it. Two months later, Apple decided they wanted to speed up sales so they lowered the price. Big ***** deal. If you're so upset then stop buying technology, because that's what happens.
- quazywabbit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6But nobody has sued anyone in the pat for example with the sidekick or the cingular branded phones, or Orange branded. This is not something new and it has been going on for years and years. She knew when she bought it that she was buying a phone that tied to at&t and had a two year. as for customers being able to unlock it that I believe was fixed in the latest firmware update so now it can not be unlocked. As much as I would personally love to see the iphone open for all and the ability to create 3rd party apps (which is what she is really wanting) it just won't happen. The most she will probably get is the termination fee and the cost of the iphone but probably not even that that.
- NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Oh, blow it out your ass, you crybaby. If someone offered me a $200 discount on an iPhone to take delivery two months later, I would have turned that down. I got what I paid for, and the only people who lost anything from the price drop were people trying to scalp the phones.
-jcr - tomis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6A business like any other that can set prices however they want?
And if people don't want to pay those prices they can wait for the price to drop or buy a different product. Yea, what a revelation. - monkeyrun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I can't wait to see the outcome of this :)
- OswaldKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You didn't have to buy the product. Apple did nothing wrong. I don't own an iphone, because I think it's overpriced. See the difference? I'm intelligent. You are not. There was no market manipulation. Apple made a decision to lower the price of its product because the sales did not meet targets, but the demand was huge. Nothing wrong with that.; Is Sony wrong for launching a Blu-Ray player at $1200 and lowering the price to make it affordable to the mainstream?
- McTendo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Hey, stupid. Shut up.
- themuffinman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Your face is stupid.
- cliffzdude, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8In my humble opinion, this is an attempt to garner future lawyerly business by and for C. Jean Wang of Wang Law Offices, PLLC. The lady is just playing along. Note in the entire article they never actually state any laws that have been broke, either statutes or common law. They do refer to her purchase of the iPhone, and later price drop as "unfair", however I really doubt any court will describe Apple's price drop as being "unfair" to the consumer.
We all know its *****, they're just gaming the system. "Loser Pays" is often touted as a fix to this, but a lawyer would pay 100x as much as fees for the publicity. No, I really think that such obviously frivolous suits should end very poorly for the litigator. Fines come to mind, disbarment wouldn't be out of the question. - craftyguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Hell it is a profession, just look at most lawyers!
- acidblue, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Odd complaint. As an analogy... I am quite sure that I am not allowed to sue the government for lowering interest rates after I purchased a house at a higher rate, then getting charged fees for refinancing. That would rock!
- Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Ohhh...I see now. Apple FORCED her to buy the iPhone! Those bastards!
- realyst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Your idiocy is so astounding and your efforts so misplaced that nature itself could not create something crueler from the murky depths of the deepest oceans.
- missingdigits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Agreed. I got my unexpected $100 coupon and am very happy. Not many, or ANY other companies would do this.
- darksheer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You may not like it...many people may not like it. It doesn't make it illegal.
- locojones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Let me play Judge real quick and address her concerns in as fair a fashion as I can --
"When she reached the front of the line, her local Apple store only had 4GB models remaining, which she purchased anyway despite having intended to buy the larger-capacitied 8GB model."
You willingly purchased the 4GB model. You could've gone home and waited, or gone home and purchased the 8GB model from Apple.com. This claim is dismissed.
"She, like thousands of others, the suit claims, is now the victim of price discrimination in that she cannot resell her iPhone for the same profit as customers who purchased the device after price drop"
That is a risk she voluntarily assumed when attempting to speculate on a piece of technology. Apple owes her no duty of care is she gambles in attempting to make a profit by selling a hot piece of tech. Those people who gambled by waiting were rewarded for their wait. It's a roll of the dice. Dismissed.
"she cannot trade up to 8GB model she had initially hoped to obtain and is now left with a product that has been discontinued."
Dimissed. She could've purchsed an 8GB model online. She chose to purchase a 4GB model.
"Li also feels cheated by Apple's rebate policy because she was only offered a $100 store credit towards a future Apple store purchase when those customers who bought the same iPhone within a two week window period immediately preceding the cut received the full $200 refund under the company's price protection policy."
That's the way price protections work -- within a limited time of purchase. She chose to purchase on the day it was released, she has enjoyed the ability to use her phone. She was offered a credit, it is up to her to accept it or reject it. We, however, reject her claim. Dismissed.
"She argues that this is proof that there was no sound reason for the cut, which she equated to "underselling.""
Apple may increase or decrease the price of its products without reason. Dismissed.
" to accuse Apple, Jobs and AT&T of forcing customers into 2-year service agreements with AT&T and imposing hefty $175 termination fees. These requirements are unfair, the suit continues, because customers who purchased the iPhone later in the year were able to utilize unlocking solutions that allowed them to forgo such terms and fees."
There were never any requirements to actually activate service upon purchase. If she chose a 2 year agreement with AT&T, she did so willingly. Dismissed.
"1 million in damages plus punitives"
There is no foundation in reality for these damages. Dismissed. - natterca, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I think this is a case of the idiot calling the moron a moron.
Of course there's a cost to having the court hear it. -
Show 51 - 100 of 216 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is