Australia suing Apple over bricked iPhones

On 9/04/2017 6:21 AM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:


http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/06/tech...it-error-53-ip
hone-brick/index.html

further proof that money grubbing lawyers exist everywhere.

Well no...
The lawsuit is being lodged by the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission - a government authority - not private legal firms in class
action as is common in the USA.

In article , Me
wrote:


http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/06/tech...suit-error-53-
iphone-brick/index.html

further proof that money grubbing lawyers exist everywhere.

Well no...

well yes.

The lawsuit is being lodged by the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission - a government authority - not private legal firms in class
action as is common in the USA.

they don't have a case at all. the error 53 issue was a bug that was
fixed in a later system update. the problem has already been solved.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


The lawsuit is being lodged by the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission - a government authority - not private legal firms in class
action as is common in the USA.

they don't have a case at all. the error 53 issue was a bug that was
fixed in a later system update. the problem has already been solved.

It doesn't make any difference if the problem has been solved.

of course it does.

The
lawsuit is seeking fines for violations that occurred in the past.

there are no violations.

everything has bugs. nothing is perfect.

if every bug was a violation then all high tech companies would be in
*deep* ****.

the windows 10 anniversary update last year caused hundreds of millions
of webcams to stop working, which microsoft later fixed. nobody sued.

there was another a bug where after updating to the anniversary update,
computers froze. again, it was fixed and nobody sued.

https://www.neowin.net/news/many-use...zing-problems-
with-pcs-after-windows-10-anniversary-update

tomorrow's windows 10 creators update will likely cause another wave of
problems.

that's just how it is in the high tech world.

A firm does not escape past responsibility for fines or damages by
correcting the problem. Correcting the problem just stops the firm
from incurring more fines.

there are no fines for bugs. if that were the case, microsoft would be
bankrupt.

what's also clear is you haven't a clue what the actual problem with
iphones was and are arguing just to argue, as usual.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


The lawsuit is being lodged by the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission - a government authority - not private legal firms in class
action as is common in the USA.

they don't have a case at all. the error 53 issue was a bug that was
fixed in a later system update. the problem has already been solved.

It doesn't make any difference if the problem has been solved.

of course it does.

The
lawsuit is seeking fines for violations that occurred in the past.

there are no violations.

That will be decided by the court or the government, not you.

no need for court or government. there is no case at all.

everything has bugs. nothing is perfect.

So what? If the violations caused problems for some iPhone owners,
the government or the owners have a right to punish Apple for causing
those problems. The concept is to encourage Apple to be more careful
in the future.

apple did not cause the problem.

the user did, by choosing to have their iphone repaired by an
unauthorized and incompetent repair shop, who did not repair the phone
properly.

the only violation would be that the repair shop claimed they could
repair something they cannot.

apple had *nothing* to do with it.

if every bug was a violation then all high tech companies would be in
*deep* ****.

So what? A bug does not necessarily cause undue hardship on the
product's owner.

that's exactly the point.

If the government or the court decides this one did,
they should impose fines.

the only fines that should be imposed are against the repair shops who
claim that they can repair things they can't.

the windows 10 anniversary update last year caused hundreds of millions
of webcams to stop working, which microsoft later fixed. nobody sued.

So what? What happened in other instances has nothing to do with
this.

of course it does.

other companies don't get a free ride. either it's illegal or it isn't.

what's also clear is you haven't a clue what the actual problem with
iphones was and are arguing just to argue, as usual.

I don't care what the actual problem was.

that much is clear.

if you understood what the problem was, you wouldn't be spewing.

I'm correcting another
erroneous statement on your part.

the only erroneous statements are yours because you don't understand
the issues, by your own admission.

I don't know where you get the impression that you are the arbiter of
what the Australian Compensation and Consumer Commission should do in
this case. It's up to them, not you.

i'm not arbitrating anything. there is no case here.

if you take a car to a repair shop and they make things worse, do you
sue the manufacturer of the car because a repair shop did not repair
something properly?

of course not. the car maker didn't cause the problem. the repair shop
did. the solution is to deal with the repair shop. the better shops
will make good on whatever they did.

in this case, the user had their iphone repaired by an unauthorized
repair shop who not only did not repair it properly but could not have
done so.

in particular, the touchid fingerprint sensor and logic board are
paired, which prevents bad guys from spoofing the fingerprint sensor to
gain access to the phone's data, which would be *bad*.

any replacement of either component must be paired to the other, which
is something only apple can do for reasons that should be obvious.

there is no way for the phone to know that the owner had the phone
repaired but it wasn't done properly, versus a bad guy trying to hack
it, so as a precaution, it shut down to protect the user's data.

as it turned out, apple said the shutdown was a bug and what should
have happened was that the phone would continue to work but with
affected features disabled, such as touchid and apple pay. apple
released a fix, which the user could install on their own.

it's not apple's fault that the repair was done wrong. the user needs
to resolve that with the repair shop, not apple.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

i'm not arbitrating anything. there is no case here.

That has to be one of the most stupid things I've ever seen written.

then you must not read much.

It caps your frequent statements that other people are arguing when an
argument *requires* two or more people and you are always one of them.

Be sure you notify the Australians that you've decided there's no
case. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

they'll find out when the judge who looks at the facts sees that it was
an improperly done repair that caused the problem, not apple.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

It caps your frequent statements that other people are arguing when an
argument *requires* two or more people and you are always one of them.

Be sure you notify the Australians that you've decided there's no
case. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

they'll find out when the judge who looks at the facts sees that it was
an improperly done repair that caused the problem, not apple.

The commission successfully went after Apple in 2013 to the tune of
AU$2.25 million.

not for the same issue, they didn't.

They seem to know what they're doing.

not in this case, they don't.

you've already admitted you don't know the facts in the case and aren't
interested in learning them, so you're not in a position to comment.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

It caps your frequent statements that other people are arguing when an
argument *requires* two or more people and you are always one of them.

Be sure you notify the Australians that you've decided there's no
case. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

they'll find out when the judge who looks at the facts sees that it was
an improperly done repair that caused the problem, not apple.

The commission successfully went after Apple in 2013 to the tune of
AU$2.25 million.

not for the same issue, they didn't.

They seem to know what they're doing.

not in this case, they don't.

you've already admitted you don't know the facts in the case and aren't
interested in learning them, so you're not in a position to comment.

You be sure to contact the Australians and tell them you've
adjudicated the case and found there's no cause for action.

no need. they'll figure it out on their own after apple files for a
summary judgement (or australian equivalent).

They'll certainly listen to some nobody poster like you and withdraw
their action, send a bouquet of posies to Apple, and retreat in defeat
once they've heard that you've decided they have no case.

nothing more than another one of your attacks.

I don't have to know the specifics of the case to know that *you*
can't decide they have no case.

you absolutely *must* know the specifics in the case to comment.

anyone who looks at the facts in the case can *clearly* see that it
isn't apple that's at fault but rather the noname repair shop that lied
about being able to properly fix iphones which mislead users into using
their services. the resolution is between the user and the repair shop.

On 11/04/2017 1:08 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Me
wrote:


http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/06/tech...suit-error-53-
iphone-brick/index.html

further proof that money grubbing lawyers exist everywhere.

Well no...

well yes.
Well no. The lawyers working for ACCC are employees on salaries, they
personally stand to gain (or lose) nothing.

The lawsuit is being lodged by the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission - a government authority - not private legal firms in class
action as is common in the USA.

they don't have a case at all. the error 53 issue was a bug that was
fixed in a later system update. the problem has already been solved.

They do have a "case" - they're suing Apple in Federal court - the court
will decide on the allegation that "Apple appears to have routinely
refused to look at or service consumers' defective devices," if those
devices had been repaired outside of Apple, "even where that repair was
unrelated to the fault."

That Apple had a "bug" - that was later fixed - isn't the issue.

In article , Me
wrote:


http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/06/tech...lawsuit-error-
53-iphone-brick/index.html

further proof that money grubbing lawyers exist everywhere.

Well no...

well yes.

Well no. The lawyers working for ACCC are employees on salaries, they
personally stand to gain (or lose) nothing.

perhaps not personally, but their employer sure does.

the fact that they're going after apple and not the repair shops shows
that it's nothing more than a money grab.

The lawsuit is being lodged by the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission - a government authority - not private legal firms in class
action as is common in the USA.

they don't have a case at all. the error 53 issue was a bug that was
fixed in a later system update. the problem has already been solved.

They do have a "case" - they're suing Apple in Federal court - the court
will decide on the allegation that "Apple appears to have routinely
refused to look at or service consumers' defective devices," if those
devices had been repaired outside of Apple, "even where that repair was
unrelated to the fault."

why would apple need to look at a device that was damaged by someone
other than apple?

apple has zero obligation to fix something that an incompetent repair
shop broke.

do you sue nikon or canon because they won't fix your camera after your
local camera shop ****ed it up, particularly if the camera shop doesn't
have the proper equipment or the factory training to do the repair at
all and lied about being able to fix your camera?

the issue is with the repair shop who lied to the public that they
could repair the phone when they could not and then improperly did the
repair after being hired by the user, who is partly at fault for not
having fully vetter the repair shop.

nothing about the attempted repair involved apple. the issue is between
the user and the repair shop and also that the repair shop misled users
to gain business.

That Apple had a "bug" - that was later fixed - isn't the issue.

actually it's *exactly* the issue because the claim is that apple
'refused to service bricked phones'.

apple *did* service the phones by releasing an update that the user
could install at any time, even though apple was not responsible for
the problem. that also means that the phone wasn't actually bricked,
otherwise the firmware update could not have been installed at all.

in other words, in-home service to fix an out of warranty repair.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:08:42 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Me
wrote:


http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/06/tech...suit-error-53-
iphone-brick/index.html

further proof that money grubbing lawyers exist everywhere.

Well no...

well yes.

The lawsuit is being lodged by the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission - a government authority - not private legal firms in class
action as is common in the USA.

they don't have a case at all. the error 53 issue was a bug that was
fixed in a later system update. the problem has already been solved.

There seems to be much more to it than just error 53. According to the
article cited by the OP:

"The regulator is accusing the U.S. tech giant of violating
consumers' rights by refusing to service certain iPhones and iPads
that were disabled by a software update."

.... and those certain iPhones and iPads were those which

"Through the software update, Apple effectively "bricked" devices
repaired by third parties and then "refused to look at or service"
them,".

In other words Apple were discriminating against those devices which
had previously been repaired by other than Apple. It is the
discrimination which is the offence, not the error 53. There may be a
very good reason for the discrimination but Apple will have to prove
this in court.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens