Mis-leading 1080p ads = lawsuits.

teranova · 09-16-2007, 04:15 PM

Come on guys, play nice! I'm starting to feel guilty for opening up this can of worms.
BTW I would still like to know if the 2008 Toshibas and Samsungs will accept a 1080p input because I am quite happy, so far, with these two brands and I am considering buying one or the other.

borromini · 09-16-2007, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teranova

Come on guys, play nice! I'm starting to feel guilty for opening up this can of worms...

Oh, so it's your fault!

Type A · 09-17-2007, 12:40 AM

As entertaining as Ntruder and 'Condescending Bill' are...."gooooolllllllleeeeeee!!!, ya, youre pretty much a jerk-off Bill

.

Didnt that lawsuit make Mcdonald's turn down the temperature of their coffee? While I remember being floored by what the lady got for her suit, I also remember being floored by how excessively hot McDonalds coffee was shown to be.

Ntruder · 09-17-2007, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billinprinceto

Indeed. Wonder why?

Uh, because you're a tool and you attack people for no reason? Rather, because you don't feel like making a civil argument? I gave an argument. You started flaming. Read the thread.

billinprinceto · 09-17-2007, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ntruder

You started flaming. Read the thread.

Duh????? Seems to me that you so graciously and intelligently wrote "Guess what? You're a fucking jerkoff prick."

Me . . . flaming???? Got a mirror?

Rick-F · 09-17-2007, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pappylap

So how many people are going to line up to sue because the 42" Plasma they purchased is 1024X720 and not considered true "high definition". Were they misled?

I have no idea "how many" (if any) will sue-- but most buyers were damn sure misled in to thinking they were getting a real HD TV-- and there are a lot of them here on this forum.

unotis · 09-17-2007, 10:33 AM

WOW, did this thread get

I still think the lawsuit is without foundation.

And to answer teranova's question about the 2008 Toshiba Flat Screen 1080p TVs, yes from what I've read the new 1080p TVs do in fact accept 1080p signals, I don't know about Samsung's 1080p TVs but I would assume they do also since it seems all the second generation 1080p TVs seem to.

Although it still makes no real difference in the picture presented, even in the previous ones that could not, through de-interlacing the signal they still achieved a 1080p picture because that is their native resolution anyway.

They are still 1080p Flat panel televisons and that is what you will see!

BobY · 09-17-2007, 10:39 AM

I'm not talking about what some (supposedly knowledgeable) salesperson told a customer in order to make a sale.

This case has no merit. The plaintiffs misinterpreted what Toshiba, and *every other display manufacturer at the time* meant by a 1080p display and didn't bother to check the specs or brochure regarding something that was apparently very important to them.

Certain statements in the brief are laughable:

They say that nowhere in the brochure does it state the display will *not* accept a 1080p signal. True, but nowhere in the brochure does it state that it *will* accept a 1080p signal and it *does* list the inputs which *are* accepted--1080p is *not* one of them.

They say they paid a significant premium for these "1080p displays" over other displays that were not marketed as "1080p displays" and that a *significant* portion of the premium was the supposed ability of the display to accept a 1080p signal. Say what? Toshiba didn't say the display accepted a 1080p signal and was not charging a premium for that ability, since it didn't have that ability. Toshiba was charging a premium for the fact that the display had 1920 x 1080 pixels and not 1280 x 720 pixels like most large LCD's at the time--that's what made it a "1080p display". 1080p input capability adds very little "premium" to the price--the new HDMI interface chips that handle 1080p/60 are no more expensive than the old ones that didn't.

I really need to comment on the idea that this is about the law and that lawyers are the champions of the peoples' rights and protecting our society from being ravaged by profiteers. I've been through multiple meritless lawsuits and it cost lots of money and lots of time.

The reality is:

The US has far too many lawyers per capita (dramatically more than any other country in the world). While I'm sure most went into that profession because they love law and wanted to help people, there are also lots who went into that profession because they thought it would insure a high income. As with any profession, some people are the best, some people are the worst and most people are in between. With so many lawyers per capita, that means we have lots of lawyers who are not the best and there is lots of competition among them because there are too many of them. This leads many lawyers to encourage meritless lawsuits against corporations. They know a few facts which makes litigation against corporations a gravy train for many who don't deserve any compensation and the lawyers who represent them:

1) Most companies will settle out of court because it's cheaper than fighting the case even if they win. Oh, the first time someone is sued they may fight it out of principle, but once they see that it costs them more money than settling, it's a simple business decision from then on. Sue a company for 3 million dollars and settle out of court for $150,000. Easy money.

