Computer law enforcement The tricks used by Apple Inc. to combat software piracy Hardware problems with the Apple PowerBook 5300 and 190 computers Ever since the day the Apple PowerBook 5300 and 190 computers were released to consumers in November 1996, many Apple customers have complained of serious manufacturing and design faults and poor quality control issues with these models. In 1997, Apple Inc. was forced to implement a repair program to fix the following hardware problems free-of-charge for the consumers: Plastic casing warping under the heat of the computer when operating normally; Trackpad button wearing down too quickly (within 6 to 12 months); Poor quality LCD cable connectors at the back of the screen causing the cables to pop out on their own; Broken AC sockets because of the very small AC plug and socket connector design which could not provide adequate mechanical strength to hold onto the AC plug properly during charging; and Certain battery-related problems; Were the problems fixed?   Were the problems fixed? Unfortunately, not all the pesky hardware problems were permanently repaired by Apple Inc. For example, Apple Inc. would merely replace the AC socket with an exact identical version only to later break again during normal use as soon as the consumers received their laptops. And then other problems would return with a vengeance, especially in the LCD cable connector at the back of the screen (ie. the cable would still pop out from the connector during normal use).   A major shake up in the company followed by the release of a new PowerBook Following the resulting consumer uproar with reoccurring hardware problems on the PowerBook 5300 and 190 computers and the rapid deterioration of the company's yearly profits, Apple Inc. reigned in a new pragmatic and more business-oriented CEO named Gil Amelio to put the company back into the black. His skills managed to see the company sell the more stable, robust and not so inspiring new Apple PowerBook 1400 computers in late 1997.   Has Apple Inc. learnt from its mistakes? Well, yes and no. Today, Apple Inc. has certainly learnt why consumers weren't buying huge numbers of the Apple PowerBook 1400 right up to the more powerful 3400 models. It had something to do with the look of the computer: it reminded consumers of the original PowerBook 5300 computer, and it wasn't all that inspiring or different to use! Then, under the direction of yet another new CEO by the name of Mr Steve Jobs (since Mr Amelio was fired after about 500 days running the company with talk of the CEO trying to base the Macintosh around Windows NT and hence not enough differentiation in the Apple products), a new design policy was implemented. Now the aim was to make computers look different. It didn't matter so much what was inside an Apple computer which interested the consumers, rather it was all about good outer appearance. In the mind of Mr Jobs, it was a question of trying to differentiate Apple products from anything in the marketplace and certainly anything that Apple had ever built in the past. And the best way to do it was through good outer design. In that way, it was hoped that enough new Apple consumers would think the latest fancy Apple computer designs are better and worth buying. We can see evidence of this from the development of the PowerBook G3 Series "Wall Street" computer, followed by the iBook, and now the latest iMac. However, on the negative side, the company would continue with its poor quality control practices on selected PowerBook (eg. "Wall Street" and aluminium laptops) and desktop (eg. the G4 eMac) models. And this time it would be in a much more subtle way without putting the company in financial strife again or to let customers know what is happening.   Why? The latest information we now have from a former Apple customer in Australia is indicating the possibility that Apple may well have been using the time for repairing the PowerBook 5300 to observe the contents of people's original hard disks and may have found possible evidence of software piracy. To combat this serious problem, Apple Inc. is believed to be secretly working with software and hardware manufacturers in an attempt to track down those elusive customers who are actively involved in this type of illegal activity.   How? Some previous PowerBook 5300 owners have noticed after talking to staff at the head office of Apple Inc. in certain countries how particularly keen the company was at the time to ask the owners to leave the original hard disk inside the PowerBook 5300 computer and not to put a password protection on the hard disk itself. Just place the PowerBook inside the supplied box and send it off to Apple Inc. Then sit back and trust the company with your easily accessible and personal hard disk as they legally claim they would do nothing more than make the alleged repairs in accordance with the Apple repair program. NOTE: Consumers have been taken for a ride on this hard disk issue, thinking it was absolutely necessary to leave accessible the contents of the hard disk to Apple Inc. when in fact this is not the case and certainly not part of the official Apple repair program.   What is Apple doing today? The software piracy problem continues to be a major concern for Apple Inc., which is why MacOSX was invented in the hope that consumers would eventually see the benefit of constantly buying new software. But before MacOSX appeared in the marketplace, the most cunning way Apple Inc. could find out who is likely to be specifically involved in software piracy after 1997 is for the computer manufacturer to design selected "early model" PowerBooks in such a way as to have inherent manufacturing faults. Then Apple Inc. would allow a participating Apple reseller to sell the dud machines at a slightly lower price (known in the industry as a "demonstration model") to unsuspecting usually "young" consumers or businesses who think they are getting the latest, fully upgradable, and properly tested machine. Of course, the existence of manufacturing faults in a "demonstration model" PowerBook does not guarantee the consumers will return the machine to an authorised Apple reseller because it is possible for a non-Apple authorised repair person to do the repairs or perform the upgrade on behalf of the consumers. Therefore, Apple Inc. would have to make sure one of the manufacturing faults would not be repairable or upgradable unless the consumers return the machine to Apple Inc. or an authorised Apple reseller, together with the original internal Apple hard disk. And that manufacturing fault would be in the amount of current the PowerBook would supply to power the internal hard disk. In other words, Apple Inc. would manufacture a "demonstration model" PowerBook plagued with numerous design faults of which one of them would be an "impossible to upgrade" component known as the internal hard disk. Without telling the consumers why the hard disk cannot be upgraded, the consumers would have no choice but to return the entire machine and the original hard disk to a participating Apple reseller for thorough inspection.   Is there a PowerBook to support this claim? Yes there is! The PowerBook in question and which is now in our possession is the original Apple PowerBook G3 Series "Wall Street" computer sold to a handful of consumers worldwide as an alleged "demonstration" model between March (in the US) and May/June 1998 (in Australia). This is the original "Wall Street" model that came with the rare, expensive "high-current handling" Toshiba 700mA hard disk. If you have one of these models, please be aware that these machines will not accept the standard "low-current handling" 500mA hard disks as officially sold by Apple in the "updated" and officially released version of the PowerBook G3 Series computers after August 1998 (for Australian consumers) and as indicated in the official Apple part list because of a serious overheating problem created by the excessive current from the PowerBook causing serious file and disk directory corruption problems. This is what the Toshiba hard disk looks like: As you can see, Apple has its logo stamped on the label as confirmation of the company's approval for its use in at least the Apple PowerBook G3 Series "Wall Street" computer. Also notice the maximum current allowable for its safe operation — that is, 0.7A or 700mA. And this is what Apple Inc. and Apple resellers were trying to sell to the owners of this dud PowerBook without informing them of the existence of this manufacturing fault that prevents the internal hard disk from being upgraded to the only hard disks available in the marketplace as a separate and new part — that is, the 500mA variety: It doesn't matter if Apple Inc. and Apple resellers are kind enough to supply a Fujitsu or some other drive model (but definitely not a Toshiba brand). Apple Inc. knows the hard disks will be rated at a maximum of 500mA. And none will work in the dud PowerBook because they can't handle the extra current. Instead the company will keep quiet even when informed by consumers of the fact that only a Toshiba hard disk will work.   The experiences of an Apple customer To support this allegation, we have received a letter from an Australian Apple customer explaining this likely scenario of the covert law enforcement approach to software piracy by Apple Inc. And what makes the scenario more believable and disturbing is the official response from Apple Inc. (or should we say a lack of it). When Apple Inc. was asked by the customer what is a suitable hard disk to use in his PowerBook, why a Toshiba hard disk cannot be purchased from Apple even though the company did officially use the Toshiba brand during its early manufacture of the PowerBook, and whether the PowerBook has known manufacturing faults, Apple Inc chose not to respond despite the customer still waiting for a reply to this very day after sending the letter and receiving a confirmation card that the company has received the letter. The decision to keep quiet appears to be the company's way of saying, "We know about your problem, but we cannot tell you the truth for fear of being found out by the general public which could see us being legally forced to pay a certain amount of compensation to a number of customers affected by the manufacturing faults in the "Wall Street" PowerBook." ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## January 2003 A series of articles about faulty IBM and Fujitsu hard disks as a means of redirecting the blame away from Apple Inc. has just been published at a time when SUNRISE is on the verge of uncovering Apple Inc.'s true secret agenda of which we are coming to the belief that they are doing a little more than just repairing Apple products for customers. We believe Apple is working with other companies in an attempt to view people's hard disks for whatever reason (either to detect software infringements or for their own commercial advantage), and Apple does it by indirectly forcing customers to return their faulty Apple computers after discovering a problem upgrading their hard disks. We can't help wondering whether someone is trying to give an alternative explanation for the hard disk problems experienced by the Australian customer. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## December 2003 Apple Inc. in Australia will be asked again about the hard disk issue and whether the customer has known manufacturing faults in his computer in case the company has misplaced the letter. This will be compared with information received from other Apple Head Offices in other parts of the world.   An Apple customer speaks... Here is our edited version of the latest series of events that has allegedly occurred for the Australian Apple customer. All names of people, places and businesses (except for Apple Inc. and the ACT Office of Fair Trading) have been changed to protect the identity of those individuals concerned with this case: DATE EVENTS 27/6/98 The applicant purchased from the respondent at [Apple 1] an Apple PowerBook G3 Series "Wall Street" computer and 1 x 32MB RAM card for $4,440. The computer's serial number is CR826011BHY. The computer was described by the sales representative Mr NHa as a "demonstration model" because the applicant was told the official date for the release of this computer was in August 1998 and not in June. The applicant would also be falsely informed the "demonstrational model" would be identical in every respect to the ones to be sold in August 1998. Proof that there are two different "Wall Streets" have been revealed in an official document titled Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action from the Superior Court of the State of California confirming the fact that the PowerBook G3 Series "Wall Street" (Revision 2) was introduced in August 1998. You may find it in the table at the bottom of page 4. What this document doesn't tell you, however, is that there are two Revision 1 models. The one being sold to the applicant is known as a "demonstration version". It came with a number of manufacturing and design faults and had already been damaged in the battery compartment area. The applicant was not informed about these problems. Some of the details recalled by the applicant at the time included the following: Mr NHa wanted to sell the computer to the applicant. The applicant was in the market for a new computer. However the applicant had reservations about the condition of the computer since it wasn't exactly "new". The applicant asked the respondent about the condition of the computer and whether it was suitable for sale after noticing: the computer was already opened up in the workshop of the respondent; the respondent was doing things to it including adding a 32MB RAM card; the respondent did not close the PowerBook up properly when NH showed it to the applicant; and the respondent had shown the computer to other clients including some who had decided to take it home. Mr NHa said the computer was fit for sale claiming it would be identical to the computers that were to be officially sold in August 1998. Assuming the information provided by the respondent was correct, the applicant went ahead with purchasing the computer. NOTE 1: The computer has no Apple product code as shown in the official invoice provided by the respondent to the applicant. Whether this means the product was indeed sold second-hand by [Apple 1] or the product was not officially given a product code by Apple Inc. because it was not meant to be released to the public is hard to tell at this stage. NOTE 2: The updated "Wall Street" computers officially sold in August 1998 came with standard 500mA hard disks – for example, the IBM DKLA-22160. However, the applicant's "demonstration model" computer was unique in that it came with a 700mA Toshiba MK2105MAV hard disk. And it cannot be upgraded by Apple resellers or anyone else due to an Apple manufacturing fault (or rather the computer should not have been sold to the public). NOTE 3: The applicant also learnt after conducting a survey in January/February 2002 that only 500mA hard disks are sold separately as parts by resellers in the marketplace. Toshiba never sells Toshiba hard disks separately. Toshiba installs a Toshiba hard disk into its own Toshiba laptops. Toshiba don't make hard disks. Toshiba produces it own circuit board controller for driving the third-party hard disk mechanism. The circuit board is rated to handle up to 700mA of current. But Toshiba laptops can run 500mA hard disks because it injects only 500mA current into the internal hard disk and Toshiba hard disks can handle this low current environment well enough when in operation. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 5 November 2003 The director of [Apple 1] by the name of Mr HEl has confirmed in his written claims today that the computer sold to the applicant was a "demonstration model". The quote provided by Mr HEl is as follows: '...we agree he [the applicant] purchased a demonstration model laptop from us in 1998.' To be more precise, Mr HEl should have said in June 1998 as the official invoice shows. Sept 1998 Applicant discussed with the respondent (he may have been the same sales representative) a problem concerning the computer's battery compartment area or perhaps the battery itself. Applicant noticed how the computer would suddenly shutdown after pressing the battery slightly into the computer (a common situation when carrying the computer by hand). The applicant claims he had experienced loss of data and file corruption on a number of occasions requiring the applicant to purchase a third-party disk repair utility to fix up the problems (the problems could not always be fixed with Apple's Disk First Aid). The respondent pulled the battery out and pushed it back into the applicant's computer and then took it away for a technician to inspect. Problem could not be repeated. Applicant learns to live with the problem. Eventually a technician did discover the problem and resoldered the broken joint on the battery connector inside the applicant's computer. May 1999 Applicant discovered the "female" AC power socket on his computer breaking free from the circuit board. A technician resoldered the joints. 17/4/00 A technician repaired applicant's computer after a clutch hinge for holding the screen in position collapsed. Part No.922-3368 NOTE: The applicant would later discover numerous complaints by other computer users of the August 1998 models about this clutch hinge problem. It is an Apple design fault caused by the use of a poor quality "soft" and very thin metal skin covering the rotating mechanism which suffers metal fatigue very easily through normal use no matter how much the consumer tries to look after the computer. 5/1/01 Applicant purchased a new AC power transformer after it went dead due to short-circuiting. Part No. 922-1417 7/2/01 A technician repaired applicant's computer after a second clutch hinge for holding the screen in position collapsed. Part No.922-3368 NOTE: Applicant's computer requires two clutch hinges to hold the screen in position. 14/2/01 Applicant discovered a dangerous situation where the outer metal "electrical grounding" jacket of the AC plug on the power supply came off, exposing the positive terminal inside. A technician replaced the AC power adapter. S/N EH044JHJFZ9A 9/6/01 A technician repaired faulty AC power adapter of applicant's computer due to poor quality wiring in the cable which broke off from its connection to the AC socket during normal use. Part No. 922-1417 ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 5 November 2003 Mr HEl further goes on to say in his written claims: "...It [that is, the applicant's computer] worked perfectly and had a 12 months warranty." A list of invoices and articles supporting the above problems encountered by the applicant is available to prove Mr HEl's statement that the applicant's computer "worked perfectly" cannot be true. Mr HEl is fully aware of these problems in a letter written to him by the applicant dated 24 April 2003. The ACT Office of Fair Trading has also been notified of the problems in a letter from the applicant written in March 2002. 5/12/01 Then a manufacturing fault emerged when the time came to upgrade the internal hard disk of the applicant's computer. It began on 5 December 2001 when the applicant wanted to upgrade his original 2GB Toshiba hard disk of his "demonstration model" computer for a new hard disk of 10GB capacity. The applicant chose a 10GB hard disk because he was informed by an Apple reseller named Approved Systems (now defunct) that a 10GB hard disk had been tested to work on a "Wall Street" computer. Please be aware this document does not specifically mention whether a 10GB hard disk will work on the applicant's demonstration model "Wall Street". All it says is that a 10GB hard disk has recently been tested to work on the "Wall Street" in general (among other older PowerBook G3 Series computers sold prior to May 1999 when the PowerBook G3 Bronze Keyboard was introduced). An Apple part number is mentioned in this document which the applicant would later confirm as being the correct part for the "Wall Street" computer with the sales representative for the respondent at [Apple 2] named Ms KHu. However, the applicant did not specify this Apple part number or any other details about the hard disk he wanted to order through [Apple 1] except mention the capacity he was looking for. Before the purchase was made, the applicant asked the respondent (sales representative Mr KWe, and now the store manager as of 2003 for [Apple 1]) by telephone whether he had a 10GB hard disk available to purchase. The applicant gave precise details on the type of computer he had (ie. a "Wall Street" with a large white emblem of the Apple logo on the lid and right down to the fact that he had purchased this demonstration model computer from [Apple 1] when the business was operating in [location specified] in June 1998). Mr KWe had alleged by telephone to the applicant that he had a 10GB hard disk available which he was testing in his new G4 titanium Apple computer. The applicant expressed a concern to the respondent about the quality of the hard disk and whether it was brand new. The respondent assured the applicant verbally that the hard disk was brand new. Mr KWe did not mention the model number or brand of the hard disk at this time. Upon arriving at [Apple 1], the applicant found the respondent's verbal statements to be extremely dubious if not deceptive. Applicant had observed the hard disk was being prepared for sale and removed from Mr KWe's old PowerBook G3 Series computer (a model which was of a higher and more updated version than the applicant's own computer) sitting on a desk to the side of the room. NOTE: Applicant also observed a G4 titanium PowerBook on Mr KWe's desk, turned on with an application and an Excel file opened on his official desk in the middle of the room with its own special stand attached to a computer arm. The computer was definitely not opened as if Mr KWe was allegedly testing and preparing the 10GB hard disk on this titanium G4 PowerBook. Applicant again expressed a concern about the quality of the hard disk. The applicant could observe the part itself did not come with an official anti-static protection bag to prove its genuine "new part" status. And secondly, the part came out of a different computer to what the respondent had mentioned by telephone (ie. a PowerBook G3 Series). Furthermore, while the respondent was in the process of wiping clean the hard disk using Apple Drive Setup, the applicant could also observe on the screen numerous applications and files on the desktop, which is unusual for a hard disk that was supposed to be brand new. Applicant asked about this a couple of times and looked somewhat perplexed at Mr KWe's PowerBook wondering why he was deleting so many files if this was supposed to be a brand new hard disk he was testing on his G4 titanium PowerBook. Respondent reaffirmed what he said earlier that it is okay to purchase and works fine. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 5 November 2003 The applicant would later receive a quote from Mr KHo supporting Mr KWe's claim for the allegedly "brand new" status of the 10GB hard disk. Mr KHo said in an email sent to the applicant dated 29 January 2002: "...we categorically state that the disk was never used in another PowerBook and we resent the unfounded allegation." You will also notice in this email and all other documents provided by the respondent a lack of evidence to prove this claim. Hence if the respondent wants to believe that the applicant's suggestion of the hard disk might be second-hand is totally unfounded, it might interest the respondent to know that their claim of the hard disk must be brand new is also unfounded. A search through all the attachments and the documents provided by the respondent and all other communications with the applicant have failed to come up with proof that it is brand new. There is not even an official document confirming the order was made with Apple Inc. in Sydney to obtain a 10GB hard disk and this should have been followed up with an anti-static protection bag used to house the hard disk (which all brand new hard disks obtained through Apple should have). Also, the respondent has not shown evidence or mentioned anything about talking to Mr KWe about this issue. There is not even a sign of interest from Mr KHo to ask the applicant how it happened. Instead, the most Mr KHo and later Mr HEl can say about this is to deny any possibility that the hard disk could be a second-hand part without providing evidence. Hence it is quite possible that what the applicant allegedly saw may have actually occurred and there is every possibility the hard disk could still be described as second-hand, or at least sold in a highly dubious manner. #### There were more signs of something unusual happening at [Apple 1]. Now Mr KWe said he had to leave the office and go into the workshop to talk to someone, leaving the applicant alone in Mr KWe's office. The applicant agreed to wait. While the applicant waited patiently, he couldnÕt help noticing how unusually quiet everything was at [Apple 1]. He looked out through the window of Mr KWeÕs office and noticed all the other staff members at [Apple 1] had suddenly disappeared including the receptionist. "Goodness!" as the applicant thought. "If someone wanted to enter the premises now and steal a few things, IÕm sure the person would have done it easily enough." Still not a soul in sight after 5 minutes. So the applicant decided to get up and have a closer look at the screen on Mr KWe's laptop. Again he could observe the existence of a large number of files and applications on the hard disk. The utility Mr KWe used to clean the hard disk called "Apple Drive Setup" wasnÕt finished so he could see what was on the desktop. The applicant thought about this and wondered this must be extremely dubious indeed for what was supposedly a brand new 10GB hard disk. Not long after, Mr KWe returned and saw the applicant looking at his computer. Again Mr KWe reassured the applicant the hard disk was brand new. Upon completion of the hard disk wiping process, Mr KWe proceeded to open up his PowerBook in the presence of the applicant (ie. in Mr KWe's office). Mr KWe performed the critical installation of removing his IBM hard disk from the metal holder via four screws and placed it into the applicant's own metal holder. After the hard disk was screwed into position, Mr KWe passed over the hard disk to the applicant for him to complete the installation. From this point on the applicant could see the type of hard disk he would purchase. It was an IBM with model number DJSA-210. The applicant opened up his computer, inserted the hard disk, and closed the PowerBook in accordance with the Apple PowerBook Instructions Manual pages 81-84 while he was in Mr KWe's office. Mr KWe did not disagree with the installation process. NOTE: The Apple PowerBook Instructions Manual is provided to all Apple customers who have purchased this particular computer model. Mr KWe picked up the applicant's computer and tested it by turning it on. Installation process proved at the time to have been successful. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 5 November 2003 This version of events as the applicant saw it does differ quite markedly from the respondent. Apart from the detail provided here about the installation process, if one referred to Mr HElÕs written claims on page 2, the following quote is the most he can muster on what happened: "[The applicant had]Étried to take his laptop apart and fit the replacement hard disk himselfÉ. After [the applicant] did his own installation, his computer did not work properly." This shows Mr HEl has not asked Mr KWe how the installation process occurred. And it is not as if Mr HEl had not been aware of the applicant's version of events behind the installation process before. On page 16 of the applicant's letter to Mr HEl dated 24 April 2003, it clearly explains the installation process as the applicant had experienced it in excellent detail. Yet Mr HEl cannot explain in detail what happened according to Mr KWe. Not even an effort to pick on specific details of what the applicant had claimed. One should also note that Mr HEl is erroneous in thinking that the hard disk installed on the applicant's computer was a replacement when in fact this had not been the case. At the time the hard disk was installed, the applicant certainly did not buy a hard disk from [Apple 1] prior to this time. #### Since the IBM hard disk appeared to work on the applicant's computer and he was led to believe the hard disk was brand new, he paid the cost of the item which was $300 by credit card. Tax Invoice for part was dated incorrectly for Friday 7 December 2001. No Apple part number is displayed in the Tax Invoice making the part more dubious as it could easily have been a second-hand part. Or it could have been brand new. Either way, it may be impossible to tell from the invoice alone. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 5 November 2003 The respondent has left out this important document known as the invoice when contesting the applicant's claims at a conference held in the ACT Small Claims Court. The invoice did accompany the applicant's letter of 16 January 2003 where he had specifically asked for a refund of the IBM hard disk. #### NOTE: Applicant would later discover how the respondent had never returned the IBM hard disk to Apple after the applicant learnt of a serious problem with it. It was returned to the applicant when the respondent refused to repair the applicant's computer. So why keep the IBM hard disk at [Apple 1] when Mr KWe had known the hard disk was incompatible after its return within 48 hours and Mr KHo claims the hard disk is brand new? Was it kept in storage? Or did it actually come out of Mr KWe's own PowerBook? And how long was it in there? The applicant eventually paid the cost of the item, which was $300 by credit card at 2.04pm according to the copy of the credit card transaction docket. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 5 November 2003 The respondent wishes to maintain the view that the applicant had provided exact details of the hard disk he wanted to [Apple 1] right down to the model number and has claimed the hard disk is brand new. This would form an integral part of the respondent's argument in the hope of avoiding any payment of a refund or damages claim to the applicant. For example, the general manager of [Apple 1] named Mr KHo wrote in his email to the applicant dated 19 February 2002: "Please note your instructions to us when ordering the disk were so exacting that the precise specifications were provided by you down to the model number. You did not ask us for a disk for a particular machine. You insisted we order the disk that you received. We followed your instructions to the letter." If, as Mr KHo wanted to claim in this email, the applicant had allegedly provided the exact details of his hard disk right down to the model number, then how is it possible for the respondent not to mention what were the exact details in: (a) the invoice statement for purchasing the 10GB IBM hard disk; (b) in the written claims to the ACT Small Claims Court by Mr HEl; and (c) in any of the written and verbal communications the applicant had with Mr KHo and other staff? Why keep these details hidden from the applicant if the respondent is so certain the applicant had provided the exact details? And if the hard disk was brand new, why did Mr HEl say in his written claims on 5 November 2003: '...our tests on the [IBM] hard drive showed it was functioning perfectly and therefore could not be returned to the manufacturer.'? The applicant made it clear to the respondent Mr KWe and later Mr KHo and Mr HEl of a problem with using the IBM hard disk in his computer. On returning the item to [Apple 1], Mr KWe accepted the explanation and no one at [Apple 1] informed the applicant the IBM hard disk was okay and hence reveal the possibility that his computer could be at fault. Even if one assumed there was nothing wrong with the applicant's computer, why accept the IBM hard disk from the applicant after being told what happened with it and not send it back to Apple (or the manufacturer, wherever it was obtained at time the order was made) if there had been any costs borne on the part of the respondent in getting the IBM hard disk? Does that mean the IBM hard disk could have been a second-hand item owned by Mr KWe? Or was it kept in storage, removed from its anti-static protection bag and thrown away (since it wasn't supplied to the applicant), used for some time (as observed by the number of files and applications on the desktop of the hard disk), and sold to the applicant? Certainly the latter situation would explain why [Apple 1] could not send it back to Apple or the manufacturer. However the removal of the anti-static protection bag without providing it to the customer and placing files and applications on the hard disk cannot be described in the strickest terms as a "brand new" hard disk as Mr HEl and his staff would later claim. The problem would be whether the applicant can prove how long the IBM hard disk had been used for. Was it for an hour or so as Mr KWe had claimed to the applicant (in which case why didn't Mr KWe supply the anti-static protection bag), or was it actually for several months or perhaps longer (which would explain the lack of an anti-static protection bag)? #### 5-6/12/01 Upon arriving home, the applicant discovered a serious problem with the IBM hard disk after the computer was turned on for a short while. When the applicant's computer had been turned on for approximately 5-10 minutes, the hard disk would: Get very hot (the applicant had to lift the back end of his computer off the desk and closer to an open window to make sure there was adequate ventilation). Create serious data corruption problems. The applicant's disk repair utilities suggested there were a whole range of problems of which the most serious towards the end of 6 December 2003 were "block errors" as if the part itself was physically faulty. NOTE: When the block errors appeared, the applicant successfully repaired the problem using a quality disk repair utility. After the repair was completed, the applicant decided against further use of the part. The IBM hard disk was removed and the original Toshiba hard disk was reinstalled. The IBM hard disk remained in the cardboard box (which is not an anti-static protection bag) as supplied by the respondent (Mr KWe). Before the block errors appeared, the applicant had to spend a great deal of time throughout much of 6 December 2001 checking for things like: the hard disk was properly seated in the connector; re-initialising the hard disk several times; Clearing the PRAM (with the startup chime sounding three times) reinstalling software; leaving the computer and coming back to it (applicant noticed a link between the time the computer had been left on and the number and severity of the errors that had developed on the hard disk); and using disk repair utilities to regularly check for and repair errors. etc. The applicant had also asked numerous experts by telephone for advice. Some claimed the applicant might have to reinstall his Macintosh operating system. So he did. It didn't work. Other experts claimed he should upgrade his operating system to MacOS9. But that couldn't be the case because the applicant's own copy of MacOS8.1 version could operate on hard disks larger than 10GB with other computers. Then others claimed he should clear the Parameter RAM where it holds basic information about the state of the computer and its hardware components. He tried it using the recommended Apple procedure on the keyboard. Still it didn't work. The applicant did so many different things suggested by the experts including checking to see the hard disk was seated properly that it became clear to him in the mid-afternoon that the IBM hard disk was not fit for the purpose it was meant to perform when operating inside his computer. So the applicant decided to inspect his original Toshiba 2GB hard disk with the IBM 10GB hard disk installed in his PowerBook. In accordance with the Apple PowerBook Instructions Manual, he removed the IBM hard disk from its compartment and looked at the printed label at the back of the hard disk and compared this to the Toshiba hard disk brand. Everything looked the same except for the brand name (ie. IBM and Toshiba), model number (ie. an MK2105 for the Toshiba and a DJSA-210 for the IBM), and the electrical current rating. You see, in the case of the IBM hard disk, it has written on its printed label a figure for the electrical current rating of 500mA (or 500 milliamps). For the Toshiba, it says 0.7A (or 0.7 amps, which is the same as saying 700mA). Now here is an interesting discrepancy in the electrical current rating figures written on the labels of both hard disks. It is in the electrical current rating where the applicant would make a crucial discovery and one which would explain his problem. The most logical technical explanation the applicant could find for what happened was that the IBM hard disk was overheating inside the applicant's computer because the IBM manufacturer can only recommend a maximum of 500mA of electrical current in order to function properly. However, his "demonstration model" PowerBook was manufactured by Apple Inc. to produce a much higher current of 700mA. This is why Apple Inc. had to install a Toshiba brand because it had to withstand 700mA of current. So when the IBM hard disk was installed into the applicant's computer, the excess current had to be converted into excess heat leading to an overheating of the IBM hard disk and thereby causing the read/write head inside the hard disk to behave erratically (ie. it could not write data into the correct tracks on the disk leading to file corruption problems). ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 5 November 2003 According to the director of [Apple 1] named Mr HEl in his written claims at the bottom of page 1, he would have everyone believe these electrical current rating numbers refer to the way the hard disk requests the current needed to power them. The word "request" is in fact the actual term used by Mr HEl. To be more precise, according to Mr HEl, he wants to believe the IBM hard disk purchased from [Apple 1] by the applicant has to run cooler than his original Toshiba hard disk and therefore he should not have seen and felt the things he claims to have experienced because the "[IBM] hard disk requests 500 milliamps". In other words, the respondent wants to believe there is no limit to the amount of electrical current you can supply to the IBM hard disk because the hard disk will draw only the current it needs to operate safely. Then Mr HEl writes in his claims on page 1 that this must be true because, "Any Year 1 engineering student will confirm the above." If such a technical explanation for the electrical current is suppose to be so common, why hasn't the respondent provided evidence to prove this claim? A look through the documents provided by the respondent to contest the applicant's claims clearly shows not one iota of evidence to support his explanation. Or is the respondent really trying to say that there is no evidence to support the respondent's claim? This argument would be integral to the respondent in avoiding any payment to the applicant for damages claim. #### The applicant didn't suspect his computer had a manufacturing fault. He just thought Apple Inc. and [Apple 1] had supplied the wrong hard disk and that it should have been a Toshiba hard disk instead based on the type of computer he had purchased from [Apple 1]. But before he went ahead to order in a Toshiba hard disk, he wanted to get confirmation for what he suspected was happening to his IBM hard disk by contacting the service division at Apple Inc. in Sydney on 13 3622. A gentleman did confirm over the telephone that it is possible for the IBM hard disk to be overheating. The IBM hard disk purchased by the applicant carries a maximum current rating of 500mA (as printed on the label as required by law for consumer protection) whereas the applicant's original Toshiba hard disk has a maximum current rating of 700mA. The discussion strongly supported the applicant's belief that his computer was manufactured by Apple Inc. to produce more current than is considered acceptable to run the standard range of 500mA hard disks in the marketplace. Now the applicant knew the hard disk had to be one with a 700mA maximum current rating on it. NOTE: The applicant would discover later from a survey into suitable hard disks for his computer that only Toshiba manufactures the 700mA hard disk. There are no other 700mA hard disks outside of Toshiba. And the hard disk part itself is virtually impossible to get brand new and as a separate part for consumers. Only 500mA hard disks are sold separately by resellers. 6/12/01 Not happy with the quality of the hard disk purchased from the respondent (the applicant suspects it is probably second-hand or it was definitely not power rated to handle his computer), the applicant decided to contact by telephone another reseller – [Apple 2] – at around 4.30pm. NOTE: Applicant would later learn [Apple 2] is managed by the respondent (Mr KHo) as well as [Apple 1]. Sales representative Ms KHu at [Apple 2] responded to the call. Applicant asks for advice on the correct hard disk to use for his computer. She claims a 10GB Apple hard disk can be ordered from Apple for the applicant's computer. Checking the part number, the applicant noticed in the Tax Invoice provided by the respondent how the part number for the IBM hard disk was not mentioned. So the applicant was forced to rely on an unofficial laserprinted text from Approved Systems in Phillip on 5 December 2001 claiming a 10GB Apple hard disk with the part number T5433IN/S was suitable for his computer and was worth $279.40. NOTE: An email confirming the laserprinted text was officially obtained by the applicant from Mr Steve Buckmaster through Mr Paul Burns at the Apple Woden store dated 7/12/2001 at 10.24am. Handwritten notes on a copy of the email by the applicant states quite clearly: ‘Apple will choose a HD brand compatible with my PowerBook. It could be a Toshiba, an IBM or whatever.' When asked about this Apple part number of T5433IN/S by the applicant, Ms KHu looked at her official Apple parts list and confirmed to the applicant the part number was indeed correct. Applicant asked Ms KHu whether she could tell from the official Apple parts list (not available to consumers in order to protect the reseller's profit) what brand the applicant would receive. This was important to the applicant because he has come to believe after lengthy testing and receiving advice that only a 700mA Toshiba hard disk would be suitable for his computer. Ms KHu claims she could not tell by looking at the official parts list. But she was able to confirm to the applicant that Apple Inc. do not produce their own hard disks, but rather the company selects a brand it considers to be suitable for its computers. Ms KHu felt reasonably certain the hard disk would probably be an IBM, but she conceded it is possible for Apple to get other brands. Applicant then explained the problems he had with his computer to Ms KHu. He stressed the importance of a Toshiba hard disk as this was the only brand available in the marketplace which has the mandatory 700mA current rating as required to operate correctly inside his computer. Ms KHu understood what was requested. She agreed to add this to the order. Ms KHu read back the order to the applicant over the telephone. The message was clear: the applicant would receive only a Toshiba hard disk with the part number specified by the applicant and confirmed as being correct according to Ms KHu. The applicant was happy with the order. 7/12/01 Applicant returned to [Apple 1] to get a refund on the IBM/Apple hard disk. Applicant explained the problem to the respondent and why he believes his original Toshiba hard disk is the only brand suitable for his computer because of an overheating issue. Respondent (ie. Mr KWe) accepted the explanation. Before the applicant could ask for a refund, the respondent claimed he could get in a new Toshiba 10GB hard disk by next Wednesday (ie. in 6 days time corresponding to 12 December 2001). Applicant preferred a refund but accepted the offer so long as the part is brand new and did not cost him too much (since [Apple 1] claimed they could get a Toshiba hard disk at $300). Respondent agreed. Respondent receives the IBM hard disk from the applicant inside the cardboard box. After the applicant left [Apple 1], he thought about this issue more closely. Will he or won't he go ahead with the order at [Apple 1 or Apple store 2]? In the end, his decision was to let the orders go through for one simple reason: the applicant did not have a proper backup system. By ordering two new Toshiba hard disks from [Apple 1] and [Apple 2], the applicant could use one hard disk (of 10GB capacity) as a backup for all his files and applications and use the other inside his computer. You see, the applicant has one of those Iomega Jaz drives that allows him to store up to 2GB of information on a single Iomega Jaz disk. He bought this drive from [Apple 2] sometime in December 1998 for roughly $750. It came with a 2GB disk. However by 2001, the disk developed a disk problem where dust had got inside and the read/write heads of the drive managed to pick up the dust and eventually scratch the disk. In other words, the applicant could no longer initialise the disk ever again. So this was the crux of the applicant's problem: should he buy another Iomega disk, or get a new Toshiba hard disk? The Iomega disk would cost the applicant $300 to replace. He already paid $300 for the IBM hard disk and the respondent was going to replace it with a Toshiba hard disk. Getting another Toshiba hard disk (this time from [Apple 2]) at the same price should be alright to use as a backup disk instead of the Iomega Jaz disk. The decision to purchase a second Toshiba hard disk was made a little easier when the applicant realised a Jaz disk has a capacity of 2GB. The Toshiba hard disk would have a capacity of 10GB. Clearly the 10GB hard disk would win hands down over the Iomega disk for essentially the same price. And it would last a whole lot longer too. Iomega disks are not properly sealed from the dust in the environment to make it last the minimum 5 years as Iomega guarantees it should. So the decision was simple. The applicant would go ahead with the orders for two Toshiba hard disks. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 5 November 2003 The respondent at [Apple 1] would have several weeks to check over the IBM DJSA-210 hard disk to see if it was okay and to explain to the applicant what had happened (Was there a problem with the hard disk? Or is there a problem with the applicant's computer?). No evidence verbally or otherwise was given to the applicant to explain what happened until 5 November 2003 when Mr HEl wrote his written claims in contesting the applicant's own claims. Now that we have information as to what happened next, it would appear tests were performed on the IBM hard disk by [Apple 1] eventually and has been confirmed by Mr HEl on 5 November 2003 that the IBM hard disk is "working perfectly". As he said in his own words: "The [IBM] hard disk was under warranty and to the best of our knowledge worked perfectlyÉour tests on the hard disk showed it was functioning perfectly." So what about the applicant's computer? The respondent would again kept quiet on this issue until 5 November 2003 when Mr HEl officially claimed there are no manufacturing faults that he is aware of with the PowerBook G3 Series "Wall Street" computer. As he said on page 2 of his written claims: "There is no manufacturing fault that we are aware of or have encountered with any other Wall Street G3 machine sold." Okay. But there are several "Wall Street" computers manufactured by Apple. Firstly we have the "Wall Street" Revision 1 version which is what the applicant has got. Then there is the "Wall Street" Revision 2 version introduced in August 1998. Then within the Revision 1 version, there is a non-demonstration model version and a demonstration model version. Both can be manufactured differently by Apple if the company chooses to do so. The applicant just happens to have the demonstration model version. So what exactly do we know about his computer? Or more precisely, did the respondent actually make an effort to contact Apple Inc. in Sydney to confirm whether there is or there is not a manufacturing fault in the applicant's computer? On this very issue of contacting Apple to find out whether there is a manufacturing fault or not, no effort was made. This is confirmed by Mr HEl when he said on page 2 of his claims: "In the event there is an issue with any hardware or software, Apple ensures we are notified by way of technical bulletins or emails outlining any issues and suggested remedial processes. No such advice was received in respect of the G3 Wall St product." In other words, the respondent decided to keep quiet, sit back, and do absolutely nothing even after the applicant had mentioned to Mr KWe the problem he had encountered with the IBM hard disk on his computer. Apparently the respondent were waiting for Apple to notify them of manufacturing faults without themselves making the effort to find out. On the issue of notifying the applicant of what the respondent had found out about his computer, again no effort was made as confirmed by Mr HEl on page 2: "We did not notify [the applicant] of a Ômanufacturing faultÕ because to the best of our knowledge there was not one." Well, thatÕs understandable. If you donÕt ask Apple if there is a manufacturing fault, how would the respondent be sure there isnÕt one? Clearly Apple is not going to advertise the fact that there might be a manufacturing fault unless the company is actually asked about it. So while Mr HEl, Mr KHo and Mr KWe did not show the necessary duty of care to find out, the applicant had the fortitude to contact Apple himself. In a registered letter the applicant sent to Apple Computer on 11 July 2002, he asked whether there were any known manufacturing faults with his computer and to inform him of hard disks they consider suitable for it. Although Apple has officially received the applicant's letter via a confirmation card obtained by the applicant, Apple has decided to keep quiet to this very day. Yes, one can now see why the respondent is not aware of any manufacturing faults with the applicant's computer. Apple doesnÕt want to answer! #### 8-9/12/01 Applicant discovered the hard disk connector on the motherboard was failing to pick up the original Toshiba hard disk. The only explanation for this (as this has never happened before) was that the IBM hard disk must have overheated and damaged the small hard disk connector. Applicant noticed the problem was getting progressively worse over time. 12/12/01 This is the day when the new 10GB Toshiba hard disk should have arrived at [Apple 1]. Instead, Mr KWe contacted the applicant on his mobile phone claiming there had been a delay in getting the Toshiba hard disk. The applicant agreed to wait for roughly another week as Mr KWe requested. 14/12/01 At [Apple 2] where the second Toshiba hard disk was being ordered, the respondent had not rung to notify the applicant of its arrival. Normally it would take less than 4 working days to get the part from Apple in Sydney. Applicant decided to pay a visit to [Apple 2] in person to learn the status of the order. He arrived early in the morning. The applicant discovered from Ms KHu that the part had indeed arrived. Ms KHu claimed it has just arrived. She left her desk to collect it. The applicant quietly sat down on the chair in front of Ms KHu's desk (next to the entrance to the [Apple 2] store) for a few minutes. Ms KHu returned to her desk with what looked like the part the applicant had ordered. Applicant noticed the part is sealed in an anti-static protection bag as proof of a genuine new part status. A good start in his mind. However upon looking at the part more closely, the applicant discovered it was the wrong part. Or more correctly, it may have been the correct part number, but it wasn't the correct brand (ie. Toshiba). The applicant was thinking at this time, "Why was the order varied from what had been agreed by telephone?" And, "Didn't Apple or the reseller contact me about supplying a different brand to the one requested?" Actually, the applicant was provided with an identical IBM hard disk (DJSA-210), the same one he had purchased from the respondent at [Apple 1]. Applicant explained the problem concerning the IBM hard disk to Ms KHu. Ms KHu said she would talk to someone about the applicant's problem. Ms KHu left the part in the applicant's hands while she went over to the workshop area at the back of the store to discuss the matter. After about five minutes, Ms KHu returned with a technician (male, thin and short aged in his forties or early fifties). The technician claimed the part should work on the applicant's computer. Applicant was not convinced. Technician claimed he had done this before on a PowerBook G3 Series computer, but he did mention a higher and more expensive model (ie. FireWire) and the hard disk he installed was one of the IBM 18GB variety, not the IBM 10GB hard disk that [Apple 2] wanted to sell to the applicant. Not fully convinced, the applicant explained there were problems developing in his computer (ie. the hard disk connector was failing) and he really needed a Toshiba brand to minimise these problems. The technician suggested he could fix up the problem by installing a flexible hard disk connector as found in newer versions of the PowerBook G3 Series computer. But he said he needed to look inside the applicant's computer to see if it would fit. Without mentioning anything else, the applicant agreed to let the technician do his inspection. However, the applicant said he had to leave to see someone else and that he would return later. The technician agreed. NOTE 1: The technician did not mention anything about having the original Toshiba hard disk as part of his inspection. NOTE 2: There was no agreement, verbal or otherwise, to let the technician repair the applicant's computer. This was supposed to be an inspection and nothing else. After the applicant left [Apple 2], he spoke to the respondent (Mr KWe) of [Apple 1] about this flexible ribbon cable. Mr KWe felt adamant it won't be possible because of the length of the cable and the size of the connector. Based on this information, the applicant decided: To get a quote for repairing the hard disk connector assuming AppleCentre can fix it. To find a suitable time in the next few days for the technician at [Apple 1] to look over the applicant's computer. If a ribbon cable can be installed, the applicant will fill out a repair form and let the technician repair his computer. To check the repairs first using the applicant's original 2GB Toshiba hard disk before going on to the final stage of installing the IBM hard disk. 16/12/01 Applicant notices the first signs of the RAM card connector failing when the following message appeared on his computer: "There is a problem with the RAM card. Please have it checked by a Service Technician." NOTE: The RAM card was later tested and found to be working correctly in another computer. This only leaves the RAM card connector on the processor board as the culprit. But because this event had never happened before and certainly didnÕt look like a serious problem at first, the applicant's initial reaction was that the RAM card was probably not seated properly inside the connector. Consequently the applicant followed Apple PowerBook Instructions Manual in removing and reinstalling the RAM card to make sure it was seated correctly. Applicant thought the problem was solved when the message did not show itself again. 17/12/01 Applicant returned to [Apple 2] to explain about the hard disk connector problems again to Ms KHu. Applicant asked for a quote to repair the hard disk connector with a flexible ribbon cable connector ($100) including labour. Ms KHu also decided to include in a written quote on her business card the cost of the IBM hard disk of $280 and installation of the hard disk of $44. 18/12/01 Applicant returned to [Apple 2] only to discover the technician he had spoken to several days ago had other plans. The technician now wanted to take away the applicant's computer for an unspecified amount of time and to do the full repairs. By full repairs, the technician meant putting in the IBM hard disk, installing a flexible hard disk connector, testing the computer, and forcing the applicant to pay for all repairs, the hard disk, and the labour costs. Applicant explained he had agreed for an inspection and nothing else (it should take no more than 5 minutes on-the-spot). If the technician wanted to take the computer away for an unspecified length of time to do his inspection, the applicant can come back at a more appropriate time or he will remove the original Toshiba hard disk and let the technician take away the computer. This again is in accordance with the Apple PowerBook Instructions Manual for servicing. The customer is legally entitled to remove the internal hard disk. The technician refused to look inside applicant's computer arguing he needs the original Toshiba hard disk to be present inside the applicant's computer. To emphasise the point, the technician says he is a professional and he uses a special grounding "anti-static" strap to do his work properly. Applicant mentions the Apple PowerBook Instructions Manual. He explains how this manual allows an Apple customer to open up his/her computer by flipping open the keyboard and removing the hard disk. As you remove the hard disk, the metal box encasing the hard disk is automatically grounded and this would ensure no stray electrical charges would remain. That is why Apple Inc. permits customers to remove the hard disk by hand without the need for a technician to be present. Technician couldn't argue this point, so he asked the applicant again to explain what he wanted to do with the applicant's computer. Applicant had to explain again. Again the technician chose not to do the inspection without the original Toshiba hard disk. No better technical reason was given by the technician for having the original Toshiba hard disk. Not happy with the technician's change of plan from what was agreed earlier, the applicant decided not to go ahead with the inspection. Applicant also explained he was not interested in accepting the IBM hard disk because it was the wrong brand (ie. not a Toshiba). NOTE: The brand name is absolutely crucial to the applicant in upgrading his hard disk. It must be a Toshiba. It is the only brand to satisfy the correct 700mA maximum current rating. No other company produces a 700mA hard disk. The applicant is certain the Apple reseller must fulfil the order based on complete information provided by the applicant, not on a partial order of fulfilling only the Apple part number. Both the Apple part number and the hard disk brand were integral to the applicant's original order when obtaining a 10GB Toshiba hard disk. Within 30 minutes of leaving [Apple 2], the applicant received a call on his mobile phone from the respondent (Mr KWe) at [Apple 1] asking if the applicant would be happy with a Fujitsu hard disk. Applicant's knowledge of Fujitsu hard disks and how they operate at a maximum of 500mA meant that he could not accept the offer. It had to be a Toshiba brand. The respondent said a Toshiba hard disk would be shipped in the early part of the New Year. Applicant had no choice but to agree with the wait. And since [Apple 2] were not prepared to do what was agreed, the applicant gave permission for Mr KWe to order in a standard rigid hard disk connector to replace the damaged one. Mr KWe was happy with this arrangement. NOTE: The respondent has never told the applicant whether a new hard disk connector was ordered from Apple. No evidence from the respondent was provided to prove the order was made as requested. 25/12/01-15/1/2002 Problems with the hard disk connector and RAM card connector continue to plague the applicant's computer. It got progressively worse until it became extremely difficult for the applicant to continue with his work. Eventually the applicant was forced to try again. This time he would remove the RAM card and hard disk, checking for dust, looking at the connectors, and reinserting the RAM card and hard disk firmly inside the connector. Again all this is within the acceptable Apple guidelines according to the Apple PowerBook Instructions Manual. Problem seemed to have been solved again. But an hour later, the hard disk problem would repeat itself. The applicant is now of the firm belief that both the RAM card and hard disk connectors must have suffered damage because of the extra heat generated by the IBM hard disk when it was trying to operate correctly inside his computer. As the applicant can observe, the hard disk connector is virtually right underneath the hard disk where it would receive lots of heat from the IBM hard disk. And there is a large metal plate covering the entire processor board which is touching the hard disk. This helps to easily transport extra heat from the IBM hard disk to the RAM card connector and processor board underneath. Thus the only explanation the applicant can come up with for this to happen and which would make sense (as this has never happened before) was that the overheating effect of the IBM hard disk must have managed to warp the pins on the connector and made them less able to make contact with the circuit board attached to the applicant's original Toshiba hard disk. With no Apple repair centre available over the Christmas period and the new hard disk connector had not arrived, the applicant was forced to do a minor repair to the hard disk connector. Using a very fine pair of tweezers, the applicant was able to push back the pins of the hard disk connector into a better position to ensure proper contact with the hard disk. After pushing in the Toshiba hard disk, closing up the computer, and restarting, the hard disk problem was fixed. Hopefully this would give the applicant enough time he needs to continue with his work until the new rigid hard disk connector arrives in the New Year from [Apple 1]. Then a couple of days later the message about the RAM card connector not picking up the RAM card would appear once more. Without the RAM card, the applicant would not have the memory to run the operating system let alone other applications. Applicant tries again. He looked inside his computer in accordance with the Apple PowerBook Instructions Manual. He checked the RAM card to make sure there was no dust sitting on it which could interfere with the connection. The applicant looked at the RAM card connector itself. He noticed the pins inside the RAM card connector didn't look crash hot. There wasn't enough clearance to make a clean connection with the RAM card. But because of the number of pins, how small the pins were, and how deeply embedded the pins were inside the connector, there was nothing the applicant could do but try to push the RAM card inside the connector as best he could. However, after doing this, the applicant's computer for some reason could not be restarted. Applicant checked again to make sure everything was okay. No problems. Unfortunately the computer refused to restart. Applicant is now concerned the processor board carrying the RAM card connector is no longer functioning. Why? 18 or 21/1/02 The applicant noticed Mr KWe has not contacted him about the Toshiba hard disk replacement. For some reason, the Toshiba hard disk is not arriving. Therefore the applicant thought this would be a good time to hand in his computer to Mr KWe for repairs and have it fixed before the new Toshiba hard disk arrives. And anyway, he did not believe his computer would have a manufacturing fault to create all these problems for him. He assumed responsibility for what happened. The applicant handed in his computer to the respondent (Mr KWe) for repairs in one piece with the exception of the internal Toshiba hard disk which he is legally entitled to do in accordance with the Apple PowerBook Instructions Manual. As the manual states on page 81: "Your PowerBook was designed so that you could easily remove your internal hard drive for service or security needs." A technician named LRZO emerged from the workshop at [Apple 1] with Mr KWe. LRZO looked at applicant's computer. The applicant was led to believe LRZO would be the technician to repair the computer. The first thing LRZO did was to open up the applicant's computer on-the-spot as if he was looking for something. LRZO noticed the applicant had removed the original Toshiba hard disk for safe storage. NOTE: As further proof, the applicant believed he did the right thing of removing the hard disk because he noticed in another repair form from [Apple 2] the following clause: "[Apple 2] shall not be liable for any loss of, damage to, or unauthorised dissemination of my data." With only one hard disk that works and with personal information on it, the applicant was not prepared to have the Toshiba hard disk damaged at this point for the sake of repairing the connector or processor board. LRZO made no statements to the applicant concerning the fact that the Toshiba hard disk had been removed and this would cause a problem for the respondent to repair the computer without it. Applicant's computer was accepted by LRZO and taken away for repairs. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 5 November 2003 The director of [Apple 1] named Mr HEl is of the view in his written claim on page 2 that: "He [ie. the applicant] then attempted to take the laptop, in pieces, back to Mac1 and requested us to repair it." Well, at a conference held between the respondent Mr HEl and the applicant, Mr HEl was shown the computer in question. The Senior Registrar agreed with the applicant that the computer is in one piece. If, on the other hand, Mr HEl (and supported by Mr KHo) is really arguing that the removal of the Toshiba hard disk constitutes handing in the computer in pieces, then the applicant and the Senior Registrar wanted to know why [Apple 1] accepted the applicant's computer for repairs when it was known by LRZO that the applicant had removed the original Toshiba hard disk? And why does Apple permit the customer to keep the hard disk during servicing? To this day, there has been no written explanation from Mr HEl or by any of his staff at [Apple 1] or [Apple 2] as to why the Toshiba hard disk must be supplied with the computer for repairs, legally or otherwise. When asked what exactly was in pieces, the most Mr HEl can say verbally in the conference was that the keyboard of the applicant's computer was allegedly flipped open and bits and pieces were everywhere. However, we could not explain what the bits and pieces were. Didn't his staff know? And, assuming this is true, who put the pieces back together again without his staff issuing an invoice to the applicant for the cost of the service? Clearly there had been no complaints on this aspect from his staff. #### In the meantime, the applicant writes in the official repair form provided by the respondent the request for the technician to repair the RAM card connector or replace the processor board which ever is suitable. Since the hard disk connector appeared to have been fixed, the applicant decided not to include this as part of the repairs. While the applicant was filling out the repair form, LRZO began talking to him about a certain presumably common problem with the flexible hard disk connector of newer PowerBook G3 Series models rubbing against the plastic casing and creating a hole underneath even when the customers were carrying the computers around normally. Applicant thought LRZO must have found out about his hard disk connector problem from Mr KWe. Applicant thought this was interesting information and even said so, but his priority was to get this RAM card connector problem fixed and get his computer working again. Mr KWe then spoke to the applicant about having another "demonstration model" computer for sale in his office, this time a G4 titanium PowerBook. He was selling it for $3995. After hearing this, the applicant said this was not a good idea since the computer he was getting repaired was also a "demonstration model". Both the respondents laughed at this statement. Before applicant left, LRZO did confirm the cost of replacing the processor board would be no more than $400. LRZO is also aware the applicant's computer is out-of-warranty. 22/1/02 Applicant receives a telephone call from the respondent (ie. another technician named RBET). On this occasion, RBET refuses to repair the applicant's computer because the hard disk is not present. RBET gives no technical explanation for why this is necessary. Applicant thought it was irrelevant to have the hard disk if the repairs concerned the RAM card connector and processor board. Computer can be restarted without a hard disk inside. Furthermore, LRZO did not mention this as being a problem. Finally, the applicant had purchased an IBM hard disk from the respondent for $300 and is sitting in the respondent's office (ie. Mr KWe). If he really needed a hard disk (why?), what's wrong with using the IBM hard disk if the respondent claims it should work? Didn't the respondent know about this? RBET then proceeded to say he is the manager for [Apple 1] and [Apple 2] and will not do the repairs unless a hard disk is present. Again the applicant could not see the relevance of this information or why the respondent could not repair the computer as requested without the original Toshiba hard disk. RBET refused to repair applicant's computer. Applicant was forced to return to [Apple 1] to ask questions. Applicant arrived later in the afternoon asking why the respondent needed a hard disk? Applicant assumed (to test the theory that the hard disk was "second-hand) the IBM hard disk was still sitting inside Mr KWe's office (because he suspects it was originally owned by Mr KWe). The respondent (Mr KWe and LRZO) listened to the applicant's latest problems. Interestingly, neither Mr KWe nor LRZO could answer. In fact, instead of denying whether the IBM hard disk was still available in Mr KWe's office or whether it was returned to Apple, Mr KWe had asked the applicant, "You always wanted an IBM hard disk didn't you?" Clearly the respondent was trying to ignore the applicant's plight in getting a new Toshiba hard disk. Applicant explained once more to the respondent what he wanted. In other words, the applicant said he wanted a Toshiba hard disk because the previous hard disk supplied by the respondent did not work properly and the Toshiba brand is the only one to work well in his computer. However, since Mr KWe now says he is unable to get a new Toshiba hard disk, the applicant had no choice at this stage but to ask the respondent to have another go with the IBM hard disk. Mr KWe appeared to have listened and now agreed he would call up someone on the telephone to discuss the matter. He didn't say whom specifically. Perhaps it was the technician himself named RBET. As Mr KWe went over to the reception desk to call someone, LRZO began distracting the applicant by saying there was a whole heap of things wrong with the applicant's computer. He says power is not going through the two power management boards (one sitting underneath the right speaker area where the AC power socket is attached and the other one beneath the trackpad button where the battery is located). LRZO does not add anything to this as if implying there were serious problems beyond fixing the processor board and what the applicant had agreed to have repaired or replaced. Applicant could not understand how these power management boards were damaged. Surely this must be a problem with the processor board only. When Mr KWe eventually came over, he didn't say there would be a problem in repairing the applicant's computer this time. In fact, Mr KWe said he would be happy to have another go at repairing the computer. Then the applicant asked the respondent to do whatever it takes to get his computer working again including getting the IBM hard disk he purchased (for which no refund has been provided yet) to work if the respondent believes it should work now that a new Toshiba hard disk could not be ordered. Before the applicant left, he asked again for another verbal quote from LRZO confirming the cost to replace the processor board was $400. 24/1/02 After realising the respondent had not returned the IBM hard disk to Apple, the applicant began to lose confidence with the respondent's ability to do the work. Furthermore the respondent had not produced a written quote to the applicant within reasonable time after the applicant made no less than two requests for a quote from LRZO. Applicant is concerned the costs were going to be a lot more than the agreed $400, and how long would it take? Given all the funny things going on at [Apple 1], he did not trust these people to do the right thing or to listen correctly to what was requested by the applicant. To test this theory, he firstly wanted to see whether the processor board could affect the power management boards in some way. He began by contacting Approved Systems anonymously at around 8.55am for advice. He received information from a technician confirming that the connector itself cannot be repaired or replaced. The entire processor board had to be replaced. Furthermore, the technician agreed it was possible for a non-functioning processor board to stop power coming through the power management boards as LRZO had said earlier. By replacing the processor board, there is every likelihood power will be restored and the computer functioning again. The applicant was realising at this point that there are indeed all sorts of funny things going on by the respondent. Okay. So how long should it take to get a written quote from an independent Apple reseller? The applicant chose Approved Systems again as a reference point. An email was sent in the morning to Approved Systems asking for a quote to replace the processor board for his particular computer. The email containing the quote arrived from Approved Systems on the same day from Mr Mark Williamson, Systems Engineer. The quote stated the cost to replace the applicant's processor board would be much more than the $400 stated verbally by LRZO and more than 1 hour. Final costs would be $842.95 for 2 hours labour at $121 per hour and $540.45 for the processor board. NOTE: A survey conducted by the applicant would also reveal that this $540.45 cost is for a new processor board where the applicant keeps the old one. All this information was clearly pointing in the direction of something unusual going on by the staff at [Apple 1]. Why was the respondent claiming there were all sorts of other problems with the applicant's computer? Doesn't the respondent know the problem with the power management boards is linked to the processor board problem? And why can't they give a firm price on repairing on the processor board which was the original thing being asked by the applicant to repair? Next, the applicant wanted to sort out a few things by contacting the respondent (LRZO) at 9.40am to find out what was happening with his computer. Apparently nothing much was done except flip open the keyboard and check a couple of things. No repairs were being done because LRZO claimed the person who would be doing the repairs was at an Apple training course in Sydney. LRZO also said he was waiting for another identical computer to arrive so he can swap the processor boards around to see if the problem would be fixed. God knows how long that might take! Then the applicant asked LRZO whether it is possible for the processor board to switch off all the power management boards if anything should go wrong with it. LRZO said it was possible. In that case, the applicant explained how likely it is that the RAM card connector is probably sufficiently damaged to the point that it would not be possible to repair it. In other words, the applicant asked LRZO whether he would be able to desolder the connector and put in a new one. LRZO agreed it would not be possible to remove the connector. In that case, LRZO was given permission to go ahead with ordering in a new processor board. There is no need for further delay, or as LRZO had put it, wait until another similar computer comes into the respondent's workshop and swap the processor board to see if it will work. Applicant asked LRZO not to spend too much time. Applicant preferred the respondent not to spend more than an hour replacing and testing the processor board. LRZO did not disagree with the estimated time. NOTE: A survey conducted by the applicant would prove (a) the work of replacing the processor board can be done in 1 hour maximum; and (b) the cost can be under $400. All it has to be done is pull out the processor board and push in a new one. Nothing too complicated. Definitely not rocket science! ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 5 November 2003 So far from the director of [Apple 1] named Mr HEl claiming on page 1 that: "[the applicant] insists he is an ÔexpertÕ and refuses to listen to technical advise from our staffÉ" As can be seen, the applicant does actually listen. And, worse of all for the respondent, he actually records what he hears. This is what he has always done. And when he finds a serious discrepancy in what has been said to him, he will present the information very clearly to others. #### Telephone conversation ended on a positive note. Applicant felt a little more confident something was being done to repair his computer. But exactly how much would it cost to replace the processor board? The applicant still had no written quote from