Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:53 pm

A paper towel? Good grief. I wonder if this guy cleans his eyeglasses with a paper towel. Paper is made from bits of WOOD. He might as well use sandpaper.

Also, the fact that he's seeking a portion of profits instead of simply re-imbursment is a clue.

Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:47 pm

Only in America could such a bunch of losers have their dim-wittedness enshrined by law by allowing them to even think they have a reasonable case. What is it with the US? What kind of country endorses it citizens with the right to lay blame on somebody other than themselves for every stupid decision they make.

Fact: the iPod scractches easily.

Fact: the likeliness of scratching is assuaged by applying due care.

Fact: a cover/pouch/other protective sleeve considerably reduces the likeliness of scratching.

Fact: before most people even had the chance to order/buy one, it had become common knowledge via media/internet sources, that the nano was easily scratched.

Yet these people went and bought one anyway and have the temerity to stand and cry "foul" when their nanos get scratched.

So let me get this right. If a few hundred people with poor driving skills went out and bought the latest release 4WD vehicle, and then most if not all of them kept scraping the passenger door 'cos they can't reverse park with due care, then they'd have claim to a class action lawsuit?

No wonder US foreign policy sucks... nobody in the good old United States of Embarrassment is ready to take responsibility for their own stupidity.

Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:49 am

I have a scratching one.

I protected it as much as possible, but even cleaning its screen with a soft tissue can scratch its screen.

The best way is not to wipe its screen, so it won't scratch - although this goes to the same direction: you won't be able to see the screen from fingerpints and dirt.

I bet this would drive anyone crazy.

It is not so funny to be that 0.1%.

Wed May 24, 2006 6:15 pm

Open Letter to the Mac Community

The Truth Behind the iPod Nano "Scratch" Class Action Suit

May 22, 2006

Dear Mac Community:

Hello! My name is Jason Tomczak. Many people around the world rightly know me as a mild-mannered techie, photographer, writer, and nature-lover. I am an Apple fan and have been fortunate enough to use Mac computers and other Apple products since about 1985.

On October 19, 2005, my life changed due to the unauthorized conduct of others. From that date forward, countless numbers of people around the world were driven to hate me and slander my name, sometimes using foul and threatening language.

Since October 19, 2005, my name has been infamously tied to the iPod Nano "Scratch" Class Action law suit filed against Apple.

What You Don't Know About The Nano Suit

The truth is that I never sought out nor did I ever hire David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro to represent me in any case, much less the iPod Nano Class Action suit.

The iPod Nano Class Action law suit was initiated by David P. Meyer & Associates Co. LPA of Columbus, Ohio and their representative firm, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP of Seattle, Washington and filed on October 19, 2005.

David P. Meyer & Associates contacted me, soliciting my opinions and comments about the scratching of my iPod Nano after finding Nano-related blog posts I'd written on my own website, on The Unofficial Apple Weblog and on The MacCast. They informed me that they had received an "overwhelming number of complaints" about the Nano and that they wanted my "insight into the problem". Yes, I answered their communication and told them that I had problems with my iPod Nano, however I clearly told them that they should do their own professional and technological study of the iPod Nano.

I emphasized that I did not have any access to any specific data about the materials used in making the iPod Nano. David P. Meyer & Associates used my personal comments and opinions as the basis of the iPod Nano suit. To my knowledge, there was no actual technical study done on the iPod Nano before the Class Action suit was filed.

Additionally, I told David P. Meyer & Associates that I wanted to remain private, and that my wish for privacy, among other considerations, would preclude me from getting involved in the case.

No Documentation

At no time did David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro ever receive any attorney-client agreement form from me. On their own time and based on their own schedules and plans, they prepared the paperwork and filed the iPod Nano Class Action suit in California using my name as Lead Plaintiff, however this was done without my knowledge or consent.

The Filing and The Call

The senior partner of David P. Meyer & Associates and one of his representatives called me during the afternoon of October 21, 2005 to urgently request my signature on an attorney-client agreement - two days after the Class Action suit was filed; two days after they began their action against Apple; two days after the press had begun running the story. They then warned me that my family, friends, clients and I should expect to hear from the media and others interested in the iPod Nano Class Action suit.

During that phone call to me, David P. Meyer and his associate blamed the faulty Nano filing on Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

Spin Cycle

During that week and the following months, my name was posted in relation to the iPod Nano Class Action suit on websites all over the world, even in foreign publications like Russia's "Pravda" newspaper, the Enquirer, Stuff Magazine, Popular Mechanics, CNN, BusinessWeek, MTV, VH1, etc.

Google results for my name skyrocketed. I began getting hate mail from people upset about the iPod Nano suit. I had to take my website down and remove legitimate references to my name on numerous web services. My fiancee and I were afraid to go outside in our own home town for fear of recognition and reprisal.

Call For Help

Given the gravity of the situation I was facing, I had to hire a law firm to protect myself, clear my name and set the record straight. David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, when contacted by my lawyers, did not even offer to correct any of their press releases. Not even an official apology was offered.

Law Firms' Defense Begins

A David P. Meyer & Associates representative contacted my lawyers with a highly suppositional account of what my intentions might have been; that perhaps I had second thoughts or "buyer's remorse" about the suit, etc. They snubbed the fact that David P. Meyer & Associates violated my request for privacy and non-involvement and the fact that neither David P. Meyer & Associates nor Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro ever received a single document or written communication from me agreeing to be any part of the iPod Nano Class Action law suit.

Then David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro each hired professional defense law firms to fight against me. These two powerful law firms hired two highly aggressive defense firms to confront me, a sole individual.

Things Get Very Personal

Their malpractice defense law teams scheduled me for deposition in Los Angeles. During the first day of my deposition, which was scheduled for April 20 and April 21, 2006, David P. Meyer & Associates' and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro's lawyers deposed me for about 6 hours. Were the majority of their questions directly related to the Nano issue? No. They wanted to know details about my family, the personal circumstances of why my parents got divorced, what I thought about their divorce; where I went to grammar school, high school, college, what my majors were; names, locations and ages of family members and a number of other personal topics seemingly unrelated to the Nano issue. The bulk of the questions were, in my personal opinion, invasive, inappropriate, off-topic and an attempt to overwhelm me.

Toward the end of the first day, they bluntly refused to continue the deposition as scheduled. Their abrupt cancellation will likely cost me thousands of dollars in added travel and legal expense, time away from my family and clients and added emotional stress of not being able to find closure on this horrible and sometimes terrifying experience.

A SLAPP In The Face

On May 1, 2006, David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro defense lawyers filed Motions to Strike the entirety of my case against the two firms despite evidence that I had unwillingly and unknowingly been made Lead Plaintiff in the iPod Nano Class Action suit. In their Motions to Strike my case against them, they also requested of the Court that I be held financially responsible for their attorneys' fees and costs.

The defense teams filed "demurrers" against my filings which state, in short, that David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro did, in fact, mistakenly file the iPod Nano Class Action suit with my name, but they claim that they legally had a privilege to mistakenly file documents in my name without culpability or recourse.

They also filed an Anti-SLAPP motion against me and my claims against David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion prevents me, the plaintiff, from amending my complaint against David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and delays all discovery. This means that no parties from either firm can be deposed, and possibly incriminating documents cannot be requested of them. Anti-SLAPP motions are like terribly expensive and time-consuming "pause buttons".

Where Do We Go From Here?

I've learned that every day that passes can bring big surprises - though not usually pleasant ones. I am not sure how the iPod Nano Class Action suit will turn out, nor do I know how David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro will continue to act with regard to my request for justice and the return of honor to my name. If recent actions are any indicator, I am preparing for an emotional, stressful and expensive ordeal.

Although it is too late to completely clear my name from the iPod Nano Class Action law suit, by writing this Open Letter to the Mac Community, I am hoping to make an attempt to reduce the damage already caused to my good name and to open people's eyes to the fact that I did not approve, endorse, authorize, initiate or promote the lawsuit against Apple. These actions were taken without my authority and against my express wishes by the law firms of David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

I am frightfully aware of the fact that issuing this letter could possibly spur an even more aggressive legal attack against me as they apparently wish to suppress the truth and wish to suppress me. Whatever the outcome, whether I am successful or I am financially crippled by David P. Meyer & Associates' and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro's defense firms, it is my sole intent to communicate the truth of what happened so that I can begin to find some peace of mind after the hate, harassment and embarrassment brought about by the misuse of my name in the iPod Nano suit.

Sincerely,

Jason Tomczak

c/o Cameron Totten

Sherman & Nathanson

9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 820

Beverly Hills, CA 90212

© 2006 - Jason Tomczak

Sun May 28, 2006 6:40 pm

I’ve had an iPOD before and I decided to upgrade to iPOD video, so I purchased one and excitedly connected it to my laptop when I got home. When I’m done updating it and all, loaded my music and everything, I ejected it, and was ready to use when it froze, since I’ve had one before and it’s given me the same problem, I knew what to do, hold the “select” and “menu” buttons at the same time and it should reset it. The problem is, it didn’t! Instead, it stayed frozen all night. I went back to the Apple Store, Glendale Galleria CA. to exchange it, I told them what the problem was, apparently he was able to get it work, doing the same thing as I tried to do the night it stopped working. Regardless the fact that he fixed it, I certainly DO NOT want a device that malfunctions the first time I tried to use it, I didn’t even get the chance to listen to my music and already I’m having problems with it. I told them I wanted to exchange it, for the apparent reason. I was told that there will be a 10% charge if I return it, but I didn’t want to return it, I just wanted a replacement. Then he told me that even an exchange has a 10% charge as well. Not only that they were very rude, especially this location GLENDALE CA GALLERIA (SPC2126), APPLE’S policy is unfair for their consumers, I mean how are you supposed to know if the device that you purchased doesn’t work if you don’t open the packaging. They are going to resell this item that returned, good luck on that, I’m sure I’m not the only one who had this problem.

Mon May 29, 2006 6:06 am

YES I did! and regardless if I did or didn't, this is brand new device, I shouldn't have to go through such trouble because I haven't even used it. Atleast let me hear how it sounds before it starts acting up, I just wanted an item that works well, it's all I asked, and yet, they could NOT deliver. It was the first time I turned the iPOD on and already I'm having issues, I could just imagine how bad it'll be in the future. Hence, the return fee of 10 effing percent. Thanks for asking.

Tue May 30, 2006 2:49 am

I don't need help and I was not asking for sympathy. Talk about perspective, how would you like it if you purchased some gadget just to find out that it doesn't function the way it should the moment you open the packaging? Wouldn't you want to exchange it for something that works? Particularly, within a reasonable time frame, without being penalized. I'm well aware that they do crash, I've had one before, but like you said, by dumb luck, and I did not anticipate that happens the first time.I was not making sarcastic remarks, I'm sorry you feel attacked by me. I was not trying pull the ploy, so please don't make any assumptions, don't take it personal because it was nothing against you.

Tue May 30, 2006 4:28 pm

Let me educate you about Apple's warranty. It only covers merchandise that does not work properly or at all, otherwise replacement isn't really part of your option. Even so, it is not guaranteed that they will replace it with a brand new one, it is their choice and not yours if they'd issue a new or refurbished item, thus, I didn't bother to chase the warranty coverage, as I mentioned before, at that point, it was working because he was able to fix it, but I definitely do not want a second great commodity. Maybe it is ok with you, but not me. Do not insinuate anything about how I dealt with their CSR, because I thoroughly went through it, if not, I wouldn't have gone.

You think I'm being daft? Speak for yourself. Think again!