text:
Holman et al v. Apple, Inc. et al
Filing 122
MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Revised Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint; Supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Apple, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 9/12/2008 01:00 PM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose. (Wall, Daniel) (Filed on 6/27/2008)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Daniel M. Wall (Bar No. 102580) Alfred C. Pfeiffer, Jr. (Bar No. 120965) Christopher S. Yates (Bar No. 161273) Sadik Huseny (Bar No. 224659) Sarah M. Ray (Bar No. 229670) 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 Email: email@example.com Email: email@example.com Email: firstname.lastname@example.com Email: firstname.lastname@example.com Email: firstname.lastname@example.com Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION IN RE APPLE & AT&TM ANTI-TRUST LITIGATION CASE NO. C 07-5152 JW DEFENDANT APPLE'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS REVISED CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Date: Time: Place: Judge: September 12, 2008 1:00 p.m. Courtroom 8, 4th Floor Honorable James Ware DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ............................................................3 LEGAL STANDARD....................................................................................................3 PLAINTIFFS' ANTITRUST ALLEGATIONS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM.............4 A. THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS............................................................................4 1. 2. B. Apple's Exclusive Agreement With ATTM. .........................................4 Apple's Add-on Applications Policy. ....................................................6 ANALYSIS: MARKET DEFINITION AND "AFTERMARKETS" .................................6 1. 2. Single-Product Markets Are Rarely Viable. ..........................................7 The Kodak Aftermarket Exception. .......................................................8 C. THE "IPHONE VOICE AND DATA SERVICES AFTERMARKET" FAILS ..................11 1. 2. Plaintiffs Accepted ATTM Service When they Purchased iPhones, i.e., as Part of the Initial Foremarket Transaction. ................11 ATTM Cell Phone Service Existed Long Before the iPhone and is Not "Unique" To It....................................................................12 D. THE "IPHONE APPLICATIONS AFTERMARKET" FAILS........................................12 1. 2. Apple's Third Party Applications Policy Was Public At The Time Plaintiffs Purchased iPhones. .....................................................12 Plaintiffs Do Not Plead A Cognizable Product Market. ......................13 V. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR COMMON LAW COMPUTER TRESPASS OR STATUTORY COMPUTER FRAUD.............14 A. B. C. THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS..........................................................................14 APPLE DID NOT COMMIT ANY "COMPUTER TRESPASS" ...................................15 PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A COMPUTER FRAUD CLAIM..................................16 1. 2. Plaintiffs Fail To State A CFAA Claim...............................................16 Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim Under Penal Code § 502.....................18 i DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O VI. THE STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED..19 A. B. PLAINTIFFS' CONSUMER PROTECTION ALLEGATIONS.......................................19 PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING TO MAINTAIN STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION CLAIMS UNDER THE LAWS OF FORTY STATES WHERE NONE OF THEM RESIDES .....................................................................20 PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD FRAUDULENT OMISSION WITH SUFFICIENT PARTICULARITY UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 9(B) ................20 PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO ALLEGE THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF A CLAIM UNDER THE STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTES ......................21 1. 2. 3. California UCL and CLRA..................................................................21 Washington Consumer Protection Act.................................................23 New York Consumer Protection Act. ..................................................24 C. D. VII. VIII. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD A VIABLE CLAIM UNDER THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT .................................................................24 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................25 ii DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Tech., Inc., 166 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................. 9 Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 136 Cal. App. 4th 1255 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) ....................................................................... 22 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)................................................................................................... 3, 4, 14 Big Bear Lodging Assoc. v. Snow Summit, Inc., 182 F. 3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................................... 7 Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (1962)................................................................................................................ 7 Buller v. Sutter Health, 160 Cal. App. 4th 981 (2008) ............................................................................................... 22 Busey v. P.W. Supermarkets, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (N.D. Cal. 2005) .................................................................................. 4 Butera & Andrews v. IBM Corp., 456 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D.D.C. 2006) ...................................................................................... 17 Chipanno v. Champion International Corp., 1980 WL 1995 (D. Or. 1980)................................................................................................ 21 Civic Western Corp. v. Zila Indus., Inc., 66 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1977) ................................................................................................ 15, 16 Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41 (1957)................................................................................................................ 4 Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (2006) ......................................................................................... 22, 23 Digital Equip. Corp. v. Uniq Digital Tech., Inc., 73 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................. 10 Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Serv., 504 U.S. 451 (1992).................................................................................................. 1, 8, 9, 10 eBay, Inc. v. Bidder's Edge, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000) ............................................................................... 15 Falk v. Gen. Motors Corp., 496 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .......................................................................... 22, 23 Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................. 11 iii DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O Gall v. Home Box Office, 1992-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶69 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).................................................................... 8 Golan v. Pingel Enter., Inc., 310 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................... 7 Green Country Food Mkt., Inc. v. Bottling Group LLC, 371 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................. 8 Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wash. 2d 778 (Wash. 1986)........................................................................................... 23 Hayes v. Packard Bell NEC, Inc., 193 F. Supp. 2d 910 (E.D. Tex. 2001).................................................................................. 18 In re Ditropan XL Antitrust Litig., 529 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................................ 20 In re Doubleclick Inc. Privacy Litigation, 154 F. Supp. 2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)................................................................................... 18 In re Elevator Antitrust Litig., 502 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2007)...................................................................................................... 4 In re GlenFed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................ 21 In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................................ 20 In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2001) ................................................................................. 20 Indoor Billboard/Washington, Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc., 162 Wash. 2d 59 (Wash. 2007)............................................................................................. 24 Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (2003) ........................................................................................................ 15 Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 4 Kerby v. Parsons Corp., 2007 WL 2572334 (W.D. Wash. 2007)................................................................................ 21 Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................ 4 M.D. Rutledge v. Boston Woven Hose and Rubber Co., 576 F.2d 248 (9th Cir. 1978) ................................................................................................ 21 McCabe Hamilton & Renny, Co. v. Matson Terminals, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47428 (D. Haw. 2008) ...................................................................... 4 Mich. Div. - Monument Builders of N. Am. v. Mich. Cemetery Ass'n, 524 F.3d 726 (6th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 4 iv DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O NewCal Industries, Inc. v. IKON Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 2, 9, 10, 11, 12 Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A, 85 N.Y.2d 20 (N.Y. 1995). .................................................................................................. 24 Parrish v. NFL Players Ass'n, 534 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................................ 21 Person v. Google, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47920 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................................... 4 PSI Repair Services v. Honeywell Inc., 104 F. 3d 811 (6th Cir. 1997) ..................................................................................... 9, 10, 12 Queen City Pizza v. Domino's Pizza, 124 F.3d 430 (3d Cir. 1997).................................................................................. 7, 10, 11, 12 Rambus, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., 2007 WL 39374 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ........................................................................................ 20 Rebel Oil v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421 (9th Cir. 1995) .............................................................................................. 7, 8 Schor v. Abbott Labs., 457 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2006)................................................................................................. 10 Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc., 94 N.Y.2d 43 (N.Y. 1999) ................................................................................................... 24 SMS Systems v. Digital Equip. Corp., 188 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 1999)............................................................................................. 10, 12 Snyder v. Ford Motor Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63646 (N.D. Cal. 2006) .................................................................. 20 Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993)................................................................................................................ 7 Staples v. Hoefke, 189 Cal. App. 3d 1397 (1987) .............................................................................................. 15 Stutz Motor Car of Am., Inc. v. Reebok Int'l, Ltd., 909 F. Supp 1353 (C.D. Cal. 1995) ...................................................................................... 21 Tanaka v. Univ. of S. Cal., 252 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................... 7, 8 Thurman Indus., Inc. v. Pay `N Pak Stores, Inc., 875 F.2d 1369 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................................................................................ 7 Thurmond v. Compaq Comp. Corp., 171 F. Supp. 2d 667 (E.D. Tex. 2001).................................................................................. 18 Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Techs., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33678 (C.D. Cal. 2008)..................................................................... 4 v DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966)............................................................................................................... 7 Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. U.S.A., 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................ 20, 21 Volunteer Fireman's Ins. Servs. v. McNeil & Co., 221 F.R.D. 388 (W.D.N.Y. 2004)......................................................................................... 21 Wilens v. TD Waterhouse Group, Inc., 120 Cal. App. 4th 746 (2003) ............................................................................................... 22 Yang v. Dar Al-Handash Consultants, 250 Fed. Appx. 771 (9th Cir. 2007)........................................................................................ 4 STATUTES California Business & Professions Code § 17200 ................................................................ 21, 22 California Business & Professions Code § 17204 ...................................................................... 22 California Business & Professions Code § 17500 ...................................................................... 21 California Civil Code § 3515...................................................................................................... 16 California Code of Civil Procedure § 1770 ................................................................................ 21 California Penal Code § 502 ........................................................................................... 16, 18, 19 15 U.S.C. § 2302......................................................................................................................... 25 15 U.S.C. § 2304......................................................................................................................... 25 18 U.S.C. § 1030................................................................................................................... 17, 18 OTHER AUTHORITIES 1 ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Developments (6th ed. 2007) ...................... 8, 9 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 126................................................... 16 Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application, ¶ 564b ............................................................................... 8 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 158.......................................................................................... 15 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 252.......................................................................................... 16 Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.020..................................................................................................... 23 vi DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on September 12, 2008 at 1:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, located at San Jose, CA, Courtroom 8, before the Hon. James Ware, Defendant Apple Inc. will, and hereby does, move to dismiss each claim for relief asserted in plaintiffs' Revised Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("RCAC") on the grounds that they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings on file in this action, and upon such other matters presented to the Court at the time of the hearing. RELIEF SOUGHT Defendant Apple Inc. ("Apple") seeks dismissal of each claim asserted in plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dated: June 27, 2008 Respectfully submitted, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP By /s/ Daniel M. Wall Daniel M. Wall Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. 1 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION One year ago, Apple released its first cellular telephone product, the iPhone. See Revised Consolidated Amended Complaint ("RCAC") ¶¶ 2, 27, 28. Plaintiffs concede the iPhone was a boon to competition: despite a crowded cell phone market, RCAC ¶¶ 61-62, 70, "consumers waited in line to get their hands on" the iPhone. RCAC ¶ 28. It is common knowledge that Apple's cell phone competitors have been forced to improve and expand their products in order to respond to Apple's entry, which indisputably has increased consumer choice. Nevertheless, plaintiffs' basic theory in this case is that Apple's iPhone entry strategies were anticompetitive and otherwise unlawful. That makes no sense. Entry is the epitome of procompetitive behavior. It makes markets more, not less, competitive. A company's initial entry strategies into a highly competitive market cannot be anticompetitive let alone monopolistic, as is the claim here. Plaintiffs' monopolization claims are contrived. The contrivance is the claim that upon product launch Apple instantly monopolized two iPhone-specific "aftermarkets." An aftermarket is a special kind of antitrust market consisting of unique replacement parts, postwarranty service or other "consumables" specific to some primary product. See, e.g., Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Serv., 504 U.S. 451 (1992) ("Kodak"). Here, plaintiffs claim there are two relevant aftermarkets: (1) for iPhone-compatible cellular telephone service, which Apple monopolized at the moment of entry by selecting AT&T Mobility LLC ("ATTM") as its exclusive cellular service partner; and (2) for iPhone-compatible software applications, i.e., programs that run on the iPhone, which Apple monopolized because at the time of its entry it restricted the ability of consumers to download third-party applications. (Plaintiffs concede this second claim is at least partially moot, since Apple is now allowing third-party developers access to the platform.) These are not legally cognizable "aftermarkets" under antitrust law. With respect to the alleged iPhone "Voice and Data Services Aftermarket," the "aftermarket" service ATTM cellular service is not unique to the iPhone. To the contrary, it has for many years supported cell phones made by Samsung, RIM, Motorola, Nokia and many others. Further, as the Ninth Circuit ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 1 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 made clear in its recent decision NewCal Industries, Inc. v. IKON Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038, 1048 (9th Cir. 2008) ("Ikon"), a claim of aftermarket monopolization cannot be based on obligations a consumer knowingly and voluntarily assumed at the time of its initial purchase of the primary product. The RCAC makes clear that Apple's exclusive agreement with ATTM was announced and widely known, and that consumers were informed at the time they purchased their iPhones of the necessity of ATTM cellular service. As a matter of law, these allegations preclude any claim that the ATTM exclusivity agreement was an act of aftermarket monopolization. The alleged iPhone "Applications Aftermarket" is equally specious. Plaintiffs do not even allege that Apple participates in this alleged market as a software vendor, but only that it has a kind of "gatekeeper" status in allowing third party developers access to the iPhone operating system. A seller cannot monopolize a market in which it does not participate. Moreover, Apple has already taken action to open the iPhone to third party applications. Thus, there is not and cannot be a claim that Apple exploited its control of the iPhone platform to extract monopoly profits in this supposed aftermarket. That omission is fatal to any Kodak-type aftermarket claim. Plaintiffs also advance a number of non-antitrust theories. Foremost among them is that Apple engaged in "computer trespass" and "computer fraud" by releasing its first operating system upgrade for the iPhone, Version 1.1.1. Plaintiffs claim this was unlawful because Apple knew Version 1.1.1 would not interoperate with some iPhones whose owners had used third party hacking solutions to "unlock" their iPhones. But (1) there is no claim that Apple purposefully tried to disable "unlocked" iPhones; (2) Apple did not "invade" anyone's iPhone; rather, owners had to choose to download Version 1.1.1 themselves; and (3) plaintiffs admit Apple warned of the risk before any owner voluntarily downloaded Version 1.1.1. Each of these points precludes any claim for trespass, much less fraud. In reality, plaintiffs are claiming that Apple is legally required to maintain interoperability with iPhones whose software had been altered in violation of the software license agreement. There simply is no such legal duty. Finally, plaintiffs mix in some inherently inconsistent claims about disclosures Apple made, or did not make, in the course of selling iPhones. On one hand, plaintiffs complain that Apple violated various consumer protection statutes by failing to warn customers about some ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 2 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of its policies and practices, as well as the potential risks of downloading Version 1.1.1. On the other hand, plaintiffs complain that Apple violated the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") because it actually did warn consumers about, among other things, the potential risks of downloading Version 1.1.1. Plaintiffs' claims fail on both theories. Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue most of their state law claims, and Apple fully disclosed all that was required under the laws that plaintiffs have standing to assert. Apple had no duty to provide the type of warranty coverage plaintiffs desire, namely, a guarantee that Apple would support hacked, unlocked iPhones. All of plaintiffs' claims are deficient as a matter of law, and plaintiffs have no prospect of amending them to cure the defects. The Court should dismiss the RCAC. II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED 1. Whether plaintiffs have pleaded a plausible, legally cognizable "iPhone Voice and Data Services Aftermarket" and whether Apple has market power in any such market; 2. Whether plaintiffs have pleaded a plausible, legally cognizable "iPhone Applications Aftermarket" and whether Apple has market power in any such market; 3. Whether a claim for trespass to chattels, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or violation of California Penal Code § 502 lies where a plaintiff authorizes and downloads software, after receiving notice that doing so may cause damage to plaintiff's product if plaintiff has altered the preexisting software in violation of the software license agreement. 4. Whether plaintiffs have standing to claim violations of 43 state consumer protection/unfair business practice statutes; whether plaintiffs have pleaded such claims with the requisite specificity; and whether plaintiffs have stated a claim under any such statutes; and 5. Whether plaintiffs have stated a claim under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. III. LEGAL STANDARD The Supreme Court recently addressed pleading standards in general (and antitrust pleading standards in particular) in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). Stressing the dangers of permitting costly antitrust litigation to proceed based on speculation and conclusory allegations, the Court held that a complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," id. at 1974, and that "raise a right to relief above the ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 3 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 speculative level." Id. at 1965. In other words, the Court required plaintiffs to plead facts sufficient to "nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible," or suffer dismissal. Id. at 1974. The Court "retired" the oft-quoted statement from Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1957), that a complaint cannot be dismissed on the pleadings "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1968 ("after puzzling the profession for 50 years, this famous observation has earned its retirement"). In the single year since Twombly was decided, courts have become noticeably less tolerant of improperly pleaded complaints, including antitrust complaints that contain conclusory or implausible market definitions. 1 As already noted, the RCAC makes numerous allegations that Apple failed to disclose various facts about its business model and warranty policies. In part--and primarily with respect to the consumer protection and MMWA claims--this motion attacks those claims because documents incorporated by reference into the RCAC contradict the conclusory allegations of nondisclosure, for example by showing that the allegedly undisclosed fact was disclosed. As set forth in greater detail in Apple's accompanying Request for Judicial Notice, the Court may take judicial notice of these materials, and need not "blindly accept the allegations in the pleadings as true" when contradicted by incorporated materials. Yang v. Dar Al-Handash Consultants, 250 Fed. Appx. 771, 772 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005); Busey v. P.W. Supermarkets, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (J. Ware). IV. PLAINTIFFS' ANTITRUST ALLEGATIONS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM A. THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Apple's Exclusive Agreement With ATTM. Apple introduced the iPhone in June 2007. The iPhone is a "GSM" (Global System for Mobile Communications standard) device which could function on the ATTM and 1 See, e.g., Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008); Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Techs., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33678 (C.D. Cal. 2008); McCabe Hamilton & Renny, Co. v. Matson Terminals, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47428 (D. Haw. 2008); Person v. Google, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47920 (N.D. Cal. 2007); see also Mich. Div. - Monument Builders of N. Am. v. Mich. Cemetery Ass'n, 524 F.3d 726 (6th Cir. 2008); In re Elevator Antitrust Litig., 502 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2007). ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 4 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 T-Mobile USA, Inc. GSM networks, but not on the distinct "CDMA" (Code Division Multiple Access standard) cellular telephone networks operated by Sprint Corporation and Verizon Wireless. RCAC at ¶¶ 59-61, 85. Apple could have offered the iPhone to both ATTM and T-Mobile, but it chose to enter into an exclusive carrier arrangement with ATTM. The RCAC does not allege there was anything secret about this exclusivity, nor its binding effect throughout the term of the mandatory two-year ATTM service contract. The RCAC acknowledges that on January 9, 2007 the day Apple announced the iPhone and five months before the iPhone was released for purchase Apple also "announced that it had entered into an exclusive agreement making AT&TM the only authorized provider of wireless voice and data services for iPhones in the United States." RCAC ¶ 77; RJN Exs. G, H. In fact, the iPhone box itself, which every purchaser necessarily received on purchase, stated clearly on its outside label the following "requirements": (1) "Minimum new two-year wireless service plan with AT&T required to activate all iPhone features, including iPod features" and (2) "Service plan with AT&T required for cellular network capabilities on expiration of initial new two year agreement," among other things. RJN Ex. A. The RCAC also admits that when each of the named plaintiffs purchased one or more iPhones, they "executed a two-year contract with AT&TM for provision of iPhone wireless voice and data services." RCAC ¶¶ 13-21, 31. This agreement states, in relevant part, that "*All plans require a 2-year AT&T service agreement, an activation fee, and are subject to AT&T credit approval." RJN Ex. C (iPhone Terms and Conditions). The duration of the exclusive Apple-ATTM agreement was not "secret" either. The RCAC quotes a May 21, 2007 USA Today article published over a month before the iPhone's release stating, "AT&T has exclusive U.S. distribution rights for five years--an eternity in the go-go cellphone world." RCAC ¶ 86, RJN Ex. E: L. Cauley, AT&T Eager to Wield its iWeapon, USA Today, May 21, 2007. The tremendous pre-release publicity that accompanied the iPhone also reminded consumers that iPhones were locked to only work with ATTM and would not be unlocked. The RCAC quotes a Wall Street Journal article noting the ATTM exclusivity and stating that Apple "has locked and relocked the phone to make sure ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 5 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 consumers can't override that restriction." RCAC ¶ 62, RJN Ex. F: W. Mossberg, Free My Phone, Wall Street Journal, October 22, 2007. 2 There is no allegation that Apple or ATTM ever told consumers they could or would at any point be able to use the iPhone with another carrier. In short, there is no claim, and there could be no claim, that ATTM service was an undisclosed term of an iPhone contract. It was openly, obviously, part of the deal. 2. Apple's Add-on Applications Policy. Plaintiffs admit that, because Apple is in the process of permitting third party software applications for the iPhone, this portion of plaintiffs' claim is largely moot. RCAC ¶ 126 n. 6. 3 Plaintiffs nevertheless allege that Apple monopolized a supposed iPhone "Applications Aftermarket" by not supporting third party applications immediately and by demanding a share of any revenues generated by third party applications. RCAC ¶ 4. The RCAC does not claim that plaintiffs or the general public were unaware of Apple's initial policy toward third party applications. Nor do plaintiffs claim it was "secret," much less that Apple ever represented its initial policy was different than it was. To the contrary, the RCAC quotes a Wall Street Journal article from October 2007, which among other things stated: Apple has also, so far, barred users from installing third-party programs on the iPhone, though the company announced last week it will open the phone to such programs early next year. (Web-based iPhone programs those that run inside the Web browser have been available from day one.) RCAC ¶ 62, RJN Ex. F, W. Mossberg, Free My Phone. Here, too, Apple's position regarding add-on applications was never concealed. More importantly, now that the initial hurdle of a successful introduction of the iPhone has been achieved, Apple has quickly moved towards an ever-increasing third-party application presence. B. ANALYSIS: MARKET DEFINITION AND "AFTERMARKETS" Plaintiffs' antitrust claims are brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which 2 3 The extensive press on these issues is evident with a simple web search, e.g., "Apple iPhone exclusive AT&T" on Google News (2007 date range). Apple released a "software development kit" (SDK) in March 2008 in order to enable "independent software developers to design third party applications" (RCAC ¶ 4 n. 2) and will shortly release the "updated version of the iPhone operating software, to be called Version 2.0, that will permit iPhone owners to safely download third party applications." Id. ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 6 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 prohibits monopolization, attempted monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize. It is therefore incumbent on plaintiffs to plead and ultimately prove that Apple has monopoly power or at least a dangerous probability of achieving it in one or more relevant markets. United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966) ("The offense of monopoly under § 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power."); see also Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 455 (1993); Rebel Oil v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421, 1432-33 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs must plead the contours of the relevant product and geographic markets. Golan v. Pingel Enter., Inc., 310 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("Defining the relevant market is indispensable to a monopolization claim under § 2 of the Sherman Act.") (quoting Thurman Indus., Inc. v. Pay `N Pak Stores, Inc., 875 F.2d 1369, 1373 (9th Cir. 1989)). As the Ninth Circuit has stated: "Market definition is crucial. Without a definition of the relevant market, it is impossible to determine market share," from which market power is often inferred. Rebel Oil, 51 F.3d at 1434. "Failure to identify a relevant product market is a proper ground for dismissing a Sherman Act claim." Tanaka v. Univ. of S. Cal., 252 F. 3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff sought to restrict relevant market to single athletic program in Los Angeles where she had preference to stay in Los Angeles); see also Big Bear Lodging Assoc. v. Snow Summit, Inc., 182 F. 3d 1096, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal where plaintiffs failed to allege that no other goods or services were reasonably interchangeable with product offered by defendant ); Queen City Pizza v. Domino's Pizza, 124 F.3d 430, 436 (3d Cir. 1997). As noted, courts post-Twombly are even less tolerant of improperly pleaded complaints containing conclusory or implausible market definitions. See III, n.1, supra. 1. Single-Product Markets Are Rarely Viable. Markets are typically defined in terms of product interchangeability that is, a market is the group of products that consumers would view as substitutes for each other. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325 (1962) ("The outer boundaries of a product market are determined by the reasonable interchangeability of use or the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it.") Thus, the law in this Circuit, as elsewhere, is that "[i]f ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 7 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 consumers view the products as substitutes, the products are part of the same market." Rebel Oil, 51 F. 3d at 1435. That general rule ends the case: there is no chance the iPhone would monopolize any market defined in this manner. Plaintiffs effectively concede as much; they never argue Apple has market power in any equipment market because they cannot: as plaintiffs acknowledged in the earlier Smith complaint, ATTM service is used by over 63 million of the 235+ million (estimated) cellular customers in the U.S. RJN Ex. D, ¶ 63; see also RCAC ¶ 86, L. Cauley, AT&T Eager to Wield its iWeapon, (RJN Ex. E). By contrast, the RCAC alleges 1.4 million iPhone customers as of October 2007 (with a forecast of 10 million more by 2008). RCAC ¶ 111. Instead, plaintiffs try to make the case that the iPhone defines its own separate aftermarkets, involving (1) iPhone-compatible cellular service and (2) iPhone-compatible software applications. Such single-brand markets are rarely tenable. As a leading treatise puts it: Relevant markets generally cannot be limited to a single manufacturer's products. As the Supreme Court recognized in the United States v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. [351 U.S. 377 (1956)] . . . the "power that, let us say, automobile or soft-drink manufacturers have over their trademarked products is not the power that makes an illegal monopoly. Illegal power must be appraised in terms of the competitive market for the product." 1 ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Developments (6th ed. 2007) 588-89; see also Green Country Food Mkt., Inc. v. Bottling Group LLC, 371 F.3d 1275, 1283 (10th Cir. 2004) (Pepsi products not a relevant market); Tanaka, 252 F.3d at 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2001) ("UCLA women's soccer program" not a relevant market); Gall v. Home Box Office, 1992-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶69,949 at 68,594 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ("the natural monopoly every manufacturer has in its own product simply cannot serve as the basis for antitrust liability"). 2. The Kodak Aftermarket Exception. Plaintiffs attempt to fit within the narrow exception to the rule against single-brand markets created in Kodak. The effort fails badly. Some products, especially durable goods like automobiles and many types of business equipment, require the customer to purchase additional items after the initial purchase, for example repair parts, service and supplies. It is sometimes said that these additional purchases take place in "aftermarkets." Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law: An Analysis ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 8 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of Antitrust Principles and Their Application, ¶ 564b ("An aftermarket is a type of derivative market consisting of consumable goods or replacement components that must be used for the proper functioning of some primary good."). Certain durable goods manufacturers that face intense competition in the market for the initial sale of the primary product have nevertheless been charged with monopolizing the derivative aftermarkets for the post-sale products and services their customers consume. Id.; see also 1 ABA Section of Antitrust Law at 238-39. Kodak and its progeny address whether and when that is possible. Kodak was a significant manufacturer of photocopiers but faced intense interbrand competition. Kodak, 504 U.S. at 455-58. At one time it sold replacement parts openly, both to independent service organizations (ISOs) and to end-users who patronized ISOs, then ceased to do so, prompting monopolization claims. Id. at 458. Kodak obtained summary judgment on the ground that the equipment "foremarket" was the relevant market, and thus Kodak lacked market or monopoly power. Id. at 456. The Ninth Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court agreed. While accepting that foremarket competition would ordinarily be expected to constrain aftermarket behavior, id. at 469-70 nn.15, 17, the Supreme Court declined to adopt "a substantive legal rule that `equipment competition precludes any finding of monopoly power in derivative aftermarkets.'" Id. at 466 (quotations omitted). The Court found that parts and service for Kodak copiers could be relevant product markets under specialized circumstances, in particular where "locked-in" consumers were vulnerable to exploitation from undisclosed business practices. See Ikon, 513 F.3d at 1048 ("[C]onsumers could not, at the time of purchase, reasonably discover that Kodak monopolized the service market and charged supracompetitive prices for its service."). Kodak and it progeny make clear that a claim of aftermarket monopolization cannot exist where the manufacturer's allegedly anticompetitive policies were known and agreed to at the time of purchase. See, e.g., PSI Repair Services v. Honeywell Inc., 104 F. 3d 811, 820-21 (6th Cir. 1997) (Kodak inapplicable where Honeywell informed customers at time of initial purchase that it would supply basic control equipment as well as replacement components and service as single product); Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Tech., Inc., 166 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999) (no aftermarket where software license disclosed that it could be used only on manufacturer-provided ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 9 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 equipment); Queen City Pizza, 124 F.3d at 440-41 (Kodak inapplicable where franchise contract disclosed that defendant would control access to certain ingredients and supplies); SMS Systems v. Digital Equip. Corp., 188 F.3d 11, 19 (1st Cir. 1999) (distinguishing "prospective nature of the warranty" at issue as compared to Kodak's "retroactive change in the rules"); Digital Equip. Corp. v. Uniq Digital Tech., Inc., 73 F.3d 756, 763 (7th Cir. 1996) ("[I]f spare parts had been bundled with Kodak's copiers from the outset, or Kodak had informed customers about its policies before they bought its machines, purchasers could have shopped around for competitive lifecycle prices. The material dispute that called for a trial was whether the change in policy enabled Kodak to extract supra-competitive prices from customers who had already purchased its machines."). 4 The Ninth Circuit's Ikon decision emphasizes this point, and more specifically holds that where the defendant's alleged market power "arises solely from contractual rights that consumers knowingly and voluntarily gave to the defendant" at the time of their foremarket purchase, the foremarket not any aftermarket is the relevant market. Ikon, 513 F. 3d at 1048. Of course, the alleged aftermarket must also be an aftermarket. That is, for this exception to the normal rules of market definition to apply, the alleged market must be for those "unique" and non-interchangeable products or services that are "wholly derivative from and dependent on the primary market." Id. at 1049. Thus, the typical aftermarket case involves a unique "consumable" product or service that is useful only with respect to the foremarket product. A replacement part that works only in a Kodak copier, and is therefore worthless to owners of Xerox copiers, is the typical example. This is crucial, for as the Ninth Circuit explained in Ikon, "one of the primary considerations" in Kodak was that: Kodak held a natural monopoly in the submarket for Kodak-brand replacement parts, which gave it a unique position in the wholly derivative aftermarket for service contracts. Kodak was then able to exploit that unique position to gain monopoly power in the derivative services market as well, even though its monopoly power in services was neither naturally nor contractually created. 4 See also Schor v. Abbott Labs., 457 F.3d 608, 614 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding Kodak's change in policy "had the potential to raise the total cost of copier-plus-service above the competitive level and . . . above the price that Kodak could have charged had it followed a closed-service model from the outset."); PSI Repair Servs., 104 F.3d at 820 ("the change in policy in Kodak was the crucial factor in the Court's decision.") ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 10 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Id.; see also Queen City Pizza, 124 F.3d at 439 (aftermarket product "may constitute a relevant market ... where the commodity is unique, and therefore not interchangeable with other products"). Analyzed in light of these principles, plaintiffs' two "aftermarkets" cannot stand. C. THE "IPHONE VOICE AND DATA SERVICES AFTERMARKET" FAILS 1. Plaintiffs Accepted ATTM Service When they Purchased iPhones, i.e., as Part of the Initial Foremarket Transaction. Plaintiffs' real complaint is with their contractual agreement limiting them to ATTM service an agreement that on its face restricts their ability to use interchangeable cellular services. As noted, however, Ninth Circuit law "prohibits an antitrust claimant from resting on market power that arises solely from contractual rights that consumers knowingly and voluntarily gave to the defendant." Ikon 513 F.3d at 1048 (emphasis in original); see also Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1476 (9th Cir. 1997) (explicit contractual provisions could not form boundaries of an antitrust aftermarket; rejecting proposed market definition limited to include only hospital customers who held defendant's insurance policies); Queen City, 124 F.3d at 439-41. Because all plaintiffs agreed to use ATTM service when they bought their iPhones, RCAC ¶ 31, there cannot be a relevant iPhone service aftermarket under Kodak and Ikon, and plaintiffs cannot claim that mandatory ATTM service was an act of monopolization. 5 Plaintiffs understand this problem, which the Court may recall was a point of contention among the various candidates for Lead Interim Class Counsel. Plaintiffs thus try to plead around Ikon by alleging that defendants kept "secret" their five-year exclusivity deal. RCAC ¶ 2. The idea apparently is that plaintiffs became unwittingly "locked-in" to ATTM service for three years beyond their agreed two-year service contract. This new twist cannot save plaintiffs' claim. First, to the extent it matters, there was widespread disclosure of ATTM's five-year exclusivity and no suggestion by Apple or anyone else that iPhones would become unlocked after two years. In fact, the iPhone box itself disclosed to the 5 Plaintiffs also do not adequately plead defendants' market power in this alleged aftermarket. While this is itself an independent basis for dismissing these claims, the fact that plaintiffs' contract-based "iPhone Voice and Data Services Aftermarket" can never be a cognizable aftermarket under Ikon means that plaintiffs will never be able to cure these deficiencies. ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 11 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 prospective purchaser that a "[s]ervice plan with AT&T [would be] required for cellular network capabilities on expiration of initial new two-year agreement." IV.A.1, supra. This at-purchase information was more than enough disclosure to put consumers on notice that they might never have a choice of cellular service for their iPhone, and to thus preclude a Kodak-type aftermarket theory. See, e.g., PSI Repair Services, 104 F.3d at 820-21; Queen City Pizza, 124 F.3d at 440-41. Moreover, it is sheer speculation and illogical that failing to disclose the fiveyear exclusivity term would produce monopoly power, i.e., would allow Apple, a brand new entrant in cell phones, to "exert raw power in the aftermarket without regard for commercial consequences in the foremarket." SMS Systems, 188 F.3d at 17. That is the ultimate inquiry. This "imperfect disclosure" theory is neither logically nor legally a substitute for the kind of change-inpolicy or post-contract exploitation scenarios at issue in Kodak. Nor, since all iPhone consumers still fall under their initial ATTM contracts, 6 could nondisclosure possibly have resulted in the kind of unanticipated price increase that was fundamental to Kodak. The theory just makes no sense. 2. ATTM Cell Phone Service Existed Long Before the iPhone and is Not "Unique" To It. There is not, nor could there be, any claim that ATTM cell service is unique to the iPhone. Furthermore, ATTM cell service is not an aftermarket, it is a beforemarket that predates the iPhone, and is interchangeable with and in constant competition with all other cell service providers (including T-Mobile, the cell service provider that some plaintiffs switched from). RCAC ¶¶ 54-55. The notion that cellphone service is the aftermarket borders on the absurd it simply cannot be the case that as soon as a manufacturer introduces a new product, it makes an "aftermarket" of a preexisting service that works not only with that product but with an undisputed host of others. D. THE "IPHONE APPLICATIONS AFTERMARKET" FAILS The same problems, and more, plague plaintiffs' "iPhone Applications Aftermarket." 1. Apple's Third Party Applications Policy Was Public At The Time Plaintiffs Purchased iPhones. First, plaintiffs do not plead facts establishing that the general public was unaware 6 The earliest ATTM iPhone contracts will expire on June 29, 2009, two years after the iPhone was released. RCAC ¶ 31. ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 12 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of Apple's third party application policy. They never even allege that Apple tried to keep the policy secret from consumers, much less that any plaintiff was unaware of the policy at the time they purchased their iPhones. And they cite to evidence showing that the policy was known. Section IVA(2), supra. So the "undisclosed policy" rationale of Kodak is absent. Of course, plaintiffs have also failed to allege that there was any actual exploitation of "ignorance" about Apple's third party applications policy. To the contrary, plaintiffs concede that Apple has changed its policy to permit third party applications and issued an SDK to facilitate interoperability. RCAC ¶ 126 n. 6. Here, it's not just an absence of the post-purchase opportunistic behavior at issue in Kodak; Apple opened up the allegedly locked-down "market." 2. Plaintiffs Do Not Plead A Cognizable Product Market. Second, plaintiffs' allegations about the purported "iPhone Applications Aftermarket" are hopelessly vague and do not plead any kind of relevant market, or monopoly power in it. The RCAC merely describes an "aftermarket for software applications that can be downloaded on the iPhone for managing such functions as ring tones, instant messaging, photographic capability and Internet applications" and alleges that Apple has acquired monopoly power in this purported aftermarket by "approving" some applications and "discouraging" the use of others. RCAC ¶¶ 121, 123. But plaintiffs do not even allege that Apple makes or sells any addon applications, much less that it has a monopoly share of such applications. Obviously Apple makes and sells (technically, licenses) software that comes with the iPhone, but there is no claim that Apple makes or sells aftermarket applications, as would be required for Apple to monopolize this alleged market. A seller cannot monopolize a market in which it does not compete. Nor do plaintiffs explain how all software applications compatible with the iPhone would make up any kind of market, e.g., how it could possibly be that an instant messaging program could compete with a ring-tone maker, or that a photo application like Flickr could compete with a game program. By the same logic, all software compatible with Microsoft Windows would likewise constitute a market. But these are not even arguably interchangeable products of the kind that meet antitrust market definition requirements. Antitrust law does not recognize a market of products that do not compete with each other, are not substitutes for each ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 13 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 other, and whose only unifying feature is that they are compatible with a given software platform. Even for the pleadings stage, this is an illogical mess that fails to meet Twombly's mandate that plaintiffs plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" and "above the speculative level." Twombly, 127 S. Ct at 1965, 1974. On these allegations, plaintiffs' claims about monopolization of the "Applications Aftermarket" fail as a matter of law. V. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR COMMON LAW COMPUTER TRESPASS OR STATUTORY COMPUTER FRAUD A. THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiffs claim that Apple "knowingly issued and caused transmission of a purported update to the iPhone operating software, known as Version 1.1.1, which `bricked' (that is, rendered completely inoperable) or otherwise damaged some iPhones that were unlocked or had downloaded competing software applications." RCAC ¶ 5. The RCAC acknowledges that iPhone users had to affirmatively download Version 1.1.1 and that Apple warned them (and the broad "computer community") that the software update could cause irreparable damage to iPhones if the user had modified the embedded iPhone software. See RCAC ¶¶ 37, 98-103; id. ¶¶ 94-95 (Apple "repeatedly announced that any attempt to unlock the iPhone SIM or to install Third Party Apps would void the Apple warranty."). Apple released Version 1.1.1 on September 27, 2007. RCAC ¶ 102. iPhone owners had the choice to download it or not. 7 Prior to installing Version 1.1.1, iPhone owners had to view a bold, capitalized warning stating: "IF YOU HAVE MODIFIED YOUR IPHONE'S SOFTWARE, APPLYING THIS SOFTWARE UPDATE MAY RESULT IN YOUR IPHONE BECOMING PERMANENTLY INOPERABLE." A screenshot of the warning, as included in the initial Smith complaint at ¶ 42 and contained in Altered iPhones Freeze Up, Katie Hafner, New York Times, September 29, 2007, (RJN Ex. I), follows: 7 Indeed, plaintiff Kliegerman chose to download Version 1.1.1 on only two of his three iPhones (RCAC ¶¶ 13, 45), and plaintiff Holman chose not to download Version 1.1.1 because of his knowledge of the risks associated with his modified iPhone. RCAC ¶ 36-37. ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 14 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. APPLE DID NOT COMMIT ANY "COMPUTER TRESPASS" Plaintiffs assert that Apple's release of Version 1.1.1 was an "unwanted and uninvited intermeddling" (RCAC ¶ 165) that constitutes common law trespass. Trespass requires (1) an interference with another's possession of property that is both (2) unlawful and (3) nonconsensual. See Staples v. Hoefke, 189 Cal. App. 3d 1397, 1406 (1987); Civic Western Corp. v. Zila Indus., Inc., 66 Cal. App. 3d 1, 16-17 (1977). The application of this doctrine to modern-day electronic "intrusions" is controversial, but has received some acceptance in two settings: "spamming" computer systems, e.g., Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (2003), and using "bots" to harvest information from another's computer system, e.g., eBay, Inc. v. Bidder's Edge, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000). The sine qua non of these cases is a defendant initiating an unwanted electronic intrusion into the plaintiff's computer, for that is the "trespass" that underlies the tort. Plaintiffs' concessions that they consented to the installation of Version 1.1.1, and that Apple warned them about possible consequences, doom their claim in two ways. First, there simply was not a trespass by Apple. This case is nothing like Intel or eBay, in which strangers intruded uninvited into the plaintiffs' computer systems. An uninvited "intrusion" is fundamental to any trespass, see, e.g., Rest.2d Torts, § 158, cmt. c, and without it there is no basis for invoking this common law doctrine. Furthermore, it would send shockwaves throughout the software industry if the courts were to find that downloading a software update one of the most common software delivery models satisfies the intrusion element of a trespass ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 15 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 claim, such that any harm that is claimed to result from the download, intended or not, would be redressable in tort. That is plainly not the law today; nor should it be. Second, to the extent Apple "entered" plaintiffs' iPhones at all, plaintiffs' consensual choice to download and install Version 1.1.1 precludes any finding of trespass, particularly in light of Apple's multiple warnings. See Civic Western Corp., 66 Cal. App. 3d at 16-17 ("Where there is a consensual entry, there is no tort, because lack of consent is an element of the wrong."); Cal. Civ. Code § 3515 ("He who consents to an act is not wronged by it."); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 252 ("One who would otherwise be liable to another for trespass to chattel or for conversion is not liable to the extent that the other has effectively consented to the interference with his rights."); 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 126, p. 235. There can be no trespass where the owners of the property at issue the iPhones not only consented to the supposed "trespass," but themselves (not Apple) installed the allegedly "trespassing" upgrade. In the end, plaintiffs do not really complain about any "intrusion," much less "trespass;" they try to stretch the doctrine well beyond any reasonable bounds. Their claim is that Apple acted tortiously by releasing an updated version of its iPhone operating system without guaranteeing that the updated operating system would be compatible with all iPhones whose software had been altered to unlock the phones, in violation of the software license agreement. Plaintiffs claim, in other words, that Apple has a duty to maintain software compatibility with all "hacked" iPhones whose software has thereby been altered. There is no legal authority whatsoever for such a duty, even under the most radical concepts of computer trespass. C. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A COMPUTER FRAUD CLAIM Plaintiffs also allege that Apple's release of Version 1.1.1 supports a claim of computer fraud under two criminal statutes allowing corollary civil rights of action the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA") and California Penal Code § 502(c)(8). 1. Plaintiffs Fail To State A CFAA Claim. Plaintiffs' claim under the CFAA fails for three reasons. First, plaintiffs fail to and cannot allege the requisite intent required under this ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 16 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 criminal statute. The CFAA penalizes only those parties who knowingly transmit a program with the specific and conscious intent of causing damage: "Whoever knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer..." 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) (emphasis added). The "intent" threshold is high the "conduct or the causing of the result must have been the person's conscious objective." Butera & Andrews v. IBM Corp., 456 F. Supp. 2d 104, 109 (D.D.C. 2006), quoting S. Rep. No. 99-541, at 23 (1986) (emphasis supplied). Plaintiffs' RCAC does not come close to meeting this stringent requirement. Plaintiffs liberally sprinkle about the conclusory word "intent" but they do not allege what they must: that it was Apple's "conscious objective" in releasing Version 1.1.1 to damage or destroy unlocked iPhones. Plaintiffs' allegations, instead, make clear that their claim rests on knowledge of a potential but unintended result: that Version 1.1.1 "would damage or destroy unlocked iPhones." RCAC ¶ 6. These allegations are insufficient under the CFAA, which requires that a defendant "intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer..." 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) (emphasis supplied). Plaintiffs' reading of "intent" would effectively mean that (1) manufacturers have a perpetual duty of care to ensure that any software update they issue will not damage or affect any consumer product, regardless of the consumers' own actions in altering the product, and (2) manufacturers are criminally liable for failure to sustain that duty. This is not the law and never should be. The CFAA's requirement of the strictest standard of "intent" forecloses such expansive assertions of criminal liability. As plaintiffs do not and cannot allege, in good faith, that Apple issued Version 1.1.1 with the conscious objective to damage iPhones, this claim fails. Second, there can be no violation of the CFAA because every iPhone owner had to authorize the installation of Version 1.1.1 and download the actual update. See VI.A, supra. The CFAA statute only reaches situations where the defendant "knowingly causes [a] transmission ... and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer." 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) (emphasis added). Here, plaintiffs chose whether or not to install Version 1.1.1 after being forewarned. ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O 17 DEFENDANT APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Third, plaintiffs' allegations regarding the value of their iPhones ($399, $499, $599 (RCAC ¶28 n.3) preclude a finding that they meet the requisite minimum of $5,000 in damages per iPhone needed to make out a CFAA claim. See Thurmond v. Compaq Comp. Corp., 171 F. Supp. 2d 667, 681 (E.D. Tex. 2001) (granting motion for summary judgment based on plaintiffs' failure to establish the requisite $5,000 in losses; explicitly rejecting argument that plaintiffs are permitted to aggregate damages across multiple computers for CFAA claims); Hayes v. Packard Bell NEC, Inc., 193 F. Supp. 2d 910, 912-13 (E.D. Tex. 2001) (granting motion to dismiss in light of plaintiff's concession that she could not establish $5,000 in damages per computer); In re Doubleclick Inc. Privacy Litigation, 154 F. Supp. 2d 497, 524 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ($5,000 damage threshold must be attributable to single act). Amendments to the CFAA subsequent to these decisions further clarify that only claims brought by the United States government may aggregate losses attributable to more than one protected computer for purposes of the $5,000 threshold. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(5)(A)(i), (B)(i). Plaintiffs do not, and cannot, allege $5,000 in damages per iPhone in the aggregate per year to state a claim. 2. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim Under Penal Code § 502. Section 502(c)(8) of the California Penal Code punishes an individual who "[k]nowingly introduces any computer contaminant into any computer, computer system, or computer network," Id. Section 502(b)(10) defines "computer contaminant" as "computer instructions that are designed to modify, damage, destroy, record, or transmit information within a computer ... without the


text: Hello! I'm Alex, a 3D artist and digital designer currently living in Rochester, New York. For me, design is everything. I am constantly trying to expand my skill set and push myself to try new styles and mediums. My belief is that good design has the capability to shape the world and I am amazed at the impact it can have. In addition to 3D graphics I love web design, graphic design, motion design, and a bunch of other things, too!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Decision 2012
The winners and losers of election 2012
As with any election period, the end shines light on winners and losers. This year the winners are Latinos, status quo and presidential debates, according to Alex Altman a reporter from Time. Some... Read more »
Mitt Romney won white evangelicals, but struggled with Latino Catholics
Mitt Romney won the religious voters he expected to win last Tuesday, but there just weren't enough of them. Romney ran well with white Catholics, and surprisingly well with white evangelicals,... Read more »
Mitt Romney never overcame bailout opposition in Ohio
Only a couple of weeks after Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, the man who would become his Republican challenger in the next election penned a New York Times column with a fateful headline:... Read more »
President Barack Obama wins Florida topping Mitt Romney in final tally
President Barack Obama was declared the winner of Florida's 29 electoral votes Saturday, ending a four-day count with a razor-thin margin that narrowly avoided an automatic recount that would have... Read more »
Election results raise questions about Christian right's influence
For decades, the conservative Christian right has been a dominate voting block. But, Tuesday's elections results have called into question how much influence conservative Christian leaders still have. Read more »
President Obama approaches 'fiscal cliff' days after victory
Newly re-elected President Barack Obama will use a White House appearance to set the tone for upcoming talks with congressional Republicans on avoiding the so-called fiscal cliff. Read more »
Will Huntsman re-join Obama administration as secretary of state?
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr., an unsuccessful candidate for this year's GOP presidential nomination, is being mentioned as a possible pick to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton... Read more »
Firsts elected to Congress this cycle
Here is an informative roundup by the Washington Post of election results that resulted in some firsts in Congress. Read more »
Economic unease looms after election
Decisions are to be made quickly for President Obama and Congress to avoid a "fiscal cliff." The "fiscal cliff" means less spending and tax increase of more than $600 billion, according to Damian... Read more »
Obama's big Hispanic win worries Republicans
Omayra Vasquez blinks and does a double take when asked why she voted to re-elect President Barack Obama. The reason for her was as natural as breathing. Read more »
Obama's return a test of evolving foreign policy
Phrases to describe some of the looming foreign policy challenges for President Barack Obama didn't even exist when he took the oath of office the first time: the Arab Spring, the Fordo Facility... Read more »
Election 2012 offers important lessons for anyone in a leadership position
Campaigns and football seasons are compressed organizational life cycles with lessons for anyone in a leadership position. A goal is set, a team is built, players get swapped in and out, mistakes... Read more »
A day of painful goodbyes for Mitt Romney (+video)
Mitt Romney's morning-after brunch with key supporters of his failed presidential bid was tough to attend, his former Salt Lake Olympic colleague Fraser Bullock said. Read more »
Election results raise questions about Christian right's influence
The results from the election fared against many conservative Christian leaders' wishes. What does the results mean for various Christian leaders? Read more »
Re-elected, Obama heads back to divided government
One day after his surprisingly comfortable re-election, a triumphant President Barack Obama headed back to the White House and divided government on Wednesday with little time left for a compromise... Read more »
An unexpected love letter to the Clintons: Why this Republican misses them
Facing another four years of Obama presidency, this moderate Republican finds herself longing for the old blue guard. Read more »
Republicans see demographic shifts, time for soul-searching in the wake of election losses
Fresh off an electoral shellacking on a number of levels, Republicans are indicating intra-party soul-searching, suggesting it's time to reexamine stances and look at widening the tent to woo... Read more »
Gun sales expected to rise after Obama's re-election
Now that the election is over and Obama is re-elected, voters are apparently expected to stock up on firearms. Read more »
After defeat, cloudy future ahead for Mitt Romney (+video)
Mitt Romney spent the past six years running for president. After his loss to President Barack Obama on Tuesday, he'll have to chart a different course. Read more »
U.S. voters also elected $10.9 billion in local-government debt Tuesday
Our nation's next president wasn't the only thing elected last night. So was $10.9 billion in local-government debt. Read more »
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants quick deal on 'fiscal cliff' (+video)
The top Democrat in Congress called Wednesday for a quick solution to Washington's "fiscal cliff" in an upcoming post-election session of Congress. Read more »
Israeli leader in bind after Obama victory
President Barack Obama's re-election has left Israel's prime minister in a bind. Read more »
How did education fare in this election? In California, voters choose higher taxes over cutting school budgets
Six states had education initiatives on their ballots this year. In California, voters choose higher taxes over cutting school budgets. Read more »
Puerto Rico ousts governor, backs U.S. statehood
Puerto Ricans have endorsed U.S. statehood for the Caribbean island but also ousted the pro-statehood governor in a close election. Read more »
It's a 50-50 nation, give or take
The election laid bare a dual — and dueling — nation, politically speaking, jaggedly split down the middle on the presidency and torn over much else. It seems you can please only half... Read more »
Older stories can be found in the story archives
- Brad Rock: This is where conference switch...
- Dick Harmon: Presence of injured stars looms...
- LDS Church clarifies position on...
- Tyler Haws scores 24 as BYU holds off Stanford
- LDS Church to create new missions in Utah and...
- Pleasant Grove pizza manager arrested for...
- What does a letter grade mean for my child's...
- W. Bradford Wilcox: Why the working-class...


text:
- About
- Programs & Events
- Services
- Leadership
- Research
- Taking Action
- President's Advisory Commission on Women's Issues
- Michigan Partners Project
- Visiting Social Activists Program
- Carol Hollenshead Award
- Women and Economic Security: Changing Policy and Practice Conference
- UM Campus Issues
- Campus Sexual Assault Policy Conference 2012
- Taking Action on State and National Issues
- Support CEW
The Center for the Education of Women assists hundreds of women and men each year as they make decisions about their futures. The comprehensive counseling program supports exploration of educational and career interests within the context of relationships and life circumstances.
Our professionally trained and experienced counselors work within a developmental framework to help women and men consider their options, make informed choices, and both define and resolve problems, while focusing on issues of achieving balance between work and family.
To schedule an appointment, stop in at CEW or call 734-764-6360. There is no charge for counseling appointments, which are available to anyone, whether affiliated with the University or not. If this is your first appointment, you will be scheduled for an intake appointment to fill out paperwork, and a counseling appointment immediately following. Please pay attention to the details you will receive in your appointment reminder email, as CEW's policy is to cancel an appointment if you are late for your intake. After your appointment you will have the opportunity to complete a brief satisfaction survey.
***Due to intrastate licensure issues, we are not currently able to offer phone appointments to those living outside of the state of Michigan. We recommend that you look in your local area for resources on career and education.
What happens in a counseling appointment?
While there is no "typical" appointment, the list below can give you an idea of the concerns our participants tend to discuss in a counseling appointment at CEW.
- goals clarification
- feedback on resumes, cover letters, application materials, etc.
- how to start a job search
- educational goals
- how to return to college or graduate school
- work/life/family balance issues
There is no limit on the number of appointments you may have; you and the counselor will make that decision.
CEW's integrated approach includes workshops and programs, a library with circulating materials and other services.
Who uses CEW's counseling service?
CEW's counseling services are open to all community members and University of Michigan students, faculty and staff. Our counseling services have been used effectively by all kinds of people – from executives to entrepreneurs, from faculty to non-traditional returning students, to community members experiencing mid-life transitions.
Location and Parking
CEW is located at 330 E. Liberty Street, in the Michigan Square building. We are very close to the intersection of S. Division and Liberty.
Map CEW location and surrounding streets
Directions to CEW
Look for the blue "CEW" awning outside our building; CEW's entrance is at the top of the exterior stairs. Parking is available in the newly constructed underground lot with entrances on both Division and Fifth Avenue, as well as in the public surface lot across from the Ann Arbor Public Library (accessible from William Street), the parking structure on 4th & William, or the Maynard parking structure located between Thompson and Maynard Street just off of E. Liberty. See this parking web site for available spots in surrounding parking structures. See this parking web site for available spots in surrounding parking structures.
To access the elevator, please use the entrance at the northwest corner of the building and buzz for CEW.


text:
- Comments
Today only. Soap.com is taking 50% off Old Spice products with coupon code FBOLDSPICE (maximum $10 discount). Shipping is $5; free two-day shipping on $25+ (before discount).
Already a member? Sign in below.
Registration takes seconds! Once registered you�ll have members only access to:
The best deals, product reviews, and giveaway announcements emailed directly to you!
Sign up now for the Ben's Bargains newsletter!
Thanks! You can also register an account with us to be eligible for Giveaway Entries, Deal Alerts, and Comments.


text:
Eli Roth is warning parents not to take their children on his Hostel-themed horror maze. Wait, who are the parents who were going to do that and who also need parenting tips from Eli Roth? Asking for a department of child welfare office.
Leave a ReplySign inSign in with Facebook
You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.


text:
RSS 51 deals tagged "butane"
Porsche Torch Lighters From $29.99
@ fieldsupply.com | 0 comments | tools, lighter, torch, fire, butane
6 months ago
Bullets Shaped Wind-proof Butane Jet Torch Lighter with Coupon(GB7901) Only for $1.49 + free shipping
@ gearbest.com | 0 comments | wind-proof, butane, jet, torch, lighter
8 months ago
Fire extinguisher Butane Lighter for $3.99 + free shipping
@ meritline.com | 0 comments | tools, lighter, butane
10 months ago
Free Black-Ops Kilo Torch Lighter with Any Purchase Over $49
@ fieldsupply.com | 0 comments | tools, lighter, free, butane, torch
Lotus Torches Up To 70% Off From $19.99
@ fieldsupply.com | 0 comments | lotus, lighters, torch, butane, designer
Porsche Design Torch Lighters from 29.99 (up to 85% off)
@ fieldsupply.com | 0 comments | tools, lighter, butane, accessories
Porsche Design Lighters from $29.99 - 85% off MSRP
@ fieldsupply.com | 0 comments | accessories, butane, emergency, lighter
Oversized Tabletop Torches & Lighters up to 65% off
@ fieldsupply.com | 0 comments | lighter, tool, butane, fire, camping
Colibri lighters & torches from 5 bucks - Obscene 75% off
@ fieldsupply.com | 0 comments | lighter, outdoors, camping, butane, torch
Coleman Butane Lighters & Torches from $4.99
@ fieldsupply.com | 0 comments | lighter, camping, outdoors, butane
Black-Ops Butane Torch Lighters - 2-packs 70+% off for $19.98
@ unholycocktail.com | 0 comments | lighter, tools, butane, fire, accessories
a year ago
Porsche Design PD6 Torch Lighters from $25 - 85% off
@ unholycocktail.com | 0 comments | tools, lighter, butane, torch
Bugatti Swiss-Made Butane Lighters (MSRP:$250) for $39
@ unholycocktail.com | 0 comments | accessories, torch, butane, lighter, fire
Colibri Stiletto Windproof Refillable Butane Lighter with Dual Flame Ignition for $9 + free shipping
@ outdoors.dailysteals.com | 0 comments | accessories, refillable, butane, lighter
2 years ago
Lotus Torch Lighters up to 70% Off for $19
@ unholycocktail.com | 0 comments | accessories, lighter, outdoor, torch, butane
Blackwatch Torch Lighters for $7.99
@ unholycocktail.com | 0 comments | outdoors, survival, lighter, fire, butane
Blackwatch Torch Lighters from $16.98
@ unholycocktail.com | 0 comments | lighter, accessories, butane, fire
Black-Ops & Blazer Torch Lighters for $9.99
@ unholycocktail.com | 0 comments | accessories, camo, fire, butane, lighter
Butane Pencil Torch for $5.99 + free shipping
@ dealsonlywebstore.com | 0 comments | tools, butane, torch, hobby, craft
2 years ago
Deluxe Butane Pencil Torch w/ Additional Tips for $14.89 + free shipping
@ caloby.com | 0 comments | tools, torch, butane, welding
2 years ago
Trademark Tools Self Igniting Refillable Butane Micro Torch for $14.99 + free shipping
@ pricefalls.com | 1 comment | accessories, torch, butane, trademark, degrees
2 years ago
Butane Micro Torch for $9.99
@ 7deadlydeals.com | 0 comments | accessories, butane, micro, torch, solder
2 in 1 Mini Butane Soldering Iron w/ Piezo Electric Ignition for $6.99
@ 7deadlydeals.com | 0 comments | tools, butane, soldering, iron
2 Flexible Butane Torch Lighters Refillable for $5 + free shipping
@ ebay.com | 0 comments | butane, lighter, refillable, light-your-grill, don't-burn-your-steak
2 years ago
Porsche Design PD4 Laser Lighters (MSRP:$190) for $99.95 + free shipping
@ cigarsinternational.com | 2 comments | cigar, lighter, butane
Gold & Leather Embossed Butane Cigarette Lighter SAVE 50% for $9.95
@ shopwiseguys.com | 1 comment | embossed, lighter, butane, gold, cigar
2 years ago
Xikar Butane Lighter Fuel 400ml or 13.5 oz for $9.95
@ shopwiseguys.com | 0 comments | xikar, butane, lighter, fuel
3 years ago
Sponsored Deals
They're like ads, but good.
OK, yes, companies pay a little something to be Sponsored Deals. But we don't allow just any old crap in this section. Sponsored Deals are proposed to us by other retailers, manufacturers, and even other daily deal sites. If we find the deal compelling enough that our members will appreciate us bringing it to their attention, we'll feature it here. Believe it or not, we have a reputation to uphold. If your store would like to be considered for this space, please contact us for details. But if your deal is lame, or sketchy, no amount of money will let you buy your way in.
Community Deals
It's whatever you want it to be.
Pretty much, anyway. This is where you find the deals that wooters like you have ferreted out and brought to light. We're thinking it'll turn into a massive database of discounted products from around the Web, constantly expanding to absorb the newest deals from the very moment their prices are slashed, with each deal immediately rated by hordes of savvy voters to spotlight the very greatest deals in the world today. Hey, we can dream, right?
We use a fancy algorithm to determine which deals are catching the most buzz – they're under the Popular tab, which is the default view of this section. You can look for the most popular deals today, this week, or this month. The Fresh tab features the most recently submitted deals, so that's where to look for deals that everybody else doesn't know about yet. And the Search bar does what a Search bar does, only, uh, much wootier! Yeah! Right on!
Ask The Community
They probably won't bite.
Organic bullets? Vegetarian haggis? Cheap tickets to Antarctica? The best high-performance sweatsocks for under $100? If you're looking for a deal that doesn't appear to show up in our Community Deals section, throw the question to your fellow cheapskates. Or answer a question for one of your fellow cheapskates. Or vote for your favorite questions, or your favorite answers, or… maybe we should call this section "Ask, Answer, Comment On, And Vote In The Community", but that won't fit on the page.


text:
Loading Vacation deals...
London Travel GuideAbout London
London is the beating heart of England, and visitors can find the pulse of the city on every visit. Sights such as the British Museum and the Tower of London are always popular, but things to do in London aren't limited to individual sights. read moreWhen to Visit London
As a global capital for business and tourism, London is busy year-round. People from different parts of the world each have their own favorite seasons, keeping the flow of visitors steady and prices relatively high. read more
Editors' Picks: London DealsSee All London Travel Deals
London-Area Olympics Deals
Stay in the heart of London or nearby for even greater savings during the Olympics.
England and Moscow: Hotels from 20.12 GBP in January
Ring in 2012 with rates from 20.12 GBP.
Fly Business Class for Thanksgiving in Europe
KLM and Lufthansa announced big discounts on business class to Europe over Thanksgiving, plus sales on Air China, Singapore Airlines, OpenSkies, Air New Zealand, and Air France.
London and Rome Package Deal from $979*
Cover two capital cities in six nights for just $979, including all airfare.
Best Western: 30 Percent Off Early Bookings in Europe
Save up to 30 percent off your stay at Best Western hotels throughout Europe when you book 21 days in advance.
Wyndham: Stay Three Nights, Get 30 Percent Off
Stay three consecutive nights at participating Wyndham properties worldwide and receive 30 percent off the best available rate.
Kids Ride for Free on National Bus Service in the U.K.
National Express, a British bus line that services 1,200 destinations throughout the U.K., sells two family discount cards that allow kids up to age 15 to travel for free.
London Travel Advice See All London Travel Advice
- A Night at the Museum: Sleepovers in Unusual Spaces These public spaces, from museums to amusement parks to stores, allow pajama-clad guests to park their sleeping bags beneath dinosaur bones or waterslides and stay until morning.
- Incredible Free Museums Around the World Jetting around the world isn't free, but cultural enrichment can be. We uncovered 10 incredible museums, from Paris to Beijing, where cultural discovery is rich but admission is free for all.
- 10 Weirdest Restaurants in the World Spice up your eating experience at these incredibly weird restaurants around the world. You'll be dodging ninjas and dining out of a toilet in no time! Think we're kidding? Read on, because these restaurants have to be seen to be believed.
- 11 Best Airport Hotels Around the World Long layover? Canceled flight? Spending the night at the airport is sometimes unavoidable. But you don't have to cram your weary bones into a plastic seat (or worse, curl up on the floor). Instead, we scoured the world for the best airport hotels.
More Destinations
- San Francisco Travel Guide
Discover why people fall in love with the city, despite the fog.
- Tucson Travel Guide
Natural beauty and history combine in Tucson
- New Orleans Travel Guide
New Orleans festivities don't stop after Mardi Gras.
- Tampa Travel Guide
Tampa's weather and attractions are certain to please year-round.
- Columbus Travel Guide
Discover the past and the present in Columbus.
- Philadelphia Travel Guide
Philadelphia celebrates its history, culture, and cuisine.
- St. Louis Travel Guide
Just say, "Meet me in St. Louis!" for first-rate attractions.
- Pittsburgh Travel Guide
Pittsburgh has come a long way from its days as the Steel City.
- Miami Travel Guide
Roll sunshine, white sand, and endless activities into one thriving beachside city and you've got Miami.
- Memphis Travel Guide
Memphis has been rockin' and rollin' its way into people's hearts since long before Elvis first laced up his blue suede shoes.
sponsored links


text:
The enactment of ABx1 26 dissolved all redevelopment agencies in California on February 1, 2012, and created successor agencys to wind down their operations. On January 13, 2012, the City Council elected to be the Successor Agency to the former San Bruno Redevelopment Agency. The function of the Successor Agency is to pay enforceable obligations and administer the dissolution and wind down of the former Redevelopment Agency. All assets, properties, contracts, and records of the former Redevelopment Agency have been transferred to the Successor Agency for administration. The Oversight Board of the Successor Agency to the San Bruno Redevelopment Agency reviews and approves the actions of the Successor Agency.
Long-Range Property Managemetnt Plan (LRPMP)
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34191.5, the Successor Agency submitted to the Oversight Board and DOF a Long-Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP) that addresses the disposition and use of the real property of the former redevelopment agency. The Successor Agency received a Finding of Completion on April 24, 2013.
The former RDA owned only one property, 470 San Mateo Avenue, which has been used as a downtown pocket park. The LRPMP recommends transfer of the property from the Successor Agency to the City for a "governmental purpose", which is defined to include parks (Health & Safety Code Section 34181(a)). The Oversight Board approved the LRPMP on September 17, 2013 and directed the Successor Agency to establish appropriate restrictions on the future use of the property through a deed restriction. The Oversight Board must approve the deed restriction before the transfer can occur.
The LRPMP was submitted to DOF on October 21, 2013. DOF approved the dispositon of the property as listed on the LRPMP in a letter dated February 21, 2014.
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS)
The ROPS details the enforceable obligations of the Successor Agency, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34169. The Successor Agency must present the ROPS to the Oversight Board for approval. The following ROPS have been approved by the Oversight Board.
|Time Period
February 3, 2014
7/1/2014 to 12/31/2014
September 17, 2013
1/1/2014 to 6/30/2014
|4th ROPS
February 4, 2013
7/1/2013 to 12/31/2013
|3rd ROPS
August 21, 2012
1/1/2013 to 6/30/2013
|1st ROPS
May 2012
1/1/2012 to 6/30/2012
|2nd ROPS (Revised)
May 2012
7/1/2012 to 12/31/2012
|1st ROPS (Revised)
April 13, 2012
1/1/2012 to 6/30/2012
|Administrative Budget
April 13, 2012
|1st ROPS (Draft)
February 29, 2012
1/1/2012 to 6/30/2012
|2nd ROPS (Draft)
February 29, 2012
7/1/2012 to 12/31/2012
Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule (EOPS)
On September 13, 2011, the Redevelopment Agency adopted a resolution approving the initial EOPS covering debt, projects and staffing from the period of August through December, 2011. On January 24, 2012, prior to its dissolution, the Redevelopment Agency adopted an amendment to the EOPS in order for the Agency, and the City as successor agency, to continue making payments on enforceable obligations of the Agency from January through June 2012, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34169.
|Time Period
|Initial Draft EOPS
|September 13, 2011
8/1/2011 to 12/31/2011
|Amended EOPS
|January 24, 2012
1/1/2012 to 6/30/2012
Successor Agency Members
The San Bruno City Council serves as the governing board of the Successor Agency, which is a legally separate unit of local government. The Successor Agency meets on an as-needed basis on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month in joint meetings with the City Council. City Council/ Successor Agency meetings start at 7:00 p.m. and are televised live on Cable Channel 1 from the San Bruno Senior Center, 1555 Crystal Springs Road. Successor Agency members can be reached through the City Clerk's office or their voice mail at (650) 616-7060.
- Chair Jim Ruane
- Vice-Chair Michael Salazar
- Member Irene O'Connell
- Member Ken Ibarra
- Member Rico Medina
Successor Housing Functions
On January 13, 2012, the City elected to retain the housing assets and functions previously performed by the Redevelopment Agency. Unlike the Successor Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency, as the Housing Successor, the City will act in its own capacity relative to the former housing functions of the former Redevelopment Agency. Click HERE to go to the affordable housing page.
Executive Director
Connie Jackson, City Manager
Voice: (650) 616-7056
Fax: (650) 742-6515
Staff Contact
Mark Sullivan, Long-Range Planning Manager
Tel.: (650) 616-7053
Fax: (650) 873-6749
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
PhD candidate in Human Rights (University of Deusto), MA in Communications (Cásper Líbero), Bachelor in Intl. Relations (PUCSP), blogger and lover of Alt. Media, Euskal Herria (Basque Country), Nationalism and Cyberculture.
Blog: Tsavkko – The Angry Brazilian
Columnist of the Diário Liberdade – "Defenderei a casa de meu pai" [pt]
Amálgama [pt]
Other publications available on magazines and newspapers [pt]
Twitter: @Tsavkko
Facebook: Tsavkko
Latest posts by Raphael Tsavkko Garcia
14 August 2014
Why Brazilian Authorities' Case Against 23 Anti-World Cup Activists Reads Like a Soap Opera
Love, betrayal and jealousy. The complaint against the 23 arrested includes statements from three witnesses who had personal disputes with some of the activists.
13 August 2014
Brazilian Presidential Candidate Eduardo Campos Killed in a Plane Crash
Campos died on the same day, Aug. 13, as his grandfather Miguel Arraes, one of the most prominent socialist political figures of Brazilian politics.
23 July 2014
Three Anti-World Cup Activists Accuse Brazil of Political Persecution, Unsuccessfully Seek Asylum From Uruguay
Eloisa Samy, a lawyer who has defends activists, was "preemptively" arrested before the World Cup final, accused of forming an armed gang. She was later released, then arrested again.
22 July 2014
Dozens of Activists in Brazil Were Arrested Not for Protesting the World Cup, but for Possibly Planning to Do So
Thirty-seven people were preemptively arrested ahead of the World Cup final in Rio de Janeiro because police believed they might protest violently in the future.
17 July 2014
The World Cup in Brazil Ended Just Like It Began — With Tear Gas, Stun Grenades and Police Aggression
Activists captured some police officers on film lashing out seemingly with provocation at protesters and journalists.
20 June 2014
The Darker, More Violent World Cup Kick-Off in São Paulo That You Didn't See
Just before Jennifer Lopez and Pitbull performed in São Paulo's Arena Corinthians, dozens of protesters and journalists were injured in a heavy-handed crackdown against anti-World Cup demonstrations.
27 February 2014
Brazilian Activist's Video Satire Censored After Globo TV Claims Copyright
"The video that Globo doesn't wan't you to see", in which activist Rafucko exposes Globo's biased broadcast about demonstrations in Brazil.


text:
The one thing that Congress absolutely must do is preserve and even enhance charitable giving.
There is a limited pool of philanthropy, of people giving donations. The smaller organizations are always fighting for revenues. As the incentive goes down, those are the ones who are going to be ones most immediately adversely affected.
Connect with local resources and expertise Find


text:
Skip Navigation
Drew Erhardt, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Graduate School of Education and Psychology
Phone: (818) 501-1608
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
Location: Encino Graduate Campus
Areas of Expertise
Drew Erhardt is a licensed psychologist whose research and clinical work focus on the diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and other psychological disorders originating in childhood. His teaching interests include child and adult psychopathology, cognitive-behavioral therapy and clinical interventions with children and adolescents.
Erhardt earned his doctorate in clinical psychology from UCLA and completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the UCLA Neuro-psychiatric Institute and Hospital. Prior to teaching at Pepperdine, he served on the faculty at Duke University.
Media Contact Information
Office of Public Relations
Pepperdine University
Direct: (310) 506-4138
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
|Veronica Orozco
Public Relations Manager
Graduate School of Education and Psychology
Direct: (310) 568-5773
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com


text: First ticket information of 2011! Nov 18, 2010 16:46:39 GMT -5 Quote Select PostDeselect PostLink to PostMemberGive GiftBack to Top Post by Horned Gramma on Nov 18, 2010 16:46:39 GMT -5 We're testing your fortitude, junta. Word to the wise: if you see any hooks around here, do not bite them or you WILL be reeled in.


text:
Sea Turtles of the Yucatán
Four sea turtle species nest on the shores of the Yucatán Peninsula. Learn about volunteering and about changing attitudes toward protection and preservation in the area.
Four sea turtle species nest on the shores of the Yucatán Peninsula. Learn about volunteering and about changing attitudes toward protection and preservation in the area.
For an unforgettable experience, spend a day cenote hopping in the Riviera Maya's freshwater sinkholes. Snorkelers and divers glide past stalagmites and stalactites with flashlights in hand—it's one of the most beautiful and eerie underwater experiences you'll ever have.
The best food experience is in the eye of the beholder, or rather, in the belly of the diner. For us, that typically means heading to where the locals eat—Quesadillas Tierra del Sol, a small open-air eatery facing Parque Palapas (in downtown Cancún), or El Viejo y La Mar, a bustling seafood joint run by a local fishermen's co-op (in downtown Cozumel).
Isla Cozumel is Mexico's third largest island, and it has much to offer the curious traveler, from Maya ruins to deserted beaches. This four-day itinerary aims to give travelers a fulfilling yet relaxing stay.
There are more than 100 dive shops on Isla Cozumel, and scores more at Isla Mujeres, Playa del Carmen, Cancún, Tulum, and elsewhere. Choosing just one can be daunting. Here are some tips for finding the right dive shop for you.
Sian Ka'an is a massive biosphere reserve just south of Tulum. This pristine swath of mangrove forests and flat water bays is home to water birds, wayward dolphins, and even isolated Maya ruins. There are various ways to visit, from do-it-yourself kayaking tours to day-long boating tours, and it makes a great escape from pools and resorts.
Isla Cozumel played a deeply significant role in the Maya world. The island's primary site—known as San Gervasio today—was dedicated to Ixchel, the Maya goddess of fertility, the moon, childbirth, medicine, and weaving. Read on to discover more about archaeological sites on the island.
Renting a car is a nice way to get out of downtown and see the rest of the island. It is virtually impossible to get lost, and you can visit all the main spots in a day or two. Read on to learn about the average costs and how to avoid tourist scams.
Tulum's southern beaches are classic Caribbean beauties: soft white sand, gently bending palm trees, and calm turquoise waters that seem to go on forever. In other words—perfection!
Travel writers Gary Chandler and Liza Prado know the best ways to experience Cozumel—from celebrating Carnaval to diving down to Airplane Wreck. Chandler and Prado offer a range of interesting activities for every traveler, such as swimming with dolphins in Playa del Carmen, as well as unique trip ideas like The Best of Isla Cozumel. […]