Buried Apple Privacy Scandal Undermines Its Attacks On Right To Repair Legislation
from the do-as-we-say,-not-as-we-do dept
Apple has never looked kindly upon users actually repairing their own devices. The company’s ham-fisted efforts to shut down, sue, or otherwise imperil third-party repair shops are legendary. As are the company’s efforts to force recycling shops to shred Apple products (so they can’t be refurbished and re-used). As is Apple’s often comical attacks on essential right to repair legislation, which usually involves the company insisting that allowing broader independent and consumer repair of their devices would be a security and privacy nightmare.
Yeah, about that. Apple last week was revealed to have paid a multi-million dollar settlement to an Oregon woman after iPhone repair technicians uploaded explicit images and videos to the internet from a phone that she sent in for repair. In this case, the culprits were employed by one of Apple’s “authorized” repair contractors, Pegatron Technology Service in California. These authorized techs then uploaded the woman’s private conversations and photos to the internet, making it look as if she had done it:
“The videos were uploaded to appear as though the woman herself had shared them on purpose, according to the documents, causing the woman ?severe emotional distress?. The woman was made aware of the incident when friends saw the videos and images on Facebook. The woman sued Apple and eventually settled with the company for a multi-million dollar sum. But Apple was never directly named in the lawsuit in an effort to keep the matter confidential.”
The revelation comes on the heels of a previous instance where an Apple store employee did something very similar. The latest screw up, subsequent payoff, and attempt to bury the settlement rather undermines Apple’s longstanding argument that its own repair process is somehow superior to independent repair shops, and that by making it easier to repair consumer devices, consumers face all manner of alleged privacy and security harm (even if a recent bipartisan FTC report found that wasn’t actually true).
The inconsistency was quickly seized upon by right to repair advocates, who note that Apple has lobbied intensely against the right to repair legislation that has been proposed in more than half of states in 2021 alone. Usually using what right to repair advocates describe as the “benevolent monopoly” argument
“Paul Roberts, a Right to Repair advocate and founder of SecuRepairs.org, calls this argument the ?benevolent monopoly? argument. Yes, we have taken your choices away from you, the reasoning goes, but we did it to protect you from making the wrong choice or being tricked. Science fiction author and activist Cory Doctorow describes Apple?s model as ?digital feudalism,? with the company acting as ?warlord,? forcing citizens to stay within its walls and to abide by its rules.”
But the choice of who should repair devices consumers, John Deere tractor owners, or hospitals own shouldn’t be left up to the manufacturer. Especially if that manufacturer is attempting to monopolize repair in a way that’s not only harmful to customers, but the planet itself.
Filed Under: authorized repair, privacy, revenge porn, right to repair
Companies: apple
Comments on “Buried Apple Privacy Scandal Undermines Its Attacks On Right To Repair Legislation”
Unfortunately, the report doesn’t say how they did that. There may be a much bigger scandal here. Apple’s been saying, to law enforcement and to the public, that their iPhone is so secure even they cannot crack it—and that they’re not going to add a backdoor to allow that.
I doubt these repair techs obtained expensive foreign "law enforcement only" technology for cracking the iPhone. It seems, rather, that they may be able to bypass the security quite casually. Is there a backdoor? Or is it something more mundane, like social-engineering phone passcodes out of dumb customers? (I’d hope Apple would have a policy to immediately "de-authorize" any authorized repair shops caught doing that.)
Find a warrenty
That will get you the product back in less then 1 week, or will replace the product as soon as you show its faulty.
But can we at least create products that will last Beyond 1 year, 1 month and 1 day?
If we cant do that, an the Schematics have been released. What a job to jump into the machines for $10-100, and Fix that 1 faulty piece, that IS designed to fail.
Rapidly becoming academic
Most current Apple products are not really repairable. A laptop may have only three "parts" (assemblies), the components not separable from each other. Once out of AppleCare (three years) it would be cost-prohibitive to replace any of the assemblies; Once declared "obsolete" (five years) assemblies are no longer available at any cost.
The repair process these days is basically exchanging for a partially-recycled unit.
Re: Rapidly becoming academic
You say this, but I’m still repairing my own Apple products. Batteries can be replaced, keyboard keys can be replaced, trackpad cable can be replaced, screens (and digitizers) can be replaced, power cables can be replaced/repaired.
Even the stuff that’s surface mounted… it used to be, back in the day, that you needed a super rare long-necked Torx wrench and a case cracker to get into an all-in-one Mac. I did just fine with a flathead screwdriver and a mallet. I replaced the solder on some old CRT connectors myself when I found out about Apple’s recall AFTER it had closed. Anyway, I digress.
Today, it’s surface mount tools that are as rare as the ROM inserters, Torx sets, etc. were back in the day. I find that all I need is my heat gun, and I can lift off surface mounted mass storage etc, clean the pads, and drop the upgrade on. Sometimes I then need to re-flash the EFI, but amazingly I haven’t had one repair yet that’s failed to be recognized as original.
On the other hand, I’ve had a number of fake batteries that lasted months instead of years.
I still repair Apple stuff from as early as 2005 to keep it running smoothly; this will definitely get more difficult by 2027, but not impossible.
Re: Re: Rapidly becoming academic
I think you’ve confirmed the original point, unfortunately. There’s a big difference between what you’re describing and what a normal consumer would be able or willing to do. While those components are technically repairable, if you’re not doing them yourself then the parts & labour charges from a 3rd party repair shop will be as prohibitive as Apple’s own charges, and that’s even assuming you find a shop with the required experience and expertise to do it properly.
Most things are "repairable" if you do it yourself and you have the knowhow and patience, but if you’re paying people by the hour it quickly becomes easier not to.
Re: Re: Re: Rapidly becoming academic
While true, that’s a slightly different issue. It would be great if Apple made products easy to repair and upgrade, but at minimum they should not be stepping in to prevent others from doing it – even if it remains difficult.
Re: Rapidly becoming academic
Apple is currently going into Hardware chip verification.
Once its put together, it registers ALL the parts and numbers.
Replaces Any part knocks out the computer.
Mac Airlines
"All the stewards, captains, baggage handlers, and ticket agents look and act exactly the same. Every time you ask questions about details, you are gently but firmly told that you don’t need to know, don’t want to know, and everything will be done for you without your ever having to know, so just shut up."
https://fossbytes.com/what-if-operating-systems-were-airlines/
RTR and Warranty
I’ve only a single concern on R2R. And I’ve brought this up before.
Warranty regulations need to be adjusted as well.
If you bring your in warranty item to a non-licensed shop or fix it yourself it should absolutely positively undeniably set in law remove the manufacturers’ warranty requirements
Yes you should have the right to fix your tractor or TV or iPhone.
And JD, LG, and Apple shouldn’t be forced to fix it for free after you screw up the job.
Open up a high voltage appliance and zap: lawsuit.
Replace a cracked screen before swimming and poof, dead phone. Lawsuit.
Law? Open up the right to repair to everyone? It must also protect companies against user stupidity.
Remember there’s a reason your chainsaw manual says don’t sleep with a running chainsaw!
Re: RTR and Warranty
Absolutely not. This has been fought already, and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act prohibits that behavior.
They aren’t. The warranty covers defects in workmanship or materials, and nothing else. If you punch a hole in your oil pan trying to do your own oil change, the manufacturer has no obligation to fix what you broke. If, on the other hand, you bring in your car for warranty work and it has an aftermarket oil filter on it, they cannot and should not be able to deny your warranty.
Re: Re: RTR and Warranty
If the aftermarket oil filter is potentially the cause of the issue, the manufacturer should get the benefit of the doubt.
But such a situation is very unlikely.
Many cell phones are water resistant. Opening the phone destroys that resistance. It takes skilled professionals to correctly seal a phone.
Manufacturers should never be on the line for water damage when a non-certified tech has opened the phone.
Cell phone screens are expensive devices whit thousands of levels of code linked to their operations. If you replace your screen with another the manufacturer of the phone must not be held on the line for screen/touch issues that occurs henceforth.
Note for any damages caused by the new screen. Note for any other damages that may have been caused by the use of a 3rd party screen.
And what about the situation where the repair causes damages. Who is telling the truth, Apple saying the contact was broken by in-licensed repair or the consumer saying nah-ah?
This country is, legally, not-my-fault. From spilling hot coffee to electrocuting yourself in the bath to cutting off your leg with a saw.
To think that there won’t be a rush of botched repairs attempted when the unskilled, untrained, masses begin tinkering.
Right to repair is great, but manufacturers need to be protected against the not-my-fault legal system.
Re: Re: Re: RTR and Warranty
"From spilling hot coffee"
The woman who was suing to cover her medical bills after being scaled to the point of needing extensive skin grafts? Where the courts agreed that McDonalds’ widespread violation of safety laws related to the storage of their coffee was so brazen and repeated that they needed punitive fines above the small amount initially being requested? Yeah, I’m familiar with the whole story – are you?
That story is always a good one to determine who gets their facts from real sources and who gets rabble-rousing bullshit in their diet. No surprise whose side you fall on, yet again.
But, hey, why deal with truth when you’re in here demanding that manufacturers cannot have any discretion with the service they given with their warranty service?
Re: Re: Re:2 RTR and Warranty
Yes. If you buy hot coffee and spill it on yourself you spilled the coffee. I brew my coffee in house, at 205•, hotter than McDonald’s ever did and hotter than Starbucks does
That case was the start of the ‘I’m ignorant thus not responsible, and even if I am I’m still not’ downfall of this country’s legal system.
The lawsuit was bullshite. The ruling was bullshite.
It was then. It is now.
“ But, hey, why deal with truth…”
The truth is a lady ordered HOT coffee, received HOT, coffee, spilled it on herself, and then said she wasn’t responsible for her OWN pain and suffering.
That a bullshite court found in her favour is just another key sign of many-state judges ignoring law.
Anyone who thinks you should be paid for spilling your own coffee is likely part of the problem.
The government and the courts have no business, and zero right, to protect a person from their own actions.
In a country with a legal system that continuously rules people are not responsible for their own actions, the manufacturers must be protected from human stupidity.
Re: Re: Re:3 RTR and Warranty
"I brew my coffee in house, at 205•, hotter than McDonald’s ever did and hotter than Starbucks does"
You probably do a lot of things in your own home that staff serving the public aren’t allowed to do. There’s usually reasons for that difference.
"The truth is a lady ordered HOT coffee, received HOT, coffee, spilled it on herself, and then said she wasn’t responsible for her OWN pain and suffering."
No, that’s the lie you’ve been fooled into believing.
The actual truth is that she didn’t sue at all originally, and when she did eventually sue it was just for her medical expenses. When the issue was investigated, they found that it was not a one-off, but a company-wide systematic breaking of health and safety codes that had caused others to be injured (around 700 between 1992 and 1994). Therefore, the court (not the woman) decided to implement punitive damages well over and above the medical bill originally requested.
At no point did she say that she wasn’t responsible for spilling the coffee, and in fact the court found she was 20% liable. McDonalds, however, we found to be mostly at fault, and were punished not just for this case, but for the widespread systematic behaviour they had displayed in the years up until the woman’s injury.
It’s amazing how many lies you’ve been convinced to believe on every subject, but you do confirm who is programming you with what to think.
"Anyone who thinks you should be paid for spilling your own coffee is likely part of the problem"
Anyone who thinks that this was what the court case was about is a bigger part of the problem.
Re: Re: Re: RTR and Warranty
Manufacturers are already free to deny warranty claims for this reason. Nothing about that would change with right to repair.
Just look at the car market now. Third party repair shops literally everywhere, as well as people working on their own cars. Are car makers awash in bogus warranty claims? No, of course not. There will be a few at the margins, but that is no reason to screw over millions of consumers like you want to do.
Re: Re: Re:2 RTR and Warranty
You miss the point. I support the right to repair. I also support protection from frivolous lawsuits.
Because I’m not talking about certified auto shops. I’m talking about uncertified ones
The auto industry has AST. Go to a non-ast shop, there aren’t many, and it’s on you fir what happens.
So if you bring your 6 month old Chevy to a third party shop that isn’t certified to fix a defect, say, bad air bag censor, and it causes other problems how does Chevy have any out on further, free, repair?
Granted most people bring under warranty repairs to the manufacturer (or a licensed service partner) Regardless of the product.
People generally don’t bring their recall cars to AAMCO for a recall.
And they don’t go to Joe’s car lot for warranty work.
Re: Re: Re:3 RTR and Warranty
So am I. There is no need to be certified to repair something.
No, it isn’t. I can do work on my in-warranty car myself, and unless the manufacturer can demonstrate that the work that I did is what caused the problem, they are prohibited by federal law from voiding my warranty.
https://www.ncconsumer.org/news-articles-eg/making-the-most-of-your-auto-warranty.html
Again, they are free to deny warranty claims due to faulty third party or personal repairs. They are NOT free to deny warranty claims unrelated to those repairs.
Re: Re: Re:3 RTR and Warranty
"You miss the point. I support the right to repair. I also support protection from frivolous lawsuits."
That’s fine. Allowing companies to decide to honour warranties or not depending on the situation has nothing to do with that. If a product has a 3rd party repair and it fails, that’s on the 3rd party. If it has one and someone brings it in for a warranty, there’s no reason why a company should be legally forced to, say, legally have to refuse a replacement missing key because someone previously repaired the screen.
"People generally don’t bring their recall cars to AAMCO for a recall.
And they don’t go to Joe’s car lot for warranty work."
Yet, if they do it’s far more preferable for the manufacturer to decide not to honour any further repairs than it is for your idea to legally force them to refuse further custom because they made a bad decision on their first repair.
Re: Re: Re:4 RTR and Warranty
“ Yet, if they do it’s far more preferable for the manufacturer to decide not to honour any further repairs than it is for your idea to legally force them to refuse further custom because they made a bad decision on their first repair.”
Ah, i see what your on here.
I wasn’t saying they should be forced to refuse. I was saying they should’ve be forced to complete or resolve a secondary or tertiary repair.
Beyond that, when the ignorant rupture a pouch battery they, and they alone, should be responsible for the burns.
Now you understand my McDonald’s tie-in
Re: Re: Re:5 RTR and Warranty
"I wasn’t saying they should be forced to refuse"
You said "it should absolutely positively undeniably set in law remove the manufacturers’ warranty requirements", which means that you did say that their choice in the matter should be removed automatically by law. If they have a choice, it cannot be "positively undeniably" dictated since the manufacturer can deny it.
I know reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, but maybe you should also work on your writing skills so that you’re not saying the exact opposite of what you claim to mean.
"Now you understand my McDonald’s tie-in"
I understand that you believe the fictionalised version of the lawsuit that was invented by people interested in getting support for tort reform that people who understand the real version would never support. A shame that this poor woman’s attempt to get help with her medical bills, whose meagre settlement request was denied to force a court case – during which such severe wilful negligence on McDonald’s part was revealed that the court decided they needed way more severe reprimands than were requested, is still being used as a prop to anger morons.
Re: Re: Re:6 RTR and Warranty
“ remove the manufacturers’ warranty requirements”
Removing requirements would leave it up to the manufacturers.
“ such severe wilful negligence on McDonald’s ”
What frigging negligence?
Brewing hot coffee? Serving hot coffee to seniors? What?
“ Maybe this is why you’re a Murdoch fan”
Oh ha ha. You’re the one who took a statement of fact and turned it into something not said.
Like the Stephen wanker stop reading “between the lines” because you are both (and many many others) failing: looking for something never said.
Life was better when everyone had access to data to fix things themselves.
But the US has become a country of not my fault law.
Apple is NOT responsible when you puncture your battery.
Thank the courts for McDonald’s flavoured water.
The hotter the brew, the more oils released, the stronger and more robust the coffee.
Not only did this lawsuit force McDonald’s to brew garbage coffee, the ripples cause me to be forced to reprogram every coffee maker I buy to brew at a reasonable level.
Just because I understand where Apple is concerned doesn’t mean I necessarily agree.
Personally I think all computer/electrical/tech training should be offered free, government funded. All schooling in general. And available to anyone who wishes to try. But letting joe six pack of fix his phone in his trailer with no protections for the manufacturer is a prime starting block for many I’m too stupid lawsuits.
Re: Re: Re:7 RTR and Warranty
"Removing requirements would leave it up to the manufacturers."
So, how is that different from now? Why would a new law be required to allow them to drop warranty support for devices that have violated the terms of their warranty?
Even your backtracking doesn’t make any sense here.
"You’re the one who took a statement of fact and turned it into something not said"
I reacted to the words you typed in the order you typed them.
"Not only did this lawsuit force McDonald’s to brew garbage coffee, the ripples cause me to be forced to reprogram every coffee maker I buy to brew at a reasonable level."
Awww poor baby. 700 people injured, some requiring major surgery, and your takeaway is that you’re hard done by because your lazy ass can’t depend on factory default settings.
"Personally I think all computer/electrical/tech training should be offered free, government funded."
I can go with that, although I’d push for some additional classes in civics, reading comprehension, evaluating sources and maybe a spot of empathy so that there’s less people like you infecting the planet.
Re: Re: Re:8 RTR and Warranty
I’m not backtracking. Right now it’s implied the manufacturer has the right of refusal. That needs to be codified.
“ Awww poor baby. 700 people injure”
700 spills out of many many millions is rather small. That 700 people dropped, spilled, or punctured their coffee cup is to be expected.
Yes, all educational should be available free of charge. I have always supported that.
Otherwise the same stupid people who spill their coffee and make a legal issue out of it could do the same thing when they puncture their battery or get cut on a broken screen.
Re: Re: Re:9 RTR and Warranty
Right now they are explicitly forbidden from voiding a warranty due to third party parts or repairs. And they already have every right to refuse warranty service due to defective third party parts or repairs.
Re: Re: Re:9 RTR and Warranty
The funny thing is that you think that you’re attacking some greedy idiot trying to profit from her mistake. While in reality you’re defending a major corporation who knowingly put their customers at greater risk to gain a competitive advantage. Typical conservative mindset – I bet you’d suddenly be on the other side if you were personally affected, but so long as you don’t personally know those 700 people who cares about public health!
Re: Re: Re:10 RTR and Warranty
Nope. I’ve had lithium ruptures in the last 15 years. One heavily damaged hard shell and the rest soft pack.
My work. My fault.
And I’ve had Starbucks, Peet’s, and Seattle’s best all spilled on me. Usually due to the lid not being on tight.
It’s my job to check that stuff before picking it up.
I have burn scars on my upper left hand from Starbucks. I didn’t let some ambulance chaser suggest it wasn’t my fault. I didn’t verify the lid was tight.
“ Typical conservative mindset”
Actually libertarian. Take responsibility for your own action.
Re: Re: Re:11 RTR and Warr
"I didn’t let some ambulance chaser suggest it wasn’t my fault"
Neither did the woman in the case you misrepresent. Hell, even the court agreed that she was partly responsible in the judgement you keep talking about incorrectly. You probably need to read some of the actual documents instead of relying on sources known to skew things to fit a certain narrative.
"Take responsibility for your own action."
That’s fine. But, sometimes there’s more than one actor involved in a situation. In the hot coffee case, the woman would have been fine if she hadn’t been clumsy. However, she’d also have been fine if McDonalds wasn’t deliberately keeping temperatures above industry standards and above a level that they knew had already caused at least 700 injuries previously.
So, the judgement against McDonalds wasn’t about the single case, it was about a decade of wilful negligence that they refused to deal with until someone got injured to the point of requiring extensive surgery, and even then they refused to help with the medical costs they helped create. This is fully discussed in the case judgement, but it tends to get left out of the version of the story that was pushed to generate support for legal reform that wouldn’t be supported if the full truth was more widely reported.
The woman should take responsibility for her own actions? Sure. But, it takes two to tango and McDonalds also needed to be held responsible for their actions. You think you’re arguing personal responsibility, but all you’re really doing is arguing that a corporation needs to be allowed to get away with negligent behaviour so long as they believe the cost of fixing it is below the amount they pay out in lawsuits.
Re: Re: Re:12 RTR and
“ However, she’d also have been fine if McDonalds wasn’t deliberately keeping temperatures above industry standards…”
The temperature McDonald’s brewed and held their coffee at made it at the time one of the top choices. We see how lowering the temperature worked out. They still sell a lot but they are regularly rated lower for their drip coffee.
Funny, today that standard is very close to the McDonald’s level. 205-209.
