Friday, August 6, 2010

Mobile Advertising: Electronic Trespass to Chattel, or Nuisance?

Image taken from: http://www.thereviewcrew.com

I have an iPhone 4. Almost every application that I have downloaded (paid for or otherwise) is plagued by advertisements. These advertisements are brought to my telephone via either Apple’s own iAd’s, AdMob, and even AdSense and help keep the price of applications free, or relatively cheap for the consumer.

Previously I discussed my feelings regarding At&t’s new data plans, and how the data used by these advertising sources is not conducive to the limited data packages that subscribers are forced to purchase. However, now it appears that the advertisements have become slightly more burdensome.

Trespass to Chattel is a legal tort defined as a situation where one intentionally interferes with another’s lawful possession of a chattel (e.g., personal property). This theory has been expanded throughout electronic commerce and has been used in situations such as:

1. Sending emails through a server when not authorized to do so; and

See Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal.4th 1342, 71 P.3d 296, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 32 (Cal. 2003) (limiting trespass to chattels under California law to acts physically damaging or functionally interfering with property), and CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Oh. 1997) (granting preliminary injuction on grounds that unsolicited email constituted a trespass to chattels)

2. Using a web-crawler to obtain website information when not authorized to do so;

See eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (granting preliminary injunction on defendant’s use of automated querying programs to obtain information off of plaintiff’s website and over plaintiff’s objections).

The courts of California have been extremely cautious in applying this theory to situations involving less than physical interference/harm. For example, the only reason the court in Bidder’s Edge granted the injunction was to prevent other persons from activating similar programs and thus completely bogging down eBay’s servers. On a similar note, the court in Hamidi did not enjoin the defendant from sending the emails because no real harm could be proven.

Both of these situations seem to support my theory that advertising on the iPhone is nothing less than a trespass to chattel. I say this because when the telephone receives an advertisement, it does so through whatever data source is functioning at the time (Edge, 3g, or Wifi). While this impacts your data plan if you are on Edge or 3G, any data consumed actually disrupts (and diminishes) the device’s battery performance.

In fact, while Wifi is the most delicate on the device’s battery, Edge and 3g are technologies that use a considerable amount of energy from you telephone, and thus impact the integrity of the telephone’s battery.

In conjunction, or in the alternative, battery consumption via digital advertisements might even constitute a Nuisance under electronic law. The traditional tort of nuisance (private) is defined as an interference in the use and enjoyment of one’s property. Traditionally, such definition has applied only to real property, however, it does follow that such a theory could be applied to the situation at hand.

For example, all of the battery consumed due to the transmission of advertisements is that much less battery that the end user ultimately has to operate the device. Certainly it also follows that more battery consumption means more necessity to charge the device, and more pressure to spend money on accessories that enable the user to either sustain battery performance, or charge the battery in remote locations.

Sources:

Citations above were taken from: http://www.tomwbell.com/NetLaw/Ch06.html.

Common law definitions were obtained from:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t047.htm, and http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n025.htm

Posted by CoreyFriedman in 00:19:45 | Permalink | Comments Off

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Reality (Masses (Inception)) Or, ø->(x->(ø/\x)) (Read Below)

Don’t worry, I am not going to spoil it for you.

I have just spent $9.50 to see Inception, which is one of the greatest movies to ever be made while simultaneously being an epic failure.

It is not a failure in the sense of money making capacity because I am almost certain that this movie was sold out in many theatres. It is a failure however, in that it is not a movie for the masses. I say this because the entire movie is not completely comprehensible without a collegiate course in formal logic, or unless the viewer has read Douglas Hofstadter’s Godel, Escher, Bach – An Eternal Golden Braid. Even if you have taken a course in formal logic, and/or read G.E.B., this movie is still an epistemic mindfuck. In other words, it is The Matrix to the nth degree.

The plot of the film takes place simultaneously in reality; in a dream within reality; in a dream within a dream that originates in reality; in a dream within a dream, within a dream, that originates in reality; and within a place in between those dreams known as “limbo”. Ya follow? Basically, what I am saying is that you must not get up to go to the restroom at any point, because if you do, you are almost certainly going to miss a crucial detail.

In this film, every moment counts, and every moment merits equal amounts of brain power.

