Nano lawsuit.

**Jason** · #1 October 24th, 2005, 11:33 AM

BBC Reports of lawsuit regarding nano...

Quote:

The lawsuit alleges that Apple launched the music player despite knowing its design would limit its life.

The legal action follows a rash of complaints from iPod Nano users who reported cracked and scratched screens.

Apple said a bad batch of Nanos had caused those problems and denied the device was more likely to scratch than other models of the popular player.

Commenting on the lawsuit, Apple said: "We do not comment on pending litigation."

Coating questioned

In the first 17 days that the iPod Nano was on sale, Apple sold more than a million of the credit card-sized music players.

But the gloss of the early September launch of the Nano was marred by reports that screens of some devices were cracking or scratching very quickly. Protests were led by Matthew Peterson who started a website to force Apple to admit the problems and replace gadgets.

Now Jason Tomczak, another disgruntled Nano customer, is at the centre of legal action over the gadget.

Represented by Seattle-based legal firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Mr Tomczak filed a lawsuit on 19 October in the San Jose District Court which alleges that the Nano is too delicate for normal use.

Paperwork supporting the filing says that iPod Nanos "scratch excessively during normal usage, rendering the screen on the Nanos unreadable".

The lawsuit pins the blame for the scratching on changes Apple made to the design of the music player to make it as thin as possible.

It alleges that screen and controls in the Nano are beneath a film of resin much thinner than in other models. It alleges that other versions of the iPod do not scratch as easily because they are covered in a thicker, stronger plastic coat.

Mr Tomczak launched the legal action after a replacement iPod Nano also suffered scratching soon after he got it.

He is seeking the return of a $25 fee he had to pay to send the player back to Apple, plus the original cost of the gadget and damages.

The lawsuit was filed by Mr Tomczak and "on behalf of all others similarly situated" but will require a ruling by a judge to have it granted class action status.

Surging interest in the iPod in all its forms helped Apple report its best ever financial results in the year to 24 September when it reported profits of $430m (£246m).

symphonix · #2 October 24th, 2005, 11:59 AM

Its because of frivolous lawsuits like this that the nano sells for $299 and not $199.
And last time I checked, the iPod nano was a music player, not a video player.

Have a look at this coverage of Matthew Peterson from ArsTechnica:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...2005/9/28/1373

Looks like he's taken to harassing Apple store employees as well now, even after getting his nano replaced by Apple. Its pure attention seeking rubbish.

**Jason** · #3 October 24th, 2005, 12:15 PM

As much as I dont like his tactics, I have to agree, every nano ive seen has been in pretty bad shape, but at the same time i don't know exactly what they have been through.

Do we have any nano owners here?

**fryke** · #4 October 24th, 2005, 12:29 PM

Friend of mine has one for two weeks now. No scratches that are really bad. A couple of small ones like I have on my iPod 4G. Gotta say: I hate those lawsuits. Hate's a harsh word? I mean it that way.

**Jason** · #5 October 24th, 2005, 02:30 PM

See the only thing that I personally think is different is the way they marketed it. I think the nano is put in a position that its going to get scratched more simply because they are kinda marketing as something you slip in your pocket, whereas the ipod is generall a case on the belt type of thing.

Hmmmmm

**Jason** · #6 October 24th, 2005, 02:31 PM

*note* this doesnt mean i agree with said lawsuit, but i do think that apple dropped the ball putting the same or less coating on something that supposedly is supposed to be a pocket item.

**fryke** · #7 October 24th, 2005, 03:08 PM

I dunno. Having used mobile phones and portable music players as well as PDAs for more than a decade now, I can safely say I *know* one doesn't keep those items where the keys are. Or if one does keep them there, one accepts some scratches. I don't have some specialised case for my iPod, it resides in one of my jacket's pockets - usually with nothing else in there. It gets some scratches over time, but that's just normal... The nano's no different here. Maybe the smaller screen makes the scratches more evident, but to create a _lawsuit_ out of this... If it'd scratch _itself_ or become unreadably scratched within a matter of days: I'd take it back to the dealer and claim the device is faulty and would want a replacement. That's it. A _lawsuit_? That's just crazy.

**mdnky** · #8 October 24th, 2005, 04:57 PM

I bought my 30GB Photo in June of this year and it's got it's share of scratches, most all from slipping in my pocket (jean type material mostly) with no keys or coins. It's going to happen no matter what coating they put on it...common-sense dictates when you rub something soft (plastic) against something abrasive (jean material or other coarse fabrics) scratches will occur. The metal back even shows those tiny light scratches.

Most of it is the materials used in the construction...shiny smooth plastics and metals in white and 'chrome' will show minor scratches many times over what a grey or other medium color in a dull finish will.

If I wanted to keep it from happening, I would have acquired a case of some type. Personally I don't think it really matters...the thing still works just like it should. As far as a lawsuit about it...it's a joke. The guy should have used some plain old common-sense, end of story. Hopefully they (judge/judges/jury) figure that out and deny him.