Being a klutz doesn’t make McDonald’s responsible. Finding a judge that thinks it does doesn’t make it fact.
“… it was about a decade of …”
Brewing coffee Apx where the industry currently brews it.
“ This is fully discussed in the case judgement…”
I’ve read the case. A judge decided McDonald’s was liable. Doesn’t mean I agree.
“McDonalds also needed to be held responsible for their actions“
What, brewing coffee at a temperature that happens to be higher than the US standard but is well in line with the temperature of most European countries at the time?
The range that all large coffee advocate groups agrees with, the range that most of the US industry uses today?
Re: Re: Re:13 RTR
What’s interesting about conversations here is that you inspire me to double check my facts before responding. While that rarely indicates that my recollection of the facts were wrong, it does help complete my understanding of the actual issues.
"Being a klutz doesn’t make McDonald’s responsible."
It doesn’t, but it’s possible for more than one person to be responsible for something. If you crash your car, you might be the idiot for the accident. If your car manufacturer negligently installed house window glass instead of windshield safety glass, they’re still responsible for your shredded face.
"I’ve read the case. A judge decided McDonald’s was liable. Doesn’t mean I agree."
A jury decided that McDonalds was partially liable. The fact that the jury found them to be so offensively and deliberately negligent and gave the plaintiff ay more than she originally demanded does not make her in the wrong.
"the US standard but is well in line with the temperature of most European countries at the time"
Well, you have to be more specific than that. The issue in question is not a Santa Clarita coffee shop vs an Italian coffee shop in a common piazza, it’s specifically about a drive-thru fast food situation. Obviously, if you’re being brought a coffee to enjoy at a table brought to you by an Italian waiter at the place you’ll drink it, the rules and implications are going to be very different compared to a drive thru balanced precariously in the place you’ll spend the next 2 hours driving.
So, what were the standards in early 90s European drive-thru compared to the US, bearing in mind that the woman in this case would have not had a medical bill to sue over in the first place if she’d been in the EU?
What I find interesting her eis that when you look at the Wiki for the case, it says this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
I wonder… is this a case of a silly lawsuit negatively affecting your life. Or, is it another case of you falling for propaganda by people who want you to blame your woes on someone else while they just switched to a lower quality bean supplier?
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
Well convergent says 195•-205• F
Most western sources agree. I could be wrong but I believe it was JavaPresse that put that range out.
I know most Starbucks brew at “205” but range between 200-210• though the warmer level is considerably lower. Which is why I tend to go for made to order drinks like the formerly featured Clover press that brews at 210 and finishes the rest and break at 200•
Out of the box my espresso/coffee machine, a Jura 3, brews at 98•, which is 208f.
Most authentic Keurig machines brew between 200-205.
I also know many franchise McDonald’s dropped their brewing temp.
I’ll tell you this much, you hand me a coffee under 160•f I’m handing it back. It tells me it’s old or it’s not brewed hot enough.
Hotter brewing allows for more oil to escape, giving a thick, rich, bitter flavour.
Oh, and cold brew? That’s not Coffee, it’s a coffee derived beverage.
It’s missing most of the oils, is often far less acidic, and has a much softer (weaker) flavour.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
"Well convergent says 195•-205• F"
Cool. What do they say about specifically serving in a drive-thru scenario, for which there are going to be different safety standards on a number of things.
Now that you’ve deflected the conversation away from your misrepresentation of the lawsuit and the motivations behind it, let’s concentrate on your determination to ignore the part of the situation that makes differing standards relevant.
"my espresso/coffee machine"
Again, you can do a lot of stuff at home that an establishment serving the public is not allowed to do. I’m not sure why you’re bringing this up, except as another attempt to deflect from the specifics of the case after being reminded how badly warped your version of the story was.
"I also know many franchise McDonald’s dropped their brewing temp."
Source? Also, did they do that as a direct response to the lawsuit, or are you including franchises that have done it for any reason in nearly 2 decades since, no matter their reasoning for doing so?
"Oh, and cold brew? That’s not Coffee"
Neither is beer, but neither is relevant to the parameters of the case you have been called out on for misrepresenting.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
“I’m not sure why you’re bringing this up…”
As a counter to the belief and finding that this was ‘defective’ temperature.
“ Source”
I was tone of the people who reset some machines and set up new ones at the franchise I worked for at the time. Franchisees are self insured.
Cold beer, grr. Cold liquor good cold beer not so much.
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
"As a counter to the belief and finding that this was ‘defective’ temperature."
As a counter to something people weren’t saying, but you chose to address instead of the points actually made. I sense a trend…
The issue was not whether or not the temperature was "defective". It whether the temperature served at (not brewed at) was known to be a risk to customers in the scenario present (i.e. standards at non-drive-thru scenarios are irrelevant) and whether it differed from standard industry practice. The court found that it was, and so applied partial responsibility for the accident at McDonalds’ feet.
"I was tone of the people who reset some machines and set up new ones at the franchise I worked for at the time"
I assume you mean "one of the people". So, you don’t have a source, you just ask me to believe your unsupported claims of having been personally involved. Sorry, I don’t do that at the best of times, and you’ve shown no reason for me to believe you at face value in these conversations.
So, we’0re back to where we were before. You’ve misrepresented the case, skipped over or distracted from the points that were actually not correct in your version, and now we’ve even gone from a claim of a company-wide temperature policy being changed to independent franchisees making decisions for individual restaurants, which may or may not be directly related to the outcome of this case. Even if they are, it seems to be a case of overcautious insurance demands in the face of increased liability, and even if that’s annoying to you as a consumer, it doesn’t really change the facts of the court case itself. Which is that a woman asking for some help with medical bills was refused a small settlement, and the discovery involved with a full trial exposed so much wilful negligence that the jury felt compelled to issue punitive damages well above what the plaintiff was actually requesting.
You can argue all you want about whether you think that negligence was in evidence and whether the action taken as a result was correct, but the facts of the case remain, and they’re not what you originally presented.
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
Here I stand by what I said. The fact that a little old lady garnered enough sympathy from a jury to get a ruling… doesn’t change the case facts.
A judge generally has the ability to make a ruling regardless of the jury when the facts out weigh the verdict.
So again she managed to convince a judge she was a poor victim.
She didn’t have it dumped on her. It wasn’t thrown at her. She wasn’t assaulted. Despite the ruling the entire process of the spill was 100% her fault.
And you are highly unlikely to find anything that would change my mind about a reasonable serving temperature.
Maybe she mistakenly believed the coffee would be as cold as the burgers used to be. Given how long made sandwiches could sit in the “bin” back then… I’d give here some wiggle room on that thought.
But the reality is
I order hot coffee.
It receive hot coffee
I spill hot coffee.
I am at fault.
I can not find any way around that chain of events that’s say anyone else is responsible for my own suffering.
People don’t take enough responsibility for their own actions.
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
"The fact that a little old lady garnered enough sympathy from a jury to get a ruling… doesn’t change the case facts."
