Thought the scratched iPod nano issue was history? Think again.

Several news outlets are reporting that Apple was sued a few days ago by a class of recent iPod nano purchasers who were disillusioned not only by the iPod's scratchability, but also by Apple's response ("there isn't a problem; go buy a case").

Prediction time:

Here's what's going to happen. Since the basis of the claim is that Apple intentionally sold defective iPod nanos, Apple will have to gather the legal eagles and produce engineering documents to prove that it isn't. Doing so will not only be expensive, but will probably also require Apple to prevail upon the court to seal such documentation from the public due to legitimate concerns over the release of trade secrets. To avoid such expense and risk, Apple will likely settle out of court with the plaintiff for an amount which is much less than the relief they claim to seek, but which will nonetheless line the attorneys' pockets nicely.

Actually, it would not remotely surprise me to learn that the attorneys representing the plaintiff, and not the plaintiff himself, initiated this action. Frankly, I'm surprised that some other ambulance chaser didn't beat them to it. Apple's Phil Schiller made his remarks on the topic on about September 25, and it took until October 19 for this to be filed. Who has more motivation to file the suit--a group of nano owners with nothing to gain except their money back and satisfaction for their indignation, or a law firm who stands to make millions if they get their Christmas wish of "disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits received by Defendant as a result of the...deceptive conduct alleged"?

At my job, I have the opportunity to observe lawyers both on a personal level and in their professional capacities, and I have come to the conclusion that lawyers' brains have an extra feature lacking in the general populace. Specifically, they have the ability to turn off their moral compass at work. (In other words, they aren't "bad people", but their profession gives them license to remove themselves from the arena of moral judgements.)

People want money. Lawyers are hired. Someone is sued. The client asserts he was just following his attorney's advice. His attorney asserts that he was just acting in the best interests of his client, regardless of his own personal morals. It's a system in which wrongs are perpetrated by lawyers and the clients they represent, yet all consciences are conveniently clean.

Is that what's happening in the nano case? There's no way to know for sure. Maybe Apple really did screw people with defective nanos, and maybe they didn't. Maybe the attorneys involved are a den of vipers, and maybe they aren't. Maybe Apple screwed up AND the vipers are happy to capitalize on that.

Settling out of court could be the result of (a) Apple wanting to avoid embarrassment, or (b) wanting to take the cheapest way out, even if they aren't at fault. I hope Apple defends against this suit rather than settling. It's the only way for the public to find out the truth.

Anyone interested can read the complaint.