Eventually things get hazy and this is where formal and propositional logical become necessary to fully understand this film. The reason for this is because, just like in a formal set of propositional logic, one has to determine how a set of rules affects a proof contained within a proof, and how one is to “pop” out of a set of “brackets” (e.g., dreams). Understanding this should allow viewers to comprehend how the characters of this film react and interact according to what is happening in reality, in the dream, in the dream within the dream, and within the dream’s dream’s dream.

Although not apparent, there are significant undertones in this film that mimic Neal Stephenson’s concept of the nam-shub. For example, the basic (and I do mean BASIC) premise of the movie is the ability for one to hijack another’s subconscious within a “shared dream” and input an idea that will eventually go viral. That imputed idea, it is hoped, will have a butterfly effect that will eventually affect reality although it originated within a dream (or a dream’s dream), a meta-reality.

The concept of the “shared dream” is Matrix-like and originates from Plato’s allegory of The Cave. This is the modern virtual reality (meta-reality). The “dreams” in this movie are akin to those meta-realities.

But, taking all of these things together, and toping it off with people being apperceptive within meta-realities, makes for one heck of a movie. The eye candy is great, and the film is not too long. There is action, love, drama, and suspense.

Overall, I would not recommend this movie to many people, or individuals with weak bladders. It is however, the type of movie that I would purchase as a gift for extremely capable friends.

Posted by CoreyFriedman in 16:34:07 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Skeptical of Skepticism. Or, How I Spent My Weekend Dodging the 12-Sided Die.

Nothing says “vacation” like spending a long weekend with 1200 ex-Dungeons and Dragons junkies, World of Warcraft enthusiasts, and those who spent most of their high school existence yelling for help from the inside of a locker. Now-a-days they use a sophisticated term to refer to themselves- they are “skeptics,” a curious breed of scientists, philosophers, magicians, humanists, and people with doctoral degrees. I am always skeptical of people with doctoral degrees. In other words, I was not impressed.

Many of these self-proclaimed critical thinkers don’t believe in god and to me there is nothing logical about that. But, this is their claim to being great thinkers, because of course, they cannot surround themselves with the mundane belief in what they think is a pure fabrication- that is just so, eh, uh, pedestrian.

They tout themselves as atheists and agnostics, but for some reason it seems as though they pray to science. There is something cultish to all of this. They are dogmatic empiricists, which means that they too are guilty of the closed-minded chauvinism that they accuse religious followers of.

This type-a-thing makes me skeptical of skeptics. In other words, I am a meta-skeptic. Sitting, talking, and walking among these self-proclaimed skeptics has made clear to me that not believing in god because of a substituted belief in empiricism and logic does not make you a critical thinker. It just makes you a jaded post high school pseudo rebel.

Though it wasn’t all bad. At the convention, I of course, spoke to James “The Amazing” Randi, met with Adam Savage (pictured below), had Richard Dawkins sign a copy of his new book for me (pictured below), and got to meet Paul Provenza.

Part of understanding is knowing that not everything can be understood.

Posted by CoreyFriedman in 01:25:26 | Permalink | Comments Off

Thursday, July 8, 2010

T.A.M. 8 Moments of Awesome-ness

Me with Adam Savage of Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters at The Amazing Meeting 8.

… Richard Dawkins book signing… Pics to Come.

– Posted Mobilly From My iPhone

Location:Las Vegas

Posted by CoreyFriedman in 08:31:03 | Permalink | Comments Off

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Apple’s iAds are at “iOdds” with AT&T’s New Data Rates

Apple has activated iAds today- a glossy, bandwidth-eating hog of an advertising platform that cannot be deactivated in Apple’s iOS4. It appears however, that the basics of iAds are at “iOdds” with AT&T’s new data rates. For example, AT&T now offers its customers the following new data plans:

200MB for $15 per month, or

2GB for $25 per month.

The former “Unlimited”* Data Plan is no longer offered to new AT&T subscribers. This means that new AT&T customers are limited by one of the above mentioned data plans which essentially caps their data, or automatically charges them for overages. According to AT&T’s website, each additional gigabyte of data will cost users an extra $10 per month**.

Because iPhone iOS4 users are unable to deactivate iAds and because iAd’s use a noticeable amount of data, AT&T customers are essentially wasting otherwise limited data on information that they probably didn’t want in the first place.

