Many people ask me what I have against Microsoft. After all, they gave the world MS DOS, Windows 95, Excel, and Word, right? Yes, but for every great success they have a parallel case of taking something great, and tearing it down for no apparent reason. Newest example: The T-Mobile Sidekick.
For those who may not remember, if you were a happy SmartPhone user in the days before the iPhone - and were not a Crackberry addict - odds are you used a T-Mobile Sidekick (a.k.a. Danger HipTop). This device was a beautifully-designed (albeit somewhat chunky) phone built from the ground up for e-mail, web browsing, and instant messaging. At a time when people were debating how many characters should be displayed on a black-and-white text-only "mobile website", the Sidekick was rendering CNN in full-color with graphics. And all data synced effortlessly with online servers from which users could view all the info as easily as MobileMe is today, or could download data to Outlook. I owned a Sidekick II and III, and loved them both as they kept me connected places that broadband and even dial-up could not reach. I only left the line when the iPhone came out.
This past year, Microsoft - in an attempt to salvage its failing Windows Mobile/Windows Phone/Windows CE line of phones - bought out Danger and took ownership of the whole system which they transformed into "Project Pink". This past week, Microsoft attempted to do a basic upgrade of their storage system for the online data services which failed catastrophically. And apparently, they had failed to do regular backups, so there was no fallback position. Critical customer data was lost, and T-Mobile was forced to advise Sidekick owners "not to turn off your phones" lest the data be lost forever. This one event has likely doomed the Sidekick and Project Pink forever, and cast a shadow over "Cloud Computing" for the future.
Now, T-Mobile is being sued for the data loss in to separate class-action lawsuits. Look for this to quickly be followed up by lawsuits by T-Mobile against Mocrosoft, and perhaps by Microsoft against the people who sold them Danger. This is going to be a messy blame game for all involved.
Rest in Peace, Sidekick. You'll be sorely missed.
UPDATE 2:45 PM: Microsoft now claims all data has been recovered. Here's hoping they are right.
lawsuit etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
lawsuit etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
15 Ekim 2009 Perşembe
2 Ekim 2007 Salı
Woman Sues Apple Over iPhone Price Drop
This is ridiculous. Dongmei Li is suing Apple for $1 million dollars in compensatory damages plus punitive damages. Why? She doesn't think that it's fair that she bought a 4GB iPhone 3 days after it was released for full price and now Apple isn't selling it so she can't sell it for as much of a profit as she could have. Prices on electronics fall. Yes, it was surprising what Apple did, but they didn't do anything wrong, other than upset people. Even then, they refunded the $200 to anyone who bought the iPhone 14 days before the announcement of the price drop and gave a $100 store credit to anyone who bought the iPhone before that. I can understand being upset, but suing for $1 million+? That's just one more sign of how crazy our country has gotten. I've said this before, the American dream has changed. Instead of work hard and move yourself up the ladder, we've switched to find something to sue for. I hope this woman gets laughed at by the judge and it never even goes to trial.
14 Haziran 2007 Perşembe
The Pants Suit
When I first heard about this case, I thought "stupid lawsuit". When I saw it again last night, I thought, "I was thinking about blogging on that." When I saw it again tonight, I thought, "This is a judge that at least should know the law. What part of the case is the news not reporting?"
For anyone who hasn't heard, a Washington, D.C. administrative law judge named Roy Pearson is suing a "mom and pop" dry cleaner owned by Jin, Soo, and Ki Chung for $54 million. The suit started over a pair of lost suit pants and was originally for $67 million.
As best I can tell, here's what has happened. Pearson took his suit to the Chung's shop for a $10.50 alteration. The suit was worth over $1,000. When Pearson went back to pick up his pants, they couldn't find them for three days. After three days, the Chung's produced a pair of pants that they said was Pearson's, but Pearson disagreed and demanded that the Chungs pay for the suit. The Chungs would not pay as they believe the pants they are trying to give Pearson are his. Pearson filed a law suit for $67 million that was later dropped to $54 million. He arrives at these figured based on $65 million under Washington, D.C.'s consumer protection act and another $2 million under common law. Of these claims, Pearson is looking for $2 million for his "pain and suffering" and another $500,000 for the cost of defending himself. The rest would be used to encourage lawsuits similar to his. The Chung's have offered settlement options, but Pearson refuses to budge. Pearson now says that this is no longer about the pants, but about two signs the Chungs had in their window. One said "Same Day Service" and the other said "Satisfaction Guaranteed".
Thoughts:
1. The suit was blue and maroon and the pants the Chungs have are gray. They appear to be the wrong pants.
2. The pants have cuffs. Pearson claims that he hasn't worn cuffed pants since the 70s and photos of his wardrobe show that he has no other pants with cuffs. Again, they appear to be the wrong pants.
3. Pearson admitted that when he started this suit he had no job and only $1,000 to $2,000 to his name. This appears to be, as the defense has suggested, Pearson's way of trying to get himself back into a good financial position at another's expense.
4. Pearson cried during his testimony about his pants. This guy is either unstable or putting on a show. They're pants.
5. Pearson is asking for $15,000 for his rental car fees as this is the only dry cleaner in the area and he doesn't have a car. Having a dry cleaner that you can get to without a car is not a guaranteed right so this is a frivolous charge.
6. The judge presiding over the case has closed the "same day service" issue so now it is about the meaning of "satisfaction guaranteed". While "satisfaction guaranteed" means different things to different people, most sane people seem to think it doesn't mean that the customer gets whatever they want. Pearson disagreed with this idea in his testimony saying that "satisfaction guaranteed" meant they have to do whatever he says to make things right.
Some interesting quotes:
"There is no case in the District of Columbia or in the United States that comes anywhere close to the outrageousness of the behavior of the defendants in this case." - Roy Pearson
"I'm very concerned about it. You're standing here as a lawyer, making an argument, and you have an obligation to the court about what the cases are about." - Judge Judith Bartnoff
"I do think that this is a very important statute to protect to consumers, and I also think it's important that statutes like this are not misused." - Judge Judith Bartnoff
"This case is very simple. It's about one sign and the plaintiff's outlandish interpretation." - defense attorney Chris Manning
"The Chungs, who immigrated from South Korea in 1992, have grown disillusioned with the United States and might return to their native country" - defense attorney Chris Manning
Technically, due to the number of offenses and the time it has been, Pearson is claiming the right amount which is why the judge hasn't simply thrown the case out. Still, this seems to be a case that should have been open and shut in favor of Pearson in small claims court. Does anyone see this differently? Is this just a case of a punishment that was set with large companies in mind (due to the cost) and is being used against a small company?
For anyone who hasn't heard, a Washington, D.C. administrative law judge named Roy Pearson is suing a "mom and pop" dry cleaner owned by Jin, Soo, and Ki Chung for $54 million. The suit started over a pair of lost suit pants and was originally for $67 million.
As best I can tell, here's what has happened. Pearson took his suit to the Chung's shop for a $10.50 alteration. The suit was worth over $1,000. When Pearson went back to pick up his pants, they couldn't find them for three days. After three days, the Chung's produced a pair of pants that they said was Pearson's, but Pearson disagreed and demanded that the Chungs pay for the suit. The Chungs would not pay as they believe the pants they are trying to give Pearson are his. Pearson filed a law suit for $67 million that was later dropped to $54 million. He arrives at these figured based on $65 million under Washington, D.C.'s consumer protection act and another $2 million under common law. Of these claims, Pearson is looking for $2 million for his "pain and suffering" and another $500,000 for the cost of defending himself. The rest would be used to encourage lawsuits similar to his. The Chung's have offered settlement options, but Pearson refuses to budge. Pearson now says that this is no longer about the pants, but about two signs the Chungs had in their window. One said "Same Day Service" and the other said "Satisfaction Guaranteed".
Thoughts:
1. The suit was blue and maroon and the pants the Chungs have are gray. They appear to be the wrong pants.
2. The pants have cuffs. Pearson claims that he hasn't worn cuffed pants since the 70s and photos of his wardrobe show that he has no other pants with cuffs. Again, they appear to be the wrong pants.
3. Pearson admitted that when he started this suit he had no job and only $1,000 to $2,000 to his name. This appears to be, as the defense has suggested, Pearson's way of trying to get himself back into a good financial position at another's expense.
4. Pearson cried during his testimony about his pants. This guy is either unstable or putting on a show. They're pants.
5. Pearson is asking for $15,000 for his rental car fees as this is the only dry cleaner in the area and he doesn't have a car. Having a dry cleaner that you can get to without a car is not a guaranteed right so this is a frivolous charge.
6. The judge presiding over the case has closed the "same day service" issue so now it is about the meaning of "satisfaction guaranteed". While "satisfaction guaranteed" means different things to different people, most sane people seem to think it doesn't mean that the customer gets whatever they want. Pearson disagreed with this idea in his testimony saying that "satisfaction guaranteed" meant they have to do whatever he says to make things right.
Some interesting quotes:
"There is no case in the District of Columbia or in the United States that comes anywhere close to the outrageousness of the behavior of the defendants in this case." - Roy Pearson
"I'm very concerned about it. You're standing here as a lawyer, making an argument, and you have an obligation to the court about what the cases are about." - Judge Judith Bartnoff
"I do think that this is a very important statute to protect to consumers, and I also think it's important that statutes like this are not misused." - Judge Judith Bartnoff
"This case is very simple. It's about one sign and the plaintiff's outlandish interpretation." - defense attorney Chris Manning
"The Chungs, who immigrated from South Korea in 1992, have grown disillusioned with the United States and might return to their native country" - defense attorney Chris Manning
Technically, due to the number of offenses and the time it has been, Pearson is claiming the right amount which is why the judge hasn't simply thrown the case out. Still, this seems to be a case that should have been open and shut in favor of Pearson in small claims court. Does anyone see this differently? Is this just a case of a punishment that was set with large companies in mind (due to the cost) and is being used against a small company?
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)