First Lawsuits Filed Against Apple for Slowing iPhones

from extremetech.com

Over the years, iPhone owners have often wondered aloud if Apple was doing something to slow down older devices. Now, we know that yes, it does do that. Just a few days after admitting that it has been quietly throttling older iPhones with degraded batteries, a pair of lawsuits have been filed against Apple alleging fraud and deceptive practices.

It became clear during the last few iOS version updates that Apple had opted to apply performance throttling to older devices. It wasn’t until Geekbench ran comparisons with various iOS versions that iPhone owners had any proof. Apple was forced to issue a statement in which is admitted to slowing down iPhones. In some ways, its position makes sense, but the way it handled the situation is terrible.

The situation has to do with how lithium-ion batteries age. We’re all familiar with batteries losing capacity as they get old, but they also have less voltage. It turns out Apple didn’t include enough headroom for the battery, and its voltage can fall below what is needed to power the custom A-series system-on-a-chip. Without enough voltage, the phone can just shut down without warning. Apple’s solution to this was to add performance throttling to iOS based on battery voltage. So, if your battery is degrading, your phone gets slow.

The first class-action lawsuit filed in Illinois accuses Apple of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Art. Specifically, the filers point to Apple’s decision not to notify users it was going to throttle their phones. As had been pointed out, very few would suspect a battery issue as the root cause of sluggish performance. That could lead consumers just to buy a new phone, which is to Apple’s advantage.

Another suit filed in Los Angeles claims Apple’s phone throttling plan “was never requested or agreed upon.” This suit also suggests Apple is hoping to get consumers to upgrade by slowing down their phones rather than simply reporting that the hardware might need service.

It looks like Apple’s decision to introduce this “feature” secretly is the main issue here. Even if Apple’s intentions were pure (which is certainly up for debate), making these performance changes in secret looks very suspicious. For a company that claims to care about the user experience, this whole fiasco makes Apple look quite disconnected from the concerns of its customers. Class actions like these are notoriously slow to litigate, so iPhone owners might end up with a small settlement in a couple years.

Apple's big lie about job creation, and other bogus claims

from InfoWorld.com

Just look at these statistics!

Suspicious stats are a staple of tech marketing that deserve to be exposed for the flimflammery they are



Apple has created or supported more than 500,000 jobs. Phishing attacks cost the economy $234 billion a year. And giving social and mobile CRM tools to salespeople makes them 26.4 percent more productive. All these preposterous numbers are floating around the Web these days, peddled by PR people who count on easy hooks to sell their products, burnish their clients' images, or advance an agenda.

Apple's attempt at statistical flimflammery is the most offensive because it's a transparent attempt to change the public conversation about Apple from the question of atrocious labor practices in the Chinese factories that make iPhones and iPads to job creation. (Of course, yesterday's announcement of "the new iPad" will help in the diversion as well.)

Apple's bogus labor study
Here's what Apple posted on its website last week: "Throughout our history, Apple has created entirely new products -- and entirely new industries -- by focusing on innovation. As a result, we've created or supported more than 500,000 jobs for U.S. workers: from the engineer who helped invent the iPad to the delivery person who brings it to your door."

Breaking down those stats, Apple says it is responsible for 304,000 current jobs across a wide array of industries, including engineering, manufacturing, and transportation, as well as another 210,000 in the "app economy."

Apple actually employs 47,000 people in the United States, so where did the other 450,000 come from? Multipliers, a standard statistical tool that economists use to derive the effects of spending (or not spending) on the economy. But as you learned a long time ago, garbage in equals garbage out.

Take, for example, this statement: "This figure [the jobs number] also includes workers in Texas who manufacture processors for iOS products, Corning employees in Kentucky and New York who create the majority of the glass for iPhone, and FedEx and UPS employees."

Wow. Sure, delivery companies derive revenue when its drivers drop off your new iPad. But -- duh! -- they'd be working anyway delivering books from Amazon.com and towels from Bed, Bath and Beyond. Do Corning employees do nothing but make glass for the iPhone, and do those folks in the bunny suits in Texas only work to make CPUs for Apple? Obviously not. But those are the kind of assumptions built into that projection. Speaking of projections, Apple assumes that its new headquarters in Cupertino, Calif., will create 7,000 jobs.

Similarly, it assumes that "the 248,000 registered iOS developers in the U.S." develop only for Apple. I seriously doubt that. What's more, the success of iOS has obviously had a very negative effect on developers of other operating systems, such as BlackBerry, and those folks are out of work or now developing for Apple. How big is the actual gain? We can't tell, though I'm sure there is one.

I could go on at some length, but I'm sure you see my point. What's more, the timing of this release makes it all the clearer that Apple is desperately trying to clean up its badly tarnished corporate image.

Apple does create lots of jobs and makes real contributions to our economy. Inflating those numbers for the sake of favorable PR simply makes the company look petty, dishonest, and -- maybe worst of all -- contemptuous of the smarts of its customers. Likewise, security companies make products that are needed, but as their products have become more commoditized, they increasingly rely on scare tactics and bogus studies to sell their services.

If it sounds too good to be true ...
Generally, bogus numbers dazzle us with their sheer size. But there's another tactic to watch out for: amazingly exact numbers.

Witness Nucleus Research, which claims that mobile CRM makes salespeople more productive. It doesn't give just a ballpark estimate; it presents a precise number: 26.4 percent.

I read through the study and saw lots of anecdotal evidence that mobile and social CRM is helpful to salespeople. I believe it -- but how it derived that number is something we simply don't know, nor can we tell who paid for the study. One could guess.

Don't be fooled by the axis of fakery.

Apple Again Cites Inaccurate Evidence in Samsung Patent Case

from pcworld.com

I reject reality and replace it with my own!

Apple has filed inaccurate evidence again in a case against Samsung, this time in the Netherlands, where the company is arguing Samsung's Galaxy S smartphones are too similar to its iPhone 3G.

Apple also has an ongoing case in Germany, part of a global intellectual property battle with Samsungin the mobile phone and tablet market.

In addition to the charges that Samsung's Galaxy devices are "slavish" imitations of Apple's designs, the two companies are also clashing over several alleged patent infringements. (See also "Samusng Galaxy vs Apple iPhone: Business Features.")

Apple has provided flawed visual evidence of similarities between the iPhone 3G and Samsung's Galaxy S smartphones to the District Court in The Hague, an investigation by Webwereld.nl, a Dutch IDG publication, has found.  This time, a picture of a Galaxy S smartphone has been resized to match an iPhone 3G.

During the court hearing last week, Samsung's lawyer, Bas Berghuis of Simmons and Simmons, claimed that Apple has been "manipulating visual evidence, making Samsung's devices appear more similar to Apple's." Berghuis, however, did not show evidence of his allegations.

Webwereld's investigation found that one of the pictures provided by Apple as evidence in the Dutch case is either wrong or manipulated.

Hey...wait a minute!

Size Misrepresented
On page 77 of the complaint, seen by Webwereld, Apple's lawyers have provided a picture of an iPhone 3G next to a Samsung Galaxy S as "an example of the similarity relevant to copyrights."

But the picture Apple submitted of the Galaxy S is inaccurate and does not match the real Galaxy S. Further analysis has confirmed this assessment. The Galaxy S, introduced in The Netherlands in July 2010, is both taller and wider than the iPhone 3G. According to Samsung, the dimensions of the Galaxy S are 122.4 by 64.2 millimeters. The iPhone 3G measures 115.5 by 62.1 millimeters. In the text, Apple confirms that the Galaxy S has "some non-identical elements, such as the slightly larger dimensions."

But the picture of purported Galaxy S has been resized about 6 percent, making the Galaxy S appear smaller and more similar to Apple's phone. The height of the purported Galaxy S that Apple displays matches the iPhone exactly. The aspect ratio has not been measurably altered.

Apple also provided an unknown number of other pictures of Samsung's smartphones and tablets side-by-side with its own in separate productions, which were not available for inspection. There's only one picture of an iPhone side-by-side with a purported Galaxy S in the complaint itself.

A legal expert on intellectual property cases, who declined to be named, asserted that when pictures are filed both in the complaint and in separate productions, those in the complaint would be considered more important. Visual evidence presented there typically indicates that the plaintiff wants to emphasize its significance, he said.

Similar Action with Tablet
Earlier this week, Webwereld uncovered a similar case in Dusseldorf, Germany, where Apple has also filed faulty evidence in court. Apple's German complaint contains a picture of an alleged Galaxy Tab 10.1, resized and its aspect ratio distorted so that it resembles the iPad 2 very closely.
Mark Krul, a lawyer at the Dutch firm WiseMen and a specialist in IT and intellectual property law, is astonished by the findings. "It surprises me that for the second time incorrect presentations of a Samsung product emerge in photographic evidence filed in litigation," he said. "This is not appropriate and undermines Apple's credibility both inside and outside the court room." Krul said that litigating parties are required by Dutch law to provide "complete and truthful" evidence to the judge, adding that this is even more imperative when infringement on design and copyrights is alleged.  Krul noted a crucial difference with the German case, in which the judge granted a preliminary "ex parte" injunction, without a hearing or an opposition brief from the defendant. In The Hague, Samsung's lawyers lodged an opposition and flagged the flawed evidence.
Krul doesn't presume that the examples of the faulty evidence are malice on the part of Apple's lawyers. "But Apple has certainly some explaining to do, if only to clear itself from the appearance of improper behavior," he said.  Webwereld has briefed Apple and its Dutch counsel, Rutger Kleemans of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, on the results of the investigation and submitted questions to clarify the issue. He declined to respond. Samsung also declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation.

The complaint is only available for viewing at the court in The Hague. Due to these restrictions, Webwereld has made a rendering of Apple's flawed evidence to present the findings visually.
In the Dutch case, Apple seeks a ban on all Galaxy smartphones and tablets in the European Union (E.U), including a complete recall of stock by European distributors and resellers. The court in the Hague will rule on September 15. At the hearing last week, Judge Edger Brinkman stated that if he grants any injunctions against Samsung's products, they would take effect no sooner than Oct. 13.
In Germany on Tuesday, the Dusseldorf District Court changed its preliminary injunction granted last week that prohibited Samsung from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in all E.U. countries except for The Netherlands.
The court, citing uncertainties about jurisdiction, changed its ban to allow Samsung to sell the product in all E.U. countries except for Germany. The first in Dusseldorf.

------------------------------

I would say if this happened once you could chalk it up to mis-communication or blame it on an individual lawyer gone rogue but twice? Come on now Apple.