2) Most judges do not want to see this kind of litigation come before them. The courts are backed up (partly by frivolous lawsuits) and judges strongly encourage disputes to be settled out of court--to the point of threatening the parties if they don't. In our case, the judge made it clear he did not want to see our case in his courtroom and if we didn't settle out of court, he was going to punish us in various ways that were within his imperial power.

When you look at what really happens it all becomes clear. This isn't really about "compensation" of "victims" as in many cases, money alone can't compensate for what happened. It's about punishing companies and making money. Why award treble damages or monetary compensation for "pain and suffering"? No other reason than punishing the company for what they supposedly did and making as much money off them as you can get away with.

But what really happens? Is the company punished? Oh, they will likely change what they were doing, but the reality is, their liability insurance company paid the damages. Maybe they raised the insurance rate of the company involved, maybe not, but if an insurance company pays out enough damages, they raise the price of insurance for everybody, so lots of innocent businesses are harmed. These businesses in turn pass on their increased insurance costs to the consumer, so lots of innocent consumers are harmed.

Make no mistake, this is not about upholding the law and protecting peoples' rights. It's about money. That's not to say there are not companies that should to be taken to task, but if they broke the law, then it's not a litigation lawyer's job to deal with that. If no law was broken and it's a dispute, then it should be found to have merit before it ends up costing time and money in court (problem is the backed-up courts who don't even have time to schedule preliminary injunction hearings or render a judgment in such hearings in a reasonable time frame). With the ineffective safeguards against frivolous lawsuits and inordinate damage claims, the litigation system is a gravy train for undeserving plaintiffs and their greedy lawyers.

IIRC correctly in the McDonald's coffee case, although their coffee was served at a considerably higher temperature than typical, even the typical coffee temperature would have caused burns (though not as serious). Everybody ended up turning down their coffee temperatures and now I can no longer get a cup of coffee to go that will still be hot when I get to my destination. All because one person didn't realize that if *they* put a cup of hot coffee between their legs, it might burn them if *they* spilled it. Give me a break--no give me two breaks!

Ntruder · 09-17-2007, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billinprinceto

Duh????? Seems to me that you so graciously and intelligently wrote "Guess what? You're a fucking jerkoff prick."

Me . . . flaming???? Got a mirror?

You MOCK my education after insulting me and you expect me not to react??? How small is your brain???!?!?!?!?!?!

teranova · 09-17-2007, 10:54 AM

Thanks unotis for the info I was looking for! As far as the previous "Full 1080p HD" sets unable to accept a 1080p signal; to me it's like ordering a Cuba Libre and not getting any lime with it or eating corn on the cob without the butter. In other words, I would expect to get what was advertised!
Apparently, a lot of gamers are really p.o.ed because when they hook up their PSP 3s or XBox 360s to the sets in question, they wouldn't display it at 1080p and that was the main reason they bought the sets in the first place i.e. to play their games in the current HD "gold standard" of 1080p!

Ntruder · 09-17-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobY

I'm not talking about what some (supposedly knowledgeable) salesperson told a customer in order to make a sale.

This case has no merit. The plaintiffs misinterpreted what Toshiba, and *every other display manufacturer at the time* meant by a 1080p display and didn't bother to check the specs or brochure regarding something that was apparently very important to them.

Certain statements in the brief are laughable:

They say that nowhere in the brochure does it state the display will *not* accept a 1080p signal. True, but nowhere in the brochure does it state that it *will* accept a 1080p signal and it *does* list the inputs which *are* accepted--1080p is *not* one of them.

They say they paid a significant premium for these "1080p displays" over other displays that were not marketed as "1080p displays" and that a *significant* portion of the premium was the supposed ability of the display to accept a 1080p signal. Say what? Toshiba didn't say the display accepted a 1080p signal and was not charging a premium for that ability, since it didn't have that ability. Toshiba was charging a premium for the fact that the display had 1920 x 1080 pixels and not 1280 x 720 pixels like most large LCD's at the time--that's what made it a "1080p display". 1080p input capability adds very little "premium" to the price--the new HDMI interface chips that handle 1080p/60 are no more expensive than the old ones that didn't.

I think you're right, this is a stupid case. What damages were there? In any tort case, the plaintiff has to prove that there was negligence and damages as a result of that negligence. I don't see either.

Quote:

I really need to comment on the idea that this is about the law and that lawyers are the champions of the peoples' rights and protecting our society from being ravaged by profiteers. I've been through multiple meritless lawsuits and it cost lots of money and lots of time.

The reality is:

The US has far too many lawyers per capita (dramatically more than any other country in the world). While I'm sure most went into that profession because they love law and wanted to help people, there are also lots who went into that profession because they thought it would insure a high income. As with any profession, some people are the best, some people are the worst and most people are in between. With so many lawyers per capita, that means we have lots of lawyers who are not the best and there is lots of competition among them because there are too many of them. This leads many lawyers to encourage meritless lawsuits against corporations. They know a few facts which makes litigation against corporations a gravy train for many who don't deserve any compensation and the lawyers who represent them:

1) Most companies will settle out of court because it's cheaper than fighting the case even if they win. Oh, the first time someone is sued they may fight it out of principle, but once they see that it costs them more money than settling, it's a simple business decision from then on. Sue a company for 3 million dollars and settle out of court for $150,000. Easy money.

2) Most judges do not want to see this kind of litigation come before them. The courts are backed up (partly by frivolous lawsuits) and judges strongly encourage disputes to be settled out of court--to the point of threatening the parties if they don't. In our case, the judge made it clear he did not want to see our case in his courtroom and if we didn't settle out of court, he was going to punish us in various ways that were within his imperial power.

When you look at what really happens it all becomes clear. This isn't really about "compensation" of "victims" as in many cases, money alone can't compensate for what happened. It's about punishing companies and making money. Why award treble damages or monetary compensation for "pain and suffering"? No other reason than punishing the company for what they supposedly did and making as much money off them as you can get away with.

But what really happens? Is the company punished? Oh, they will likely change what they were doing, but the reality is, their liability insurance company paid the damages. Maybe they raised the insurance rate of the company involved, maybe not, but if an insurance company pays out enough damages, they raise the price of insurance for everybody, so lots of innocent businesses are harmed. These businesses in turn pass on their increased insurance costs to the consumer, so lots of innocent consumers are harmed.

Well said. But our legal system comes with BS lawsuits. It serves as a check to big business, and it is abused by aggressive lawyers and money hungry consumers. Its a right that comes with consequences. In a democracy with a private market, we need the ability to file suit against corporations. And the consequences of that is we will have lots of people trying to push that right as far as they can, and abuse the system. But when it comes down to it, the legal system and ability to file suit is about protecting consumers and keeping businesses in check by defining what they can and can't do. I'm not arguing that there aren't a slew of ridiculous lawsuits filed in this country. There are.

Quote:

Make no mistake, this is not about upholding the law and protecting peoples' rights. It's about money. That's not to say there are not companies that should to be taken to task, but if they broke the law, then it's not a litigation lawyer's job to deal with that. If no law was broken and it's a dispute, then it should be found to have merit before it ends up costing time and money in court (problem is the backed-up courts who don't even have time to schedule preliminary injunction hearings or render a judgment in such hearings in a reasonable time frame). With the ineffective safeguards against frivolous lawsuits and inordinate damage claims, the litigation system is a gravy train for undeserving plaintiffs and their greedy lawyers.

IIRC correctly in the McDonald's coffee case, although their coffee was served at a considerably higher temperature than typical, even the typical coffee temperature would have caused burns (though not as serious). Everybody ended up turning down their coffee temperatures and now I can no longer get a cup of coffee to go that will still be hot when I get to my destination. All because one person didn't realize that if *they* put a cup of hot coffee between their legs, it might burn them if *they* spilled it. Give me a break--no give me two breaks!

I agree with you on most of this, but the system serves a higher purpose than lining the pockets of slick lawyers and ripping off the corporations. If you limit our ability to file suit, you take away a check against business, and thats dangerous.

BobY · 09-17-2007, 12:00 PM

I'm not disagreeing with you, the crux of my argument (which I admit was a bit buried) is that the safeguards we currently have in our litigation system are ineffective as a result of an overload of cases (many being frivolous lawsuits).

Because the courts can't grant a preliminary injunction hearing or render a decision to proceed quickly enough, it's too expensive to fight your case compared to settling out of court. This is what allows the system to be so easily abused on such a large scale.

We need something like a separate system of litigation review panels that get frivolous lawsuits or ridiculous damage claims stopped as quickly as possible, so they don't go on to jam up the court system.

I hesitate to suggest the creation of more bureaucracy, but unless people know that they aren't guaranteed a settlement out of court and the court backlog is reduced, the system will continue to be abused.

Teranova-

I can't support your position. You don't deserve some kind of reward because you didn't get what you expected, unless you were intentionally misled--"Yeah, I know I said you could have lime with that, but I lied." If you ordered "corn on the cob with butter" and it came without butter, you'd have a complaint, but if you ordered "corn on the cob" and it came without butter, well, you got what you ordered, you just had wrong expectations.

The expectation that a 1080p display at that point in time would accept a 1080p input was not a realistic expectation, even if it seems a reasonable one. If butter on your corn (instead of, say, margerine) is that important to you, make sure you ask for butter.

I remember one lawsuit where a family was trying to sue Ford over the death of their daughter in a car accident because airbags were not available on her car and the next model year they were.

She chose to buy a car without airbags. It was not Ford's fault--Ford did not cause the accident, Ford did not prevent her from buying another car with airbags and there was no realistic expectation on her part or the part of her family that the car had airbags. If they wanted a car with airbags, it was their own ignorance and negligence that was at fault. I also don't know how one could possibly prove beyond a doubt that an airbag would have saved her life. It's a sad event, but not something to be litigated and certainly not one where someone uses sympathy to try to profit off anothers' suffering.

unotis · 09-17-2007, 12:18 PM

Boby,

I might be wrong but I believe one of the reasons we have so many lawsuits that have no merit at all and they then clog the legal system so badly is because we do not require that the loser pays all court costs.

Now, I've heard the arguments that if that was the case then poor people could never get their day in court, I think that is wrong because if they have a legitimate case then a good lawyer will see this and take the case and just get paid from a percentage of the settlement they will receive and they will not be forced to pay the court costs anyway.

What it will do is stop all the law suits started to just make the easy money from out of court settlements. Those type of suits will stop completely because the people being sued will see the benefits of going to court if they're in the right and they will know they will not incur huge fees when they win.

We as a country are also one of the few if not the only large industrialized countries that does not allow for the loser pays court costs stipend in respect to lawsuits.

What do you think?

Ntruder · 09-17-2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobY

I'm not disagreeing with you, the crux of my argument (which I admit was a bit buried) is that the safeguards we currently have in our litigation system are ineffective as a result of an overload of cases (many being frivolous lawsuits).

Because the courts can't grant a preliminary injunction hearing or render a decision to proceed quickly enough, it's too expensive to fight your case compared to settling out of court. This is what allows the system to be so easily abused on such a large scale.

We need something like a separate system of litigation review panels that get frivolous lawsuits or ridiculous damage claims stopped as quickly as possible, so they don't go on to jam up the court system.

I hesitate to suggest the creation of more bureaucracy, but unless people know that they aren't guaranteed a settlement out of court and the court backlog is reduced, the system will continue to be abused.

Very well said.

A funny coincidence, I am dealing right now with the state of wisconsin on an annoying code that requires hot tubs installed in commercial applications have a separate filtration system for each unit, because if someone pukes in one tub, they are afraid that the operator won't shut down the entire system of tubs, they will only shut down the one. So an example of protecting the idiots, kinda like the McDonalds coffee incident.

Quote:

Teranova-

I can't support your position. You don't deserve some kind of reward because you didn't get what you expected, unless you were intentionally misled--"Yeah, I know I said you could have lime with that, but I lied." If you ordered "corn on the cob with butter" and it came without butter, you'd have a complaint, but if you ordered "corn on the cob" and it came without butter, well, you got what you ordered, you just had wrong expectations.

The expectation that a 1080p display at that point in time would accept a 1080p input was not a realistic expectation, even if it seems a reasonable one. If butter on your corn (instead of, say, margerine) is that important to you, make sure you ask for butter.

As there were no REAL damages incurred aside from money spent on the product, I don't see much reason for damages to be paid beyond the price of the television.

Quote:

I remember one lawsuit where a family was trying to sue Ford over the death of their daughter in a car accident because airbags were not available on her car and the next model year they were.

She chose to buy a car without airbags. It was not Ford's fault--Ford did not cause the accident, Ford did not prevent her from buying another car with airbags and there was no realistic expectation on her part or the part of her family that the car had airbags. If they wanted a car with airbags, it was their own ignorance and negligence that was at fault. I also don't know how one could possibly prove beyond a doubt that an airbag would have saved her life. It's a sad event, but not something to be litigated and certainly not one where someone uses sympathy to try to profit off anothers' suffering.

Injury lawyers are some of the biggest snakes. I don't see how they actually win some of these cases.

Ward Cleaverr · 09-17-2007, 01:12 PM

WOW.. Another thread that Sir Willy posted in and got completely derailed. Man, that is a rare bird (or eagle)..

09-17-2007, 12:40 AM	#33
Type A 1080 Optical Supporter Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Panama City, Fl Age: 38 Posts: 2,723	As entertaining as Ntruder and 'Condescending Bill' are...."gooooolllllllleeeeeee!!!, ya, youre pretty much a jerk-off Bill . Didnt that lawsuit make Mcdonald's turn down the temperature of their coffee? While I remember being floored by what the lady got for her suit, I also remember being floored by how excessively hot McDonalds coffee was shown to be. __________________ Mitsubishi HC3000U HD projector Dual Optoma 106" screens Harman Kardon AVR-7000 receiver Bose 901 VI, 301 IV, VCS 10 Bose AM-6 Series III Sony STR-DG600 receiver JVC GR-HD1 HD camcorder Xbox 360 Pro / PS3 40 Gig HD DVD 0 / Blu Ray 15 Games 18 / Games 2 Gateway 901x HTPC (modified) Sling Box Pro w/HD Connect Cable Dish 211 receiver w/Absolute HD pack HP Pavilion dv-6000 laptop (HTPC2GO) Link-Theater Gallery - 100,000+ views Link-55 Restoration Updated 6/21/08 Last edited by Type A; 09-17-2007 at 12:52 AM.

09-17-2007, 10:33 AM	#37
unotis UNOTIS Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: FLORIDA Age: 54 Posts: 3,378	WOW, did this thread get I still think the lawsuit is without foundation. And to answer teranova's question about the 2008 Toshiba Flat Screen 1080p TVs, yes from what I've read the new 1080p TVs do in fact accept 1080p signals, I don't know about Samsung's 1080p TVs but I would assume they do also since it seems all the second generation 1080p TVs seem to. Although it still makes no real difference in the picture presented, even in the previous ones that could not, through de-interlacing the signal they still achieved a 1080p picture because that is their native resolution anyway. They are still 1080p Flat panel televisons and that is what you will see! __________________ Harman/Kardon TC30 universal remote Martin Logan Odyssey speakers Martin Logan Center Channel speaker Velodyne DPS-12 Powered Subwoofer B&W rear speakers Toshiba XA1, XA2, A2 HD DVD players Panasonic BD60K Panasonic TH-42PZ700U 1080p plasma Panasonic 34" Tau CT-34WX50 widescreen HD-ready CRT Vizio 32 Inch 1080p LCD Monster Power Center Motorola Dual Tuner DVR/ HDTV capable Officially PURPLE HD DVDs = 105 Blu-Ray Discs = 45 with 5 on the way

09-17-2007, 12:18 PM	#43
unotis UNOTIS Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: FLORIDA Age: 54 Posts: 3,378	Boby, I might be wrong but I believe one of the reasons we have so many lawsuits that have no merit at all and they then clog the legal system so badly is because we do not require that the loser pays all court costs. Now, I've heard the arguments that if that was the case then poor people could never get their day in court, I think that is wrong because if they have a legitimate case then a good lawyer will see this and take the case and just get paid from a percentage of the settlement they will receive and they will not be forced to pay the court costs anyway. What it will do is stop all the law suits started to just make the easy money from out of court settlements. Those type of suits will stop completely because the people being sued will see the benefits of going to court if they're in the right and they will know they will not incur huge fees when they win. We as a country are also one of the few if not the only large industrialized countries that does not allow for the loser pays court costs stipend in respect to lawsuits. What do you think? __________________ Harman/Kardon TC30 universal remote Martin Logan Odyssey speakers Martin Logan Center Channel speaker Velodyne DPS-12 Powered Subwoofer B&W rear speakers Toshiba XA1, XA2, A2 HD DVD players Panasonic BD60K Panasonic TH-42PZ700U 1080p plasma Panasonic 34" Tau CT-34WX50 widescreen HD-ready CRT Vizio 32 Inch 1080p LCD Monster Power Center Motorola Dual Tuner DVR/ HDTV capable Officially PURPLE HD DVDs = 105 Blu-Ray Discs = 45 with 5 on the way Last edited by unotis; 09-17-2007 at 12:22 PM.

Similar Threads to Mis-leading 1080p ads = lawsuits.
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1080p: Time For A Reality Check!	TomBo777	Flat-Panel TVs	24	08-11-2007 07:39 AM
1080i signal to 1080P display question	BamaPanda	Flat-Panel TVs	12	06-15-2007 09:42 PM
1080p reality check	lee	HD DVD Players	6	04-24-2006 03:09 PM
What to consider when choosing a HD set.	S0LE_SURVIV0R	The High Definition Lounge	5	02-28-2006 04:18 PM
1080P HYPE...reality check time	TomBo777	Rear-Projection TVs	12	09-26-2005 12:22 AM

09-16-2007, 04:15 PM	#31
teranova High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 388	Come on guys, play nice! I'm starting to feel guilty for opening up this can of worms. BTW I would still like to know if the 2008 Toshibas and Samsungs will accept a 1080p input because I am quite happy, so far, with these two brands and I am considering buying one or the other.

09-17-2007, 10:39 AM	#38
BobY What's all this, then?... Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,197	I'm not talking about what some (supposedly knowledgeable) salesperson told a customer in order to make a sale. This case has no merit. The plaintiffs misinterpreted what Toshiba, and every other display manufacturer at the time meant by a 1080p display and didn't bother to check the specs or brochure regarding something that was apparently very important to them. Certain statements in the brief are laughable: They say that nowhere in the brochure does it state the display will not accept a 1080p signal. True, but nowhere in the brochure does it state that it will accept a 1080p signal and it does list the inputs which are accepted--1080p is not one of them. They say they paid a significant premium for these "1080p displays" over other displays that were not marketed as "1080p displays" and that a significant portion of the premium was the supposed ability of the display to accept a 1080p signal. Say what? Toshiba didn't say the display accepted a 1080p signal and was not charging a premium for that ability, since it didn't have that ability. Toshiba was charging a premium for the fact that the display had 1920 x 1080 pixels and not 1280 x 720 pixels like most large LCD's at the time--that's what made it a "1080p display". 1080p input capability adds very little "premium" to the price--the new HDMI interface chips that handle 1080p/60 are no more expensive than the old ones that didn't. I really need to comment on the idea that this is about the law and that lawyers are the champions of the peoples' rights and protecting our society from being ravaged by profiteers. I've been through multiple meritless lawsuits and it cost lots of money and lots of time. The reality is: The US has far too many lawyers per capita (dramatically more than any other country in the world). While I'm sure most went into that profession because they love law and wanted to help people, there are also lots who went into that profession because they thought it would insure a high income. As with any profession, some people are the best, some people are the worst and most people are in between. With so many lawyers per capita, that means we have lots of lawyers who are not the best and there is lots of competition among them because there are too many of them. This leads many lawyers to encourage meritless lawsuits against corporations. They know a few facts which makes litigation against corporations a gravy train for many who don't deserve any compensation and the lawyers who represent them: 1) Most companies will settle out of court because it's cheaper than fighting the case even if they win. Oh, the first time someone is sued they may fight it out of principle, but once they see that it costs them more money than settling, it's a simple business decision from then on. Sue a company for 3 million dollars and settle out of court for $150,000. Easy money. 2) Most judges do not want to see this kind of litigation come before them. The courts are backed up (partly by frivolous lawsuits) and judges strongly encourage disputes to be settled out of court--to the point of threatening the parties if they don't. In our case, the judge made it clear he did not want to see our case in his courtroom and if we didn't settle out of court, he was going to punish us in various ways that were within his imperial power. When you look at what really happens it all becomes clear. This isn't really about "compensation" of "victims" as in many cases, money alone can't compensate for what happened. It's about punishing companies and making money. Why award treble damages or monetary compensation for "pain and suffering"? No other reason than punishing the company for what they supposedly did and making as much money off them as you can get away with. But what really happens? Is the company punished? Oh, they will likely change what they were doing, but the reality is, their liability insurance company paid the damages. Maybe they raised the insurance rate of the company involved, maybe not, but if an insurance company pays out enough damages, they raise the price of insurance for everybody, so lots of innocent businesses are harmed. These businesses in turn pass on their increased insurance costs to the consumer, so lots of innocent consumers are harmed. Make no mistake, this is not about upholding the law and protecting peoples' rights. It's about money. That's not to say there are not companies that should to be taken to task, but if they broke the law, then it's not a litigation lawyer's job to deal with that. If no law was broken and it's a dispute, then it should be found to have merit before it ends up costing time and money in court (problem is the backed-up courts who don't even have time to schedule preliminary injunction hearings or render a judgment in such hearings in a reasonable time frame). With the ineffective safeguards against frivolous lawsuits and inordinate damage claims, the litigation system is a gravy train for undeserving plaintiffs and their greedy lawyers. IIRC correctly in the McDonald's coffee case, although their coffee was served at a considerably higher temperature than typical, even the typical coffee temperature would have caused burns (though not as serious). Everybody ended up turning down their coffee temperatures and now I can no longer get a cup of coffee to go that will still be hot when I get to my destination. All because one person didn't realize that if they put a cup of hot coffee between their legs, it might burn them if they spilled it. Give me a break--no give me two breaks!

09-17-2007, 10:54 AM	#40
teranova High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 388	Thanks unotis for the info I was looking for! As far as the previous "Full 1080p HD" sets unable to accept a 1080p signal; to me it's like ordering a Cuba Libre and not getting any lime with it or eating corn on the cob without the butter. In other words, I would expect to get what was advertised! Apparently, a lot of gamers are really p.o.ed because when they hook up their PSP 3s or XBox 360s to the sets in question, they wouldn't display it at 1080p and that was the main reason they bought the sets in the first place i.e. to play their games in the current HD "gold standard" of 1080p!

09-17-2007, 12:00 PM	#42
BobY What's all this, then?... Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,197	I'm not disagreeing with you, the crux of my argument (which I admit was a bit buried) is that the safeguards we currently have in our litigation system are ineffective as a result of an overload of cases (many being frivolous lawsuits). Because the courts can't grant a preliminary injunction hearing or render a decision to proceed quickly enough, it's too expensive to fight your case compared to settling out of court. This is what allows the system to be so easily abused on such a large scale. We need something like a separate system of litigation review panels that get frivolous lawsuits or ridiculous damage claims stopped as quickly as possible, so they don't go on to jam up the court system. I hesitate to suggest the creation of more bureaucracy, but unless people know that they aren't guaranteed a settlement out of court and the court backlog is reduced, the system will continue to be abused. Teranova- I can't support your position. You don't deserve some kind of reward because you didn't get what you expected, unless you were intentionally misled--"Yeah, I know I said you could have lime with that, but I lied." If you ordered "corn on the cob with butter" and it came without butter, you'd have a complaint, but if you ordered "corn on the cob" and it came without butter, well, you got what you ordered, you just had wrong expectations. The expectation that a 1080p display at that point in time would accept a 1080p input was not a realistic expectation, even if it seems a reasonable one. If butter on your corn (instead of, say, margerine) is that important to you, make sure you ask for butter. I remember one lawsuit where a family was trying to sue Ford over the death of their daughter in a car accident because airbags were not available on her car and the next model year they were. She chose to buy a car without airbags. It was not Ford's fault--Ford did not cause the accident, Ford did not prevent her from buying another car with airbags and there was no realistic expectation on her part or the part of her family that the car had airbags. If they wanted a car with airbags, it was their own ignorance and negligence that was at fault. I also don't know how one could possibly prove beyond a doubt that an airbag would have saved her life. It's a sad event, but not something to be litigated and certainly not one where someone uses sympathy to try to profit off anothers' suffering.

09-17-2007, 01:12 PM	#45
Ward Cleaverr 1280 x 768 Is Not True HD Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 34	WOW.. Another thread that Sir Willy posted in and got completely derailed. Man, that is a rare bird (or eagle)..