If customers are paying for limited amounts of data they should at least be able to determine how their data is used. Additionally customers should be given the ability to roll over unused portions of data, just like unused minutes.

I feel another class action coming on.

*I use quotes to describe the misnomer “Unlimited” because the former plan was never truly unlimited. In other words, AT&T’s use of the word “Unlimited” connoted transferring data at the maximum speed that AT&T’s 3G system could offer throughout one month’s period of time. This is in conflict with the definition of Unlimited meaning: “having no limits in range or scope.” See http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=unlimited

** http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/plans/data-plans.jsp

Posted by CoreyFriedman in 15:02:24 | Permalink | Comments (1) »

Monday, May 24, 2010

How the death of Brick and Mortar Media Outlets impacts your rights as a Consumer

There is a hidden difference between the CD purchased in a store versus the same CD downloaded through iTunes or, Amazon.com. That difference is found in the rights afforded (or not afforded) to the respective purchasers.

When media is purchased at a brick and mortar store, the transaction between the consumer and the retailer is usually said to be a “sale.” However, when media is purchased and downloaded through an online retailer, the transaction is often classified as a perpetual “license.” While this is a problem for consumers, it is a way for publishers of digital content and record producers to control profits earned on copyrighted material.

The rights afforded under a transaction classified as a “sale” or a “license” can differ dramatically. Usually, in a “sale,” buyers are afforded certain rights such as: the ability to resell the purchased copyrighted work under the first sale doctrine, and the ability to engage in fair use. The first sale doctrine allows a purchaser of a copy of a copyrighted work to later sell, give away, or otherwise dispose of the copyrighted material as the buyer sees fit. This is the right that allows people to resell used books, movies, CDs etc.

If the transaction entered into is considered a “license,” which is normally what most pay-for-download transactions amount to, then the first sale doctrine does not apply. Furthermore, whether a purchaser (that is characterized as a “licensee”) may engage in fair use gets to be tricky.

However, the ability for a buyer to engage in fair use allows that buyer to do certain things such as: reverse engineer the copyrighted work, excerpt and comment on the copyrighted work, sample the copyrighted work, as well as a host of other things. Whatever is done under the guise of fair use will be weighed according to several factors:

(a) the nature of the work;

(b) whether the use is for nonprofit/educational purposes or whether it is for commercial purposes;

(c) the amount/substantiality of the copyrighted work taken

(d) whether the use will affect the market of the copyrighted work.

Additionally, whether the individual has a right to engage in fair use depends on the terms of the license agreement (e.g., see your Apple iTunes Terms and Conditions, or your Amazon.com Kindle Agreement). The ability to contract away these rights is however outside the scope of this post.

However, readers should note that just by titling the transaction as a “sale” or a “license” will not be dispositive. Factors such as who bears the risk of loss, the intent of the purchaser and “seller”, the imposition of future restrictions of use, and whether the transaction is considered to be “tethered” will help determine ultimately how such a transaction will be categorized (or re-characterized).

Certainly, over the years, used media retailers have impacted the profits of copyright holders. This is because by selling, and reselling used copyrighted work, any gains, profits, or recoupments are hardly ever split with the author or publisher / record label- as is the case upon the first sale of the item. Theoretically this means that Amazon’s traditional business model (selling used CDs, Movies, Books, etc) is the reason why publishers adore the Kindle. However, by converting tangible media into digital media and by changing the nature of the transaction between the merchant and the consumer from a sale to a license, copyright holders are now able to better control who uses their copyrighted work not to mention the fact that they are now constantly collecting royalties.

What’s a Consumer To Do?

If these rights are important to you as a consumer, consider the cost of purchasing used books instead of licensing them. The same goes for music.

For example: If a used copy of your favorite Chumbawamba CD is selling for $4.00, and downloading it will cost, say $8.00, you are probably better off purchasing the CD used (even with the additional cost of shipping). At least you will have the ability to listen to the music and later resell it.

Posted by CoreyFriedman in 21:11:22 | Permalink | Comments (1) »

Friday, May 7, 2010

Tell All: Palahniuk’s Newest Attractive Nuisance

It’s just about summer and predictably, Double Day has released Palahniuk’s newest read, Tell All. I say “predictably” because it seems as though (not confirmed) that Chuck’s books are released at times when it is opportune for his demographic of readers/customers. This is smart marketing.

Ever since Snuff I have been of the impression that Palahniuk’s writings have become more serious, more difficult to read, and less deranged. This is not good.

I want deranged.

When I went to Borders to pick up the book, it was at staring me, like all customers, right in the face, as soon as I walked in. The book is small, white, glittery (as if it someone mistook Tinkerbell for a wasp and obliterated her with the cover), and has text consisting of a variety of letters/fonts, serial killer-like (but with style). The colors of the letters are inviting, and the appearance of the book, taken as a whole, can be summed up in one word: Fun. The book looks fun.

Anyone who knows Palahniuk also knows that this could be problematic. Or, it could be exactly what Chuck wants (but probably not what Double Day’s in-house counsel wants).

It is no secret that Palahniuk is a bit cracked (rightfully so) and his stories are often “impure.” This is the Palahniuk that we all hate to love. The iconoclast.

Although the text is hard to read, and the derangement does not compare to that of, say, Invisible Monsters or Survivor or Haunted, I am only on page 14, and there have been a few lines of concerning daft text.

To a child, especially a female child, who just learned to read, this book is going to appear enchanting. There is no doubt in my mind that this book is going to fall into the hands of children of unsuspecting adults and this is dangerous. It is not dangerous because I think that thoughts should be regulated, rather it is dangerous because I think that the environments of developing children should be controlled.

Children don’t yet know not to judge a book by it’s cover.

While I agree that the text probably does pass Millers obscenity criterion, I am only going to say it does so because it has “literary value” and the Miller test is not too hard to pass. I think the only thing that has failed this test is the notorious 2 girls, 1 cup video. But, this situation demonstrates one of the weaknesses of Miller, namely that of the sliding scale of what is to be deemed inappropriate or obscene for children.

This further makes me think that some of Chuck’s texts need to be restricted behind book store counters’ and only sold with proper identification. What adult magazines convey with images Palahniuk’s books traject with words (sometimes, often times worse). In both circumstances, what some might consider “inappropriate messages” are being communicated to a potentially innocuous audience.

There needs to be protection.

But, knowing the Chuck that we have all loved to hate, I wouldn’t put it past him that this is yet another intentional disruption by him of the status quo. A subversive attack on our consumer-driven dentist wife fetishistic culture.

To purchase Tell All you may click here.

Posted by CoreyFriedman in 00:50:12 | Permalink | Comments Off

Monday, April 26, 2010

Insider Trading – The Value of Chonga Slippers

The financial markets are starting to come back. Gold is high. Derivatives are under scrutiny, and Goldman Sachs is bankrupt.

Diversity in one’s financial portfolio gives investors the ability to hedge. This is the type of protection people need from adverse (external) market forces. Investing in different types of securities allows people to obtain different types of rewards in exchange for fluctuating levels of risk. For example, an individual who invests in debt securities such as bonds, or debentures will surely be able to minimize risk while receiving a steady (albeit) low flow of income (in the form of coupons/interest).

Listen closely. I am not going to advocate insider trading, but between you and me, I have a hot tip…

Sell everything that you own. Dump your child’s college saving account. Stocks are too risky. If you want to invest your money in a product that never decreases in value, I would suggest investing in “Chonga Slippers.” “Chonga Slippers” are the plastic/gummy slippers that one would ordinarily find at the dollar store (see picture below). Although they are sold at the dollar store, the retail price can be anywhere in the range of $1.00 – $2.49. This is remarkable because the retail value is consistent with the fair market value of the slippers.

Additionally, there is almost virtually no residual. Thus, the price of the slipper is discounted slightly, if at all, during the period of use. After the slipper has been used by the initial purchaser, they are normally surrendered to a second-hand, or a thrift store who then resells the slipper anywhere in the range of, say- $1.00 – $3.00.

This means that there is a potential for this item to actually increase in value by up to 300%. Not even Madoff or Rothstein could promise such returns.

UPDATE: There appears to be some confusion as to where “Chinese Slippers” and “Jellies” fall into this mix. For clarification purposes, “Chinese Slippers” and “Jellies” are different types of “Chonga Slippers” and should be invested in with due care. E.g. It’s like investing in Google common stock, or Apple common stock noting that both investments represent an investment in common stock.

N.B.: You should ask your broker to explain, in detail, anything that you do not understand when investing.

Posted by CoreyFriedman in 18:44:35 | Permalink | Comments Off

Friday, March 26, 2010

Run for the Border [to get to the bathroom]. My [warning] experience with Taco Bell’s New Pacific Shrimp Taco

If there is something that you should know about me, you should know that secretly I am a danger seeker. I seek danger in some of the most unobvious of places. Yesterday I sought danger, and today I live to tell you about it…

Yesterday I experienced the new shrimp taco at taco bell. I say “experience” because that is exactly what one goes through for the next several hours while the human body figures out what to do with what it has just encountered. I guess I should start from the beginning…

The advertisement on television (as well as the in-store promos) stated that the new shrimp tacos contain six shrimp. Particularly, the Taco Bell website states “A warm, soft flour tortilla filled with six succulent shrimp marinated in a mix of spices, then topped with crisp shredded lettuce, Fiesta Salsa, and Avocado Ranch Sauce.” This intrigued me partially because it was taco bell, partially because they, to my knowledge, have never offered for sale anything that originated in the ocean, and partially because six shrimp is a pretty decent number to fix in a taco.

I made a life changing decision. I was going to give it a try. I have no testamentary will. This is danger. This was stupid.

There are no words to describe the apprehension that I incurred leading up to the moment when I finally placed the fateful order. I asked for the shrimp taco without tomato or onions. I hate onions, but as a look back, the onions were probably a safe bet.

When I received the taco, the first thing I immediately did was open it to count the shrimp. There were four. This upset me. I felt like I was on an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Next, I took a bite. “Hmm, not bad,” I thought. But, this is the same thought that everyone has when they eat anything from taco bell. I then proceeded to mechanically chew and finish. It was now up to my body.

Underneath the ocean, in a British nuclear submarine there is a steel safe. Within that safe there is another safe. And within that inner safe, there is a letter from the Prime Minister. No one knows what the letter says but everyone knows that the letter contains certain instructions. This is called a “last resort” letter. In it, are secret instructions that the commander of a nuclear submarine is supposed to carry out in the event that the home country is under attack and the means of communication are destroyed. The letter indicates whether the commander should arm, and launch the nukes, or surrender.

My body has nothing like this. There is no mechanism other than when the body goes into shock from extreme dysentery. There were no warnings. There was no waiver. In Florida, there is no implied assumption of the risk.

After this experience I cant think of any other use for this taco. Besides being a health and safety concern, I think that people might have a successful cause of action for Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Fraudulent Inducement, Negligent Infliction of Emotion Distress, Battery, and basic Negligence against Taco Bell.

If you ever want to play a sick joke on someone, have them try this taco.

Posted by CoreyFriedman in 18:28:39 | Permalink | Comments Off

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

The Apple Saga Continues… Res Ipsa Loquitur

Apple processed my payment and luckily it did not take five days. I then went online (again) to see if I could get a refund… Here is what transpired…

General Info
Chat start time Mar 22, 2010 1:34:30 PM EST
Chat end time Mar 22, 2010 1:55:39 PM EST
Duration (actual chatting time) 00:21:08
Operator Noel E.
Chat Transcript
info: queue_cmd:1:1:17
info: Hi, my name is Noel E. . It’ll be just a moment while I review the comments you provided.
Noel E. : Hello. Can you please provide more information about your iTunes Store issue you are experiencing?
Corey Friedman: Yes, I purchased an application yesterday (earthworm jim)- the game refused to load. I would like a refund please
Noel E. : I can certainly imagine your concern and I will be happy to assist.
Corey Friedman: please reference receipt number: **********
Corey Friedman: thanks
Noel E. : I see from your account you have already had an exception refund. You will need to contact the developer of this App to inquire about correcting the issue you are experiencing.
Noel E. : I also have a few tips I can provide you to get the App functioning as expected.
Corey Friedman: I don’t understand.
Corey Friedman: I have already deleted the App.
Corey Friedman: I would like the .99 to be refunded.
Noel E. : I suggest to download the App directly from your computer. Once you sync the App to your device and safely disconnect from your computer, I would advise to restart your device. Please note, you may redownload items from the App Store for free.
Corey Friedman: The last time I had a refund was because mobile safari was unable to obtain a secure connection in regards to opening a certain page. In hopes that an alternative browser would be able to cure this, I downloaded several. No app was able to cure this. Thus, refunds were issued for the browsers that were downloaded.
Corey Friedman: I do not want to redownload earthworm jim. I would like .99 back please.
Noel E. : You can contact the developer here to help troubleshoot you issue with the App….
Noel E. : http://www.gameloft.com/support.php
Corey Friedman: I dont want to contact the developer. Apple processed my payment, not the developer.
Corey Friedman: I want the refund.
Noel E. : Well Corey, I can look into providing a second refund for you. But it will be your last exception. Is that ok with you?
Corey Friedman: I would be happy for you to process the refund for me, but I cannot guarantee that I will not ask for a refund in the future should an app not work or be as promised.
Noel E. : Well Apps are created by developers and it would be best to contact them if you experience any issues. The iTunes Store Sales and Service Policies that you agreed to states that all purchases are final.
Corey Friedman: Whatever the licensing agreement is between you and the developer has nothing to do with the Terms and Conditions that defines the relationship between Apple and myself.
Corey Friedman: Apple assumes that responsibility by acting as an intermediary between the developer and the conusmer.
Corey Friedman: consumer*
Noel E. : The iTunes Store Sales and Service Policies that you agreed to, are available for you to review:
Noel E. : http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/sales.html
Corey Friedman: I have read them.
Noel E. : Just one moment while I look into providing a second exception refund.
Corey Friedman: see section 13(b): Technical Problems. On occasion, technical problems may delay or prevent delivery of your Product. Your exclusive and sole remedy with respect to Product that is not delivered within a reasonable period will be either replacement of such Product, or refund of the price paid for such Product, as determined by Apple.
Corey Friedman: Thank you.
Noel E. : Correct. But you are refusing to contact the developer of this item.
Noel E. : I have also provide some simple troubleshooting steps for you.
Corey Friedman: I didnt purchase anything from the developer. I purchased something through apple who has an agreement and a fee sharing schedule with the developer
Corey Friedman: “Apple is acting as agent for the Application Provider in providing each such Third Party Product to you”
Noel E. : Corey, I am simply trying to explain that all sales are final. If I can provide another refund, it will be an exception.
Corey Friedman: Ok. I now know why Apple reports itself as being a $50b + pr year company.
Corey Friedman: If I did not have to give refunds for defective products I sold, I would do extremely well also.
Corey Friedman: hello?
Noel E. : I had to have the second exception refund approved. Which it was. You will see the credit within 3-5 days.
Corey Friedman: Thank you
Corey Friedman: Is there any other information that you need from me?
Noel E. : You are very welcome! I’m glad I could help you out today.  Thank you and have a wonderful rest of your day!
Corey Friedman: thank, you too

After being pointed in the direction to read Apple’s Terms and Conditions I have discovered several things:

First, Apple disclaims any and all responsibility for everything. This leads me to believe that the Terms and Conditions might be so one-sided as to be characterized as substantively unconscionable. Apple further claims that they can change their policy at any time. Nothing contained in their user agreement states that they will or have to provide notice to iTunes users. In fact, they encourage people to check the terms and conditions periodically. Similar circumstances to this have been deemed unconscionable.  Comb v. PayPal, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (2002).

Apple then makes its users agree to indemnify Apple, and all of its agents.

Next, the representative, “Noel E.,” was right (according to the Terms and Conditions Agreement)… Apple customers are supposed to troubleshoot and seek redress from the actual application developer. To me, this is ludicrous. If I purchase something from bestbuy and it ends up being defective the next day, bestbuy doesn’t make me contact the manufacturer.

Apple claims that “all sales are final.” However, because I have been issued more than one refund, I wonder if this is a waiver… My guess is that as I continue to read the iTunes terms, that there is a “no waiver” clause, though we all know that “no waiver” clauses can be, well, waived…. Yep, there is a no waiver clause. Duh.

I want to write something funny about this, but, there really is nothing funny to write. Dealing with Apple, in a sense, leaves consumers remediless and with no enforceable rights.

Posted by CoreyFriedman in 02:22:29 | Permalink | Comments Off