Printing-ink veterans don't take cyberspace journalists too seriously - Roy Greenslade, Guardian Online
|
|
|
Apple wins IOS 4 'Ibrick' case
PLAINTIFF Bianca Wofford lost her lawsuit against Apple demanding $5,000 for every Iphone owner affected by an IOS update that bogged down old Iphones.
Last year Apple's release of IOS 4 left some Iphone 3GS users unhappy with the resulting performance of their shiny, not-so-new toys. Wofford's lawsuit against Apple claimed that IOS 4 was in fact a downgrade that would turn the Iphone 3GS into an 'Ibrick'. Yesterday a court ruled in favour of Apple, citing the fact that IOS 4 was offered as a free upgrade, meaning that "sale or lease" laws did not apply.
According to Wofford this was all part of a plan by Apple to get fanbois to buy the then newly released Iphone 4. Apple announced that it planned to fix the software update for Iphone 3GS owners but that wasn't enough for Wofford, who continued the lawsuit demanding $5,000 for every 'Ibrick' owner.
Interestingly, the judge found software did not quality as a good or service, which should interest all those companies that claim to offer software-as-a-service. He also threw out Wofford's claims of false advertising and deceptive business practices.
Had Apple been found liable it would have to work out a new way to magic up $5,000 for every Iphone 3GS owner through its preferred method of fixing things, issuing a software update. Wofford has been given 30 days to amend her complaint, but frankly her attempt to extract money from Apple looks to be all but over, even though some might agree with her contention that Apple updated IOS in part to force users to upgrade to the latest Iphone. µ
Tags: Apple
Share this:
Share
The judge has to be corrupt & Apple bought him out, simple as that.
A defendant can argue totally contradictory things, any one or more of which can he held as true without raising conflicts with other claims that might be barking mad.
So this judge found a way to simply drop a wacky case. Can't say /that's/ bad, even though bricking even an Iphone /should/ be require some reparations from A$.
(PS to TheInq: requiring cookies to make comments won't work to track me for long: I toss my cookies often!)
But if "software is not a good or service", then you're all safe from being charged by M$ for their crap, so just take it and use it. Must be only the physical package, then, that's copyrighted or licensed; avoid that and you're okay.
We've JUST upgraded our 3G and 3GS iPhones to 4S in the last 10 days. Until then they were running iOS 4 perfectly well. Sure the first version slowed things down, but Apple fixed it quickly with a point release. Had her objective been anything but extortion, she would have dropped the case months and months ago.
OK, so I was worried a bit that Calvyn was going to steal my thunder here. But if the judge has the power to rule that Software (at large) isn't a good or a service, I think the judge should be held responsible for properly defining what software IS then in a commercial sense! "If you can tell me what it isn't, your honor, please also tell me what it IS!"
So, if software is not a good or service, how is that companies can patent software and or charge royalties to other to use them. Some one in this world needs to set the standards straight. If this is the case then surely Microsoft has no right to charge for Andriod. Seems there is one rule for one and other rules for others.