• E-mail this page
• |  Print this page
• | 
• | 
• | 

Top 6 Lamest iPhone Lawsuits

Apple always has been a target for lawsuits. With close to $15 billion in cash gathering dust in its bank accounts, it's no wonder that disgruntled or disillusioned customers and competitors might seek a payday. Here are six of the most onerous cases.

Do some of these people have legitimate complaints? Probably. Are some of them taking it a bit too far? I think so.

6. Klausner v. Apple, et al: This lawsuit was just announced this week and is patent related. Klausner Technologies is alleging that it holds patents that cover the visual voice-mail feature of the iPhone. Klausner said the patents in question (U.S. Patents 5,572,576 and 5,283,818) already are being used in products from Time Warner AOL and Vonage. It is seeking $360 million in damages from Apple, AT&T, and visual voice mail company SimulScribe.

Might Klausner have a legitimate complaint? Possibly. I guess that is for the courts to decide.

5. Cisco V. Apple: Just days after Apple announced the iPhone at MacWorld, Cisco's feathers were ruffled because it already trademarked the product name iPhone. So Cisco sued for willful trademark infringement. Apple had to have known about the trademark before announcing its own iPhone, but went ahead with the name anyway. Apple spokesman Steve Dowling called the Cisco lawsuit "silly," and noted that there are other companies using the name iPhone for VoIP products. Apple said Cisco's trademark was "tenuous at best." "We're the first company to ever use the iPhone name for a cell phone," Dowling said. "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're very confident we'll prevail." They did.

4. Trujillo v. Apple: Jose Trujillo was ticked off because he felt Apple didn't properly disclose that the iPhone's battery wasn't user replaceable before he purchased an iPhone. So he filed a class action lawsuit. In it, he complained that:

Unknown to the Plaintiff, and undisclosed to the public, prior to purchase, the iPhone is a sealed unit with it's [sic] battery soldered on the inside of the device so that it cannot be changed by the owner. The battery enclosed in the iPhone can only be charged approximately 300 times before it will be in need of replacement, necessitating a new battery annually for owners of the iPhone.

In reality, Apple claims:

A properly maintained iPhone battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 400 full charge and discharge cycles. You may choose to replace your battery when it no longer holds sufficient charge to meet your needs.

No word on whether this suit has been settled or not.

3. Holman & Rivello v. Apple & AT&T: This one is ridiculous. Filed shortly after the 1.1.1 firmware update bricked tons of hacked iPhones, Paul Holman in Washington state and Lucy Rivello in California complained that Apple and AT&T conspired to lock the iPhone to AT&T's network, and prevent people from using it on the network of their choice. In particular, the lawsuit read, "Apple and AT&T agreed to go beyond these [previous] tactics and to take affirmative steps to break the iPhones of consumers who lawfully unlocked the AT&T SIM card or who installed third-party apps." Lawyers for the two complainants said Apple and AT&T broke numerous state laws and filed for $1.6 billion in damages. Apple didn't respond to this one, and it must still be working its way through the California and Washington state legal systems.

Seriously, folks. When you buy just about ANY OTHER new phone and activate new service, it is locked to the network you use it on, at least for a period of six months. Why not sue every other phone manufacturer for the same grievances? It's not like Motorola, LG, Samsung, Nokia, or others don't have large bank accounts, too. (OK, maybe not Motorola.)

2. Kliegerman v. Apple: Herbert Kliegerman bought an iPhone and then took it to Europe. Because the iPhone is locked to AT&T's network, he couldn't use a European carrier's card when traveling. The result? A $2,000 bill when he returned home. His beef was this:

Kliegerman and his attorneys at Randall S. Newman, P.C argue that had AT&T allowed him to purchase and use a SIM card from a foreign wireless carrier, he would have been able to utilize iPhone internationally at fees substantially less than the $2,000 charged by AT&T. They note that AT&T has always provided unlock codes for non-iPhone handsets in the past when requested by a customer.

Um, no offense, Mr. Kliegerman, but I think it was widely disclosed from day one that the iPhone would only work on AT&T's network. I think subscribers have to bear some responsibility when traveling overseas. Data roaming (as well as voice call) rates are always going to be higher when roaming abroad. Still, the fact that the iPhone is completely locked down and can't be unlocked to use other SIM cards is annoying.

1. Li v. Apple: This one takes the cake. As many of you remember, Apple dropped the price of the iPhone from $599 to $399 in early September, just two months after the initial release of the device. Many early adopters felt cheated. They considered the $200 price drop a slap in the face to loyal customers. Dongmei Li felt that slap harder than others, and filed a $1 million lawsuit against Apple for it. In her complaint she alleges, "the price reduction injured early purchasers like herself because they cannot resell the product for the same profit as those who bought the cell phone following the price cut." So in other words, she was hoping to make a quick buck by selling an iPhone on eBay? And because she couldn't do that, she felt she was entitled to $1 million? C'mon.

« Get (And Give) The Gift of Open Source | Main | Another Network Management Startup Challenges The Status Quo »