It doesn’t, yet your misrepresentation of those facts continue.
"She didn’t have it dumped on her."
She didn’t claim it was, and the jury also agreed that she bore some responsibility.
"Despite the ruling the entire process of the spill was 100% her fault."
Yes, nobody has claimed otherwise in reality. The issue is simply whether a person receiving something in the context of a drive-thru should expect to need extensive skin graft surgery in the case that an accident happens (and, yes, accidents do happen even if a person is careful). If instead of spilling it herself, she’d been t-boned by someone running a red light on the way out of the drive-thru, the injury may have been the same or worse. Remember, the issue was not this case, but the 700 previous cases exposed during discovery – and they won’t all have been the person being careless with the coffee.
Your insistence on misrepresenting the case to make you feel like you have a point is glaring.
"People don’t take enough responsibility for their own actions."
But, boy, will people queue up to demand a corporation doesn’t have to do so.
But, again with the misrepresentation. At no point was anyone claiming the woman did not accept responsibility for her part in the accident. They just wanted McDonalds to accept responsibility for their part.
Re: Re: Re:20 Re:
A) the facts are the facts: as presented by both side.
The jury looks at the presented facts of case and decides.
~the jury
Decided McDonald’s was (primarily, and majority) at fault.
The judge entered the verdict as judgement.
I’m not misrepresenting… I’m simply on the other side of the opinion. If
I were on the jury I would have been a a dissenter.
I don’t think McDonald’s was wrong then. I don’t think it was wrong now
You look at the case and think how many people have been burned.
I look at the case and thin what a tiny tiny percentage Of container failure, human error, and acts of natural existence have resulted in injury.
McDonald’s can move 700 cups of coffee in a busy store mid-morning in under half an hour.
I can feel pity, empathy, etc, without pointing the finger at big business.
Re: Re: Re:21 Re:
"A) the facts are the facts: as presented by both side."
Yes, which is why I wonder why you keep lying about one side, since the real story is public record.
"I were on the jury I would have been a a dissenter."
Well, if you were on the jury you would have been exposed to the actual arguments rather than the warped fictional version you’ve apparently been programmed to believe, that doesn’t match what happened in court – so maybe not?
"McDonald’s can move 700 cups of coffee in a busy store mid-morning in under half an hour."
So, permanent disfigurement is fine so long as they can profit from a bunch of other people while you’re waiting for surgery?
"I can feel pity, empathy, etc, without pointing the finger at big business."
Yes, you avoid holding people with money at fault for their own actions, profit means more than lives to you, as we’ve seen with your decision to vote for the guy who killed half a million people to try and protect his economy.
Fortunately for the rest of us, sick little shits like you are still in the minority. Long may corporations be held responsible for their actions when they place profit over human suffering.
Re: Re: Re:22 Re:
A) where did I either lie or make a mistaken false statement?
B) I tend not to blame others for something entirely my fault
C) she spilled her own coffee.
D) your Trump hatred doesn’t move me. I hold people responsible for what they do. Including myself.
I have yet to see any knowledgeable person who prefers proper coffee distribution say anything negative about McD’s actions.
I question if this is your hatred of big-money corporation ms overriding your perception.
Re: Re: Re:23 Re:
"A) where did I either lie or make a mistaken false statement?"
Pretty much your entire version of events, ranging from the claim that she was trying to avoid responsibility for the accident to the implied profit motive you keep attaching to her.
"B) I tend not to blame others for something entirely my fault"
Good for you. What do you do when someone else is partially at fault? What do you do when an accident happens and someone else’s negligence makes it far worse than it should have been?
"C) she spilled her own coffee."
Nobody except your threadbare strawman has ever claimed otherwise.
"D) your Trump hatred doesn’t move me."
Yeah, I know that anyone dumb enough to have voted for his this time around won’t be moved by facts. I just hope that the groundswell of people who were in spired to kick his ass out don’t falter and allow the GQP to gain any power over sane people again in the near future.
"I hold people responsible for what they do"
Unless they’re a corporation and there’s profit to be had, in which case it’s OK to lie and cheat your way out of responsibility for your unsafe practices. After all, doing your part in protecting the public you serve might shave a tiny amount of your margins, and those are more important than humanity. to you.
"I question if this is your hatred of big-money corporation ms overriding your perception."
My perception is fine, and I’m dealing with verifiable documented facts. You, on the other hand, are determined to stick to you fictions, and worship those teaching them to you. The Democrats apparently control all the sources publishing factual information, anyway…
Re: Re: Re:24 Re:
A)” trying to avoid responsibility for the accident to the implied profit motive you keep attaching to her.”
She attempted to (and) receive(d) compensation for spilling her coffee on herself. Therefore releasing (some, all, any) responsibility.
The very action of asking for someone else to pay for her issue is at the very least a partial movement of responsibility.
B) “ Good for you. What do you do when someone else is partially at fault?
Such situations Are beyond rare. If two people drive full speed through a signed intersection you have partial responsibility. Spilling your own coffee when it’s served at what any coffee aficionado considered reasonable is not a case of mixed blame.
C) good. We all agree then.
D) not relevant. You bringing it up or my reply.
Too bad the selection isn’t public record.
I wonder how many experienced, selective, coffee drinkers got excluded.
You made a comment that is very enlightening. This would not even be an issue if she had proper federal healthcare.
This is a case where the jury felt pity, pointed the finger, and declared a judgement.
In reality: McD’s sold coffee and served it at a temperature above standard for low end fast food but well below coffee house to go orders. Then or now.
Order a fresh espresso at any coffee company and show me a service temp below 200•. Order a fresh brew at any coffee company and show me a temp below 200•
The only mistake McD’s made was trying to compete with the rising coffee house movement.
I’m not seeing negligence anywhere.
What I DO see is a case of people feeling sorry for some old lady who spilled her coffee.
Re: Re: Re:25 Re:
"Therefore releasing (some, all, any) responsibility."
She’s never tried absolving responsibility for the accident itself. But, there was more than one issue at hand here, so she sued over the issue that McDonalds bore responsibility for.
This is quite simple – except to people desperate to lie about the situation so that they can pretend it was frivolous or out of greed.
"Such situations Are beyond rare"
But, they do happen, and when they happen more than one person shares responsibility, and all parties need to face the consequences of that responsibility.
"C) good. We all agree then."
The only person disagreeing is the idiot lying about the woman claiming she had no responsibility.
"D) not relevant. You bringing it up or my reply."
I bring it up merely because I see how easily and fully you’re swayed by the lies and misrepresentations in this case, and was observing how they reflect on your choice of con artists and fraudsters for your news intake and leadership elsewhere.
"I’m not seeing negligence anywhere."
Thankfully, people like you are not in charge of public safety.
"This is a case where the jury felt pity, pointed the finger, and declared a judgement."
Again, stop lying. The reason they awarded the judgement was not because they felt pity for the woman and the horrific injuries she suffered as a result of the company’s negligence, but because there were at least 700 victims of the same behaviour and McDonalds needed to face punitive measures for their pattern of negligence.
"What I DO see is a case of people feeling sorry for some old lady who spilled her coffee."
No, you’re seeing people look beyond the Murdoch-driven lies about the case and see a woman who was permanently disfigured during an accident. Who was then awarded way above the medical costs she was suing for when the jury realised that the reason for the injury was not a one-off case but a decade-long pattern of knowingly placing profits above public safety despite knowing that hundreds of people were injured in the same way, injuries that apparently weren’t reflected by competitors.
Whether or not you agree with the public health standards applied in this case is not relevant to the parts of the case you keep misrepresenting, and the lies you tell about the people supporting the verdict as it exists in real life.
Re: Re: Re:26 Re:
“… except to people desperate to lie about the situation so that they can pretend it was frivolous or out of greed.”
It’s not greed on her part. But it opened up a whole new cash card system for lawyers.
The woman didn’t lie. Her lawyer said McDonald’s was to blame. In the end the judge found them mostly responsible.
I find them not responsible.
Again my comment
What I DO see is a case of people feeling sorry for some old lady who spilled her coffee.
Maybe they found something to justify it. I wasn’t in the room.
If I was the evidence presented would have me vot no on restitution.
It’s not this case. From a public relations stance McD’s would have been better off paying her bills without the case.
It’s what this case opened up! Like a lady buying a $5 remote controller and handing it to their kid who promptly took it apart and swallowed the battery.
It’s the stupidity of the cases that survive now.
Hand holding nanny state. Huk huk firework go boom huk huk.
The reaction is to ban them because a drunk dunce decided to hold one in his hand?
Does the drunk sole against the bar for his dui? People have tried.
Who’s at fault when you use a microwave in the bath tub?
Today we have the “injured at…” industry from this case.
It’s not the case itself. It the premise it sets as precedent.
Re: Re: Re:27 Re:
"It’s not greed on her part. But it opened up a whole new cash card system for lawyers."
Then, stop attacking the poor woman with false claims about her motivations.
Also, McDonalds still deserve most of the criticism here. If they had settled for a reasonable portion of the medical bills originally requested, rather than take it to court and have their long history of doing just that exposed, none of us would ever have heard of this case and the lawyers would have had a couple of grand for their troubles.
"What I DO see is a case of people feeling sorry for some old lady who spilled her coffee."
You see what you want to see, apparently, since you have decided that the feelings of your strawman are more important than my actual opinions that I’m telling you directly.
"It’s what this case opened up"
Whether you disagree with the verdict or what you imagine came as a result of the case is not relevant to your complete misrepresentation of every aspect of the case. You’re entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. I’m asking you stop making the up latter.
"It’s not the case itself."
Again, i can agree with you if you want to talk about your opinions on what came after. Just stop lying about the original case and its participants in order to make your point. A point which, I’ll note, you’ve only just started making after it was clear I wasn’t going to entertain your misrepresented idea of the facts.
Re: Re: Re:28 Re:
The case:
Lady bought HOT coffee
Lady spilled coffee.
Lady hires lawyers to sue for medical expenses for spilling her coffee.
Judge finds McD’s (mostly) liable.
That’s the readers’ digest version of the case .
I, as in me, don’t believe the coffee was too hot.
I, as in me, don’t think 700 or so cases is a pandemic mismanagement.
I, as in me, don’t think the verdict was correct.
I, as in me, find the lady 100% responsible.
The problem here isn’t paying someone for burns they are completely responsible for
It’s the shift of liability the ruling created
Slip on the well marked set floor? Go to court
Choke on popcorn? Go to court
Give your child a remote and leave them too it? Go to court
Spray the garden hose into an electrical outlet? Go to court
This case opened the door for every ambulance chaser out there!
It waived personal responsibility so much it creates the ‘not my fault’ law industry.
I haven’t changed my view or my point.
What we have here is a case of personal error that opened the floodgates for not my fault law. Because a court ruled a lady was (mostly) not at fault for her own actions.
Re: Re: Re:29 Re:
"Lady hires lawyers to sue for medical expenses for spilling her coffee.
Judge finds McD’s (mostly) liable."
You missed the usually things you miss out while misrepresenting the case. The steps you missed were:
Here’s a handy breakdown if you need one, although there are many other sources. None of those sources tell the version you wish to believe in, except for the ones determined to rewrite history as you want to in order to pretend that
https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/the-mcdonald-s-coffee-cup-case-separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html
You can disagree with the lawsuit, the verdict and the legacy all you want. Just stop making shit up about the case or leaving out vital details.
"I, as in me, don’t believe the coffee was too hot."
The court disagreed with you, and I’ll side with them rather than someone who’s known to have a somewhat shaky relationship with facts when they affect his narratives.
"I, as in me, find the lady 100% responsible."
She was not responsible for the temperature of the coffee at the point of serving being higher than standard, and that’s the only part of the case where liability is in question. Nobody except your strawmen have every questioned the spillage, only the horrific injuries caused by the temperature of the liquid.
In this case, I’ll side with the court again, not the person determined to misrepresent their findings, or ignore them because he thinks he knows better.
"This case opened the door for every ambulance chaser out there!"
Even if this were true, lying about the original case doesn’t help your objections to what followed. Especially since until the last couple of comments all you had was self-satisfied whining about how you think coffee tastes, and this is an angle that’s only just appeared after you were convinced that false personal attacks on the original plaintiff wasn’t winning the argument.
"What we have here is a case of personal error that opened the floodgate"
What we have is a case that you’ve constantly misrepresented until you changed your narrative to this current one because the evidence does not support your previous claims. Forgive me if I find your conclusions less than compelling.
Re: Re: Re:30 Re:
“ misrepresent their findings, or ignore them because he thinks he knows better.”
The facts in evidence don’t sway me.
I, as in me, do not the ink the beverage was too hot to the point of legal liability. Therefore the rest of the argument falls flat for me.
The parts you keep pointing out about surgery, suffering, are a sad case of an accident. I consider the beverage at an optimal temperature and therefore the rest of the case issues are reviewed in that light.
Lady spilled coffee. Oops.
I find no liability. That’s my decision and I disagree with the court’s ruling.
Re: Re: Re:31 Re:
"The facts in evidence don’t sway me"
As I said, you’re entitled to your opinion, as wrong as I believe it is. All I’m asking is that you stop misrespresenting the facts in order to hold that opinion.
"The parts you keep pointing out about surgery, suffering, are a sad case of an accident."
An accident whose result would have been very different if McDonalds had not been serving the coffee at those temperatures. You can disagree all you want, but there’s 2 people at fault for the injury, even if there was only one at fault for the accident.
"I consider the beverage at an optimal temperature"
Which is fine in your own home. When you serve the public different standards apply, and when you serve in one context (e.g. a drive-thru) different standards are considered to others (service at a sit down restaurant, for example).
"I find no liability. That’s my decision and I disagree with the court’s ruling."
Again, that’s fine. It’s just a shame that you have to lie about and ignore key parts of the case in order to do so.
Re: Re: Re:32 Re:
“ An accident whose result would have been very different if McDonalds had not been serving the coffee at those temperatures. You can disagree all you want, but there’s 2 people at fault for the injury, even if there was only one at fault for the accident.”
Ah. Perfectly said.
The key for me is I don’t hold McDonald’s liable for the injury as there wouldn’t have been an injury without the accident.
As the accident wasn’t caused by McDonald’s I can’t, personally, find them at fault for the injury.
If I fall off a ladder with a running chainsaw and cut my leg off. Who is held responsible? The ladder company. For making a ladder that didn’t have a chainsaw catcher? The chainsaw company for not making an instant stop chainsaw? Or me. For having an accident, and falling off the ladder?
It’s not a lie to say the coffee would not have burned the lady had she not spilled it. It was perfectly safe within the vessel it was served in.
It only became dangerous when it left its vessel in a manner unintended by the supplier.
If you knock over a 20gal water tank heater and get burned is the water tank company at fault of your burns?
If not, than why is the company supplying a 16ounce hot liquid container responsible when you knock it over?
It’s not the case: it’s the precedent of the ruling.
Re: Re: Re:33 Re:
"The key for me is I don’t hold McDonald’s liable for the injury as there wouldn’t have been an injury without the accident."
The injury happened, and they are liable for their part in it. Nobody’ saying the accident itself was their fault, only the things they did that made it far worse than it should have been.
"If I fall off a ladder with a running chainsaw and cut my leg off."
Let’s use a real example of things that actually happen, not an idiotic strawman constructed for you to feel smug about your denial of reality.
A better example would be, let’s say you’re involved in a car accident. It was totally your fault, no blame there. But, some safety glass was incorrectly installed and injures you, or there’s a known design defect that leaves you with something lodged in you that shouldn’t be there. The car manufacturer may still be liable for their failures and the injuries they caused, even if there’s no
question that they didn’t cause the original accident.
Would the coffee burn had happened if the woman hasn’t been clumsy? No, but accidents happen. When they did, the reason the woman requires skin grafts is because of McDonalds’ insistence at keeping the coffee at a higher temperature for normal. This was their decision so they were responsible.
This is a very easy concept to understand, though I do understand that many self-proclaimed "libertarians" have problems with understand the effects actions have on other people when evaluating their selfish version of reality.
"If you knock over a 20gal water tank heater and get burned is the water tank company at fault of your burns?"
Depends on the parameters of the case. Who installed the heater? If they did it and it wasn’t done properly, leading to you being able to knock it over easily, they might be liable. Why was the water so hot? If you set it yourself, that’s on you. If the manufacturer provided it with a default well above normal industry standards knowing that it occasionally causes people to be severely injured, they might be liable.
What you constantly try to ignore is that this is not a zero sum game. Sometimes one party has all the responsibility. Sometimes it’s shared between multiple parties. Holding one party responsible for their part does not absolve others of responsibility for their part.
"It’s not the case: it’s the precedent of the ruling."
This would be more convincing if you hadn’t spent 2 threads misrespresenting the case before settling down into this take.
Re: Re: Re:34 Re:
“ This would be more convincing if you hadn’t spent 2 threads misrespresenting the case before settling down into this take.”
This has ALWAYS clearly been my take. What this case was, way the first extremely public liability case where the host and not end user was held at fault.
What followed was a wave of “not my fault” lawsuits.
Let’s take hot water heaters for example. Specifically gas powered water heaters.
In most states they can NOT be secured by law in this country. Mainly because knocking one over would fluidicly saturate the soundings in case of a line burn fire.
I have two. And knocking them over takes about 100fp of force. I keep mine at 205•. Well within the manufacturer’s tolerance of 210• but also Apx 10• above the standard for my area. . It reduces 2nd floor hot water delay. 195•, the recommended upper limit in the standard here, would cause burns in seconds. But down in Florida and southern Texas, the general upper standard is 140•! Head to Alaska a d 210• is common.
So while I can easily understand you’re opinion on privAte vs in house vs drive through… I simply disagree.
That said I’ve never intentionally “lied” or even intentionally mis-stated the case.
Most liability cases are decide against the plaintiff. But when your seating 8, 10, 12 people in a jury box the ability is there that you get a majority over sensitive people voting their Conscience, regardless of the law.
Granted the oft-ignored right of the jury is to also judge the law itself,
In liability and negligence cases people tend to be swayed by emotion.
Re: Re: Re:35 Re:
"This has ALWAYS clearly been my take"
Maybe so, but you spent so long misrepresenting the case in ways I felt compelled to address that maybe it didn’t come across to me. I apologise if in between your various different false claims I missed some overarching point.
"What this case was, way the first extremely public liability case where the host and not end user was held at fault."
No it wasn’t. It was the first one (maybe not even that) where such a large reward was given, and this was misrepresented at the time. This may have given rise to an influx of people thinking they’d get easy money for any self-inflicted accident, but that’s the misreporting of the case that did that, not the case itself.
Again, I’m focussing on what the case was actually about and what the court actually said, and I don’t see the problem. It’s only when you start fictionalising aspects of the case that it gets rage inducing, so I avoid doing that.
If you have a problem with the case, stop misrepresenting liability, the arguments presented in court, the reason for the case, the motivations of the plaintiff, etc., and start talking about the facts of the case. if you stick to the facts you’ll find less opposition even if I don’t agree with your conclusions.
"In most states they can NOT be secured by law in this country"
Then, I admit that I have no idea what you’re trying to get at, I can only presume you’re picking yet another cherry-picked hypothetical situation because you don’t have real world examples to back you up. It’s been nearly 2 decades since the case, during which time you claim the system has been inundated with successful false claims. You must surely have an actual example rather than the half-assed fictions you’re trying to produce here?
"Most liability cases are decide against the plaintiff"
So, despite you wailing and moaning above, there’s not actually a massive influx of successful frivolous cases, and the reality is more like what I’ve been saying where the false representation of the facts let many believe they would get an easy payday, but they don’t in reality?
"So while I can easily understand you’re opinion on privAte vs in house vs drive through… I simply disagree."
You disagree that a company serving the general public should have different health and safety standards to a single person at home? There’s a lot wrong with that, which should be obvious to anyone trying to have an honest conversation.
"you get a majority over sensitive people voting their Conscience"
Which, despite your desperation to pretend otherwise, is not what happened in the hot coffee case.
Re: Re: Re:36 Re:
“ cherry-picked hypothetical situation because you don’t have ”
Forget people. Ignore my 22lb mini bitchpoo.
A 10lb teacup Yorkie can produce over 50+fp on impact.
As of this year I’ve lived in 49 states and 4 territories long enough to require tax payments. Only twice have I found permanently fixed water tanks and one of those require I pay $500 to a contractor to remove 4 bolts. 5-100gal of >190• is far more dangerous than a cup of coffee.
“ there’s not actually a massive influx of successful frivolous cases”
Just defending yourself costs major cash.
Why do you thin so many innocent people settle troll CR cases?
Re: Re: Re:37 Re:
I’m still not sure what the hell you’re blathering on about in the first part, I’ll just take is as an admission that you don’t have concrete examples to give me so you’re trying to imagine scenarios where you have a point.
"far more dangerous than a cup of coffee"
Have you required extensive skin grafts?
"Just defending yourself costs major cash."
That is a problem, but so does being injured due to negligence on someone else’s part. Until the US stops being such a litigious society (which it was well before the coffee case) or adopts a loser pays type of system, you’re not going to be able to avoid such things I’m afraid. But, that’s not the fault of a single misreported case where a corporation was fined for a decade of knowing and wilful negligence.
Re: RTR and Warranty
"If you bring your in warranty item to a non-licensed shop or fix it yourself it should absolutely positively undeniably set in law remove the manufacturers’ warranty requirements"
Why would that be a legal mandate and not at the discretion of the manufacturer under the terms of the warranty?
Apple used to not care at all
Contrary to the first sentence of this story, there was a time, long ago, when Apple included schematics to all of their computer systems as a matter of allowing, nee expecting, the end user to repair their own system.
Re: Apple used to not care at all
Sure, there was a time when (almost) everything you plug in was like that. If not in/on the machine then in the manual.
Much of my older stereo equipment came with diagrams.
Washers/dryer. Oven. TV. Computers, game systems.
Re: Re: Apple used to not care at all
"Sure, there was a time when (almost) everything you plug in was like that. If not in/on the machine then in the manual."
There was also a time before electricity, let alone the internet. You’d probably be happier in that time. and ‘d suggest it, but knowing your political views and misinformation streams I’m having Unibomber flashbacks.
Re: Re: Re: Apple used to not care at all
You’re so locked up in your way of thought you can’t even read what is written without looking for some hidden belief.
So using your methodology (can’t accept that I actually was happy having the information and doing the work myself): you believe the time before electricity was better?
I’ve been a tech a LONG time. I miss having everything in my hands as much as any other old-tymer!
You ineptness in reading into things… seriously stop. Your failing every time.
Re: Re: Re:2 Apple used to not care at all
"So using your methodology (can’t accept that I actually was happy having the information and doing the work myself): you believe the time before electricity was better?"
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Maybe this is why you’re a Murdoch fan – you’re not actually reading the bullshit you’re fed, but inventing what you think they say in your head in order to deal with it?
Have you required extensive skin grafts?
Grafts? No. Damage? Yes. Feel free to request photos. I’d be happy to gross you out ???? ????. And; does imgr linking still work?
Mind you I both have a higher than normal pain tolerance and come from a medical family: I didn’t seek treatment. Nor did I file against anyone. Everclear for disinfectant, vet bond to create an artificial layer of skin, gauze, and 2 weeks of rather annoyance putting on shoes or boots. 3rd degree burns. Beyond the burning when it happened the only real annoyance was walking, jogging, wrestling.
Any contact was painful. We used it for a storyline. 😉
My left foot never healed completely and goes from extreme dry shedding to over shedded Barr second layer.
Law should be: People should escrow all fees up front. Looser pays.
Re: Re:
I have to feeling that there’s some random personal story you’re trying to get at, but you’re so poor at communicating that you’re not making any real sense. Certainly not in a way that presents a reason why a woman asking for basic help with the medical bills for which McDonalds were partially responsible should be so hated and misrepresented by you.
Anyway, as I’ve said, you are entitled to your own conclusions and your own opinion, just not your own facts. The fact that you apparently think you’re a tough guy for being injured and not asking for help doesn’t change any of the other facts.
Re: Re: Re:
The fact is I accepted personal responsibility.
I didn’t think of ‘who can I sue’ I accepted my error and moved on!
I got injured. My fault.
I’ve burned myself with coffee that was drive through. I didn’t sue anyone.
I lost my grip on an unmounted device and drilled a hole through my hand with an electric drill driver. I didn’t sue anyone.
I’ve broken all but two of the bones in my body at one point or another. Most of those were my fault.
I was hit by an ied and have the painful breathing due to shrapnel to prove it. I didn’t sue anyone.
You’re born
Your taxed
You live
Your taxed
You die
Your still taxed.
Life sucks. Shite happens.
Most of it is our fault and personally avoidable. The rest is just nature.
Learn, grow, move along.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, we’re agreed – you are absolutely desperate to avoid any part of reality that disagrees with your preconceived narratives, and you have no ability to understand the issues at hand so long as they don’t affect you personally. You will lie about anything so long as you think you can win something.
"I’ve broken all but two of the bones in my body at one point or another. Most of those were my fault"
"Most"… While I appreciate you not being a sue-happy moron like so many of you tend to be, I do wonder at the mentality of someone who would just let others abuse and break their bodies without an attempt at recourse.
"I was hit by an ied and have the painful breathing due to shrapnel to prove it. I didn’t sue anyone."
Yeah… I call bullshit. How weak do you have to be to make up stories about how much of a strong tough specimen of a man you are who fights through all these fantasies of injury and persecution to feel better about yourself? I bet you’ve never so much as stubbed a toe.
"Most of it is our fault and personally avoidable. The rest is just nature."
Some of it’s corporate greed and deliberate abuse, which is why some of us would like that to be reduced. It wasn’t "nature" that killed 500k Americans, it was your incompetent hero’s actions.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I’d be happy to supply my military discharge. If so desired.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Oh, so the reason why you didn’t sue is because you were in the fucking military and signed up for the risk, which makes it completely different to corporate negligence causing your injuries?
Have you worked hard to be this stupid, or is it a natural talent?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
So did YOU serve?
If not, are you deferred by An or you just a selfish ingrate?
Wow. Yes, back in the day we could repair our electronic devices. SAM Manuals for most any consumer device.
Now. Company will not release tools, tech notes or any data so someone can repair anything. That is the part of Right to Repair that is important.
But, how did I repair my last mobile with cracked screen – bought new mobile.
Do I wan’t local muffler shop under the hood of new Subaru? No way, fking spaceship of control subsystems.
Re: Re:
The only concern I have with ‘right’ to repair is company liability for user stupidity.
The US is a country that really enjoys ‘not my fault’ lawsuits.
I know what I’m doing, fairly well, and have had bad mistakes, like battery rupture.
I can imagine if he reaction of joe six pack tossing it in the sink. Talk about bad to worse.
What about the person who bends the case taking out the screen.
Or the failure to fully resell a water resistant phone. And going for a swim?
Any law that allows right to repair must protect the manufacturer from user stupidity lawsuits.
Re: Re: Re:
Why would that make companies liable for user stupidity?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because that’s what Americans do. Get hurt? Call an injury lawyer.