A Stitch in Haste

Here are a pair of frivolous lawsuits to get you through the weekend:

ITEM: "You are the Apple of my ire..." --

A class action lawsuit has been launched against Apple Computer claiming the company’s recently released diminutive iPod nano scratches too easily.
...
"The suit charges that Apple violated implied and expressed warranties when it began selling what plaintiffs claim are defective devices, and violated aspects of state consumer protection laws," the lawyers said in a statement.

The suit seeks compensation for purchasers of the devices.

MY TAKE: Scratches easily? What's next — requiring a label on the package that reads "Should not be used by dogs as a chew toy"? I have not bought an iPod nano (and what's with that lowercase "n" nonsense?), so perhaps someone who has can enlighten me: Does the packaging or any advertisement indicate "Scratchproof" or even "Scratch-Resistant" anywhere? My paleo-iPod is also scratched and works just fine — the whole point is that the thing isn't a vinyl album or compact disc and scratches don't mean anything. (Reminder: I am no stranger to iPod lawsuits.)

UPDATE: Overlawyered points out that not only do the plaintiffs want a refund of their purchase price (i.e., to get their iPods for free), but they are also suing for a share of the company's profits from nano sales. In other words, they not only want the money they paid for their nano, they also want the money you paid for yours. You don't need a law degree to know that it doesn't work that way -- the law abhors a windfall (not to mention obnoxious class actions).

---

ITEM: Life begins at conception ... of litigation?

Pelsa Agnew doesn't know whether his unborn baby is a boy or a girl or whether it was hurt at all in last month's Metra train derailment.

But as the mother lies hospitalized with brain injuries from that crash — and the fetus continues to grow inside of her — Agnew has filed a personal-injury lawsuit against Metra on behalf of the unborn child.

One legal expert said it was a "bizarre" suit filed in Cook County Circuit Court, as it seeks damages for someone who isn't yet born and might not even be injured.

MY TAKE: There's actually a basis in the law for tortfeasors being liable for the potential of medical harm and for medical monitoring expenses even when there is no manifestation of illness or injury — asbestos litigation is the textbook example. But such liability is based on probabilities and not mere speculation: it is very likely that someone with significant exposure to asbestos may develop future illnesses unique to that exposure. But with no evidence whatsoever of any harm or any likelihood of future harm, there can be no liability and any lawsuit based on such a claim is frivolous. What's next — demanding money because the mother took one Vioxx five years ago? (Via Fark.)

The author of the mega-bestseller "The Da Vinci Code" is being sued in England for stealing the idea behind the controversial book.

Not from another novelist, mind you, but from two non-fiction authors:

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are suing the world's highest-paid writer, Dan Brown, over allegations that he lifted central themes from their non-fiction book.

In their 1982 work, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, the authors explore theories that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a child together.

They also propose that the direct descendents of that child are still alive today -- the key concept behind the Dan Brown novel.

So consider the implications: If a scientist hypothesizes that flies trapped in amber could contain sufficient blood samples to clone dinosaurs, then no one can write a novel about it without paying royalties? If an astronomer speculates that the first signals we ever receive from outer space will be our own television transmissions sent back to us, no one can make a movie about it without violating copyright? Do the current owners of the Titanic wreck also own the rights to any fictionalized accounts of the disaster? And so on.

Had this lawsuit been filed in an American court, I am certain that it would not survive a motion to dismiss. But the litigation is in Britain, so who knows?

Related Reading: