First, I should say that I'm not and never have been a journalist, so I defer to trained journalists on matters of the appropriate style (i.e., square brackets or parentheses) in which to point out factual discrepancies. My comment is only that it seems at best unwise for a media outlet like MacNN to assert that a legal claim is "false." That is a conclusion, as zaren said, for judges and/or juries. MacNN has every right (and, as an Apple and MacNN loyalist, I would say "responsibility") to point out that Apple's claims for the iPhone's intended battery life contradict the plaintiff's claims about battery life. But it seems inappropriate to, in effect, call the plaintiffs liars at this very early stage of the game. Would any of us deny that there’s AMPLE room for disparity between a piece of electronic equipment’s claims about its performance and its actual performance?

As to the number of phones sold, it seems to me that that’s a simple error. Apple's official sales number was only released after the close of business on 7/25. Unless the lawsuit was filed after that time - the MacNN article doesn't specify - using the 500,000 number (a widely available estimate) in the claim doesn't seem unreasonable. Characterizing it as a "falsification" - a loaded word - seems a little over the top, in my view. At the least, it makes MacNN seem less like a neutral provider of information and more like an advocate for one side. (And if MacNN doesn't mind that, then so be it. It's their site, they can write whatever they like!) But the name of the site is Macintosh _News_ Network, so I tend to blanch when I read phrases like “falsely alleges” and “another falsification.”

As a personal matter, I don’t think the suit has much chance, and I wish I could sit the plaintiffs down and say “Electronics claims don’t always measure up in real world testing. And if you were paying attention, you'd have known some of this stuff before you bought the phone. Now shut up, go home, and stop wasting everyone’s time and money.” (But I’m also not a journalist.)

... How most of Mann's journalistic style is boilerplate regurgitations, I find it refreshing to have an editor add opinionated commentary for once.

I wish we'd see this more frequently.

Can we say scam? They are sueing Apple for the capacity of batteries (Energizers are the same cycle amounts), wrongly disclaiming the number of phones sold (ok if you hold stock), and the enclosed battery (didn't you idiot use it before you bought it or read anything about it). Sounds like another "5 million dollar pant" lawsuit.

..because a product I have yet to buy has yet to fail and I have yet to be damaged!!

Only in America

SWEET! Where do I sign up? I want to make money!

is not an accusation that the person/s filing suit are liars. They may just be misinformed.

The 500,000 number is widely available through reports from who, exactly? Analysts who work for who, exactly? Who did the analysts get the number from?

If Apple said they sold 500,000 iphone, or if AT&T's stores and said they had 500,000 unique activation requests, then one might be correct in using that number.

Neither of the parties involved in the sale of the device indicated 500,000 units sold, did they?

Numbers were put forth for actual sales by Apple and AT&T, right? So is the person/s correct in stating truth by putting the number 500,000 in their filing? No. They would be alleging falsely.

The number sold is a minor issue (and it appears that Apple says 270,000 the first two days, and the lawsuit says 500,000 the first week, at least according to the story).

More interesting is the fact they filed a lawsuit over battery failures before any battery failures occurred - I guess they're trying to get a head start on all the other scummy lawyers who are lining up to file lawsuits.

...editorial lead-in to the story. This isn't a "news" site bound by some imaginary code of journalism (report no harm?) but a Mac enthusiasts web site. As such, they are free to do whatever they want.

It's probably acceptable for a journalst to claim an error of fact. It isn't really a matter of opinion how many iPhones were sold, what the known facts are about the battery life, or that it was public (if not common) knowledge at launch time that the battery isn't user-replaceable.

No, its not acceptable. But there's few who would claim MacNN are journalists. However, there are no known 'facts' about battery life. All we know, as the article states, what apple claims. But they haven't been proved or disproved.

First, I was wrong to connect the article's use of the word "falsification" with the number of phones sold. The article actually used the word to characterize the plaintiff's claim that "the fact that the iPhone's battery is sealed and not user-replaceable was 'undisclosed to the public' prior to the device's release."

Second, though I personally think the discussion of MacNN’s choice of words and tone is more interesting than plaintiff's specific claims (as I said, based solely on their complaint, I have a vague feeling of contempt for the plaintiffs), upon re-reading the article I noticed one detail I didn't catch the first time through: The plaintiffs have claimed that Apple sold 500,000 iPhones during the device's first _week_ of sale, while the 270,000 number that Apple released on Wednesday of this past week refers to the first _weekend's_ sales (i.e., "first 30 hours of availability”). Thus, the two are not necessarily incompatible estimates as the article implies they are.

And it hasn't been explained before in so many words, but in a class-action or product liability claim, very often the only entity who knows or even might know the precise size of the potentially affected class is the defendant. Plaintiffs seldom have a specific, accurate number to work from. Part of the reason plaintiffs file class-action suits is to get "discovery" (i.e., information) from the other side, as the law requires that both sides give each other the relevant facts ahead of trial. (This massive sharing of information is a big part of the reason that the overwhelming majority of civil suits settle out of court - it often becomes clear only during pre-trial discovery whether there's a good case to be made or not.) Thus, it seems like at best a waste of time and at worst misleading to highlight a numerical discrepancy between the plaintiff’s estimate of a number of phones sold during the first week and Apple’s report of the actual number of phones sold in the first thirty hours. The plaintiff’s number is just an estimate, and that’s perfectly normal for a class-action suit of this kind.

And cebritt, if your point is that the writers and editors of MacNN are free to write whatever they like, I agree with you. And I said so in my last post. But I can't agree that "this isn't a 'news' site bound by some imaginary code of journalism." First, the name Mac NEWS Network seems to suggest otherwise. So does the site's "About MacNN" section, which uses the word "news" at least three times to describe the site's purpose, activities and and reputation. And last, I don't think it's fair to say that journalism's code is "imaginary." "Unwritten," perhaps, and "not universal across contexts," maybe, but by no means imaginary. As I've noted before, I'm not a trained journalist, so I'll leave that particular argument to those who are.