main

Resellers sue Apple over sales tactics

mlerner   on 05 February 2003 - 00:50 · 14 comments & 404 views

Advertisement (Why?)
A number of Macintosh dealers are suing Apple Computer, charging the computer maker with a host of business wrongs ranging from overbilling to poaching customers to stocking its own stores with new gear unavailable to resellers.

Three suits have been filed in recent months by Apple dealers, including San Francisco-based Macadam Computer, Los Angeles-based Computer International, and Oregon-based MacTech Systems. The resellers charge Apple with breach of its contract and fraud, saying the computer maker hurt their business by failing to pay them for repairs they made under warranty, by overcharging them for parts, and by disparaging the dealers to potential customers in an effort to gain more direct sales business.

An Apple representative declined to comment on the cases, which were filed over the past four months in Santa Clara Superior Court in San Jose, Calif. Apple has sought to have at least some of the cases moved to federal court, but the company has not addressed the specific allegations, according to court records. All three Mac dealers are represented by Marcus Merchasin, a San Francisco-based lawyer.

Source: CNet


Symantec found that, on average, companies experienced 30 attacks a week in the second half of 2002, compared with 32 in the first six months of the year, a 6 percent reduction. Symantec defined attacks as "individual signs of malicious activity."

In addition, the rate of severe events declined, with 21 percent of the companies that made up the sample suffering a severe event during the past six months, compared to 23 percent of companies in the six months before that and 43 percent of companies in the second half of 2001.

Severe events were defined by Symantec as "sequences of attack activity that have either caused a security breach on a company's network or present an immediate danger of a security breach if intervention is not taken."

While lower than the preceding six months, the average number of attacks per company in the final six months of 2002 was still 21 percent higher than for the same period in 2001.

Those numbers may get worse before they get better. Symantec documented more than 2,500 new vulnerabilities in 2002, an 81 percent increase from the number found in 2001. The number of moderate and high-severity vulnerabilities was almost 85 percent greater than in 2001.

While the increase in the number of software vulnerabilities may reflect increased media attention on the problem and the creation of more responsible disclosure policies in companies, new strategies for exploiting previously unrecognized weaknesses in software code may also be responsible.

The number and severity of the discovered vulnerabilities are fertile ground for new "blended threats" that leverage two or more different security flaws to execute an attack, Symantec said.

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 14 additional comments
#1 TwiGGyr2003 on 05 Feb 2003 - 01:09
This really can't be good
#2 Michael Lerner on 05 Feb 2003 - 02:03
Well it's finally time it happend after everybody suing M$.
#3 macrosslover on 05 Feb 2003 - 04:33
so this is how they make their money lol
#4 vetmalebolgia on 05 Feb 2003 - 04:52
Excellent
#5 bluerei on 05 Feb 2003 - 04:53
Macintappletosh is just as evil as microwindowsoft
#6 Yvo on 05 Feb 2003 - 05:00
hmmm competition amoung mac stores... awesome
(1 reply) #7 chilliadus on 05 Feb 2003 - 05:37
lol where are those Apple sympathizers and defenders?
#7.1 aristotle-dude on 05 Feb 2003 - 08:36
[neoquote=#7.0 by chilliadus]lol where are those Apple sympathizers and defenders?[/neoquote] We are too busy patching windows servers at work to protect against the slammer worm. Then applying a third patch because the patch after the slammer patch made them vulnerable again. www.msn.com, www.microsoft.com and msdn.microsoft.com went down today. MS had 2 days of chaos on their internal networks from slammer. Windows is great, it pays alot of salaries for support staff.
(4 replies) #8 azn_ricer on 05 Feb 2003 - 07:28
BURN IN HELL APPLE!!! FOR ALL THOSE EXPENSIVE COMPUTERS THAT U'VE BEEN SELLING
#8.1 aristotle-dude on 05 Feb 2003 - 08:41
[neoquote=#8.0 by azn_ricer] BURN IN HELL APPLE!!! FOR ALL THOSE EXPENSIVE COMPUTERS THAT U'VE BEEN SELLING[/neoquote] MS should burn for releasing beta software and calling it read for production. Their QA dept. is asleep at the wheel.
#8.2 macrosslover on 05 Feb 2003 - 09:23
[neoquote=#8.1 by aristotle-dude]MS should burn for releasing beta software and calling it read for production. Their QA dept. is asleep at the wheel.[/neoquote] lol, let's not change the subject [b]Resellers sue Apple over sales tactics[/b] this is clearly an article about Apple. me finds that people who deflect are hiding something or ashamed of something.
#8.3 Wickedkitten on 05 Feb 2003 - 10:06
the subject should be "Small Unknown Resellers sue Apple over sales tactics". Wake me up when someone like Smalldog, or Micro Anvika, or MacMall start bitching.
#8.4 macrosslover on 05 Feb 2003 - 17:56
[neoquote=#8.3 by Wickedkitten]the subject should be "Small Unknown Resellers sue Apple over sales tactics". Wake me up when someone like Smalldog, or Micro Anvika, or MacMall start bitching.[/neoquote] well supposedly, the main ones that Microsoft mess up are the small companies that can't afford to fight them. i personally don't believe that fud, but just because they are small companies doesn't make them any less important. if you had your own shop and you did warranty repair for apple, and they didn't properly reimburse you or they overcharged you for the parts, would that be right??? that wouldn't be right under any circumstances whoever it is, so i say to the small company, sue the crap out of them.
#9 vetmalebolgia on 05 Feb 2003 - 22:35
That's right sue them for what little money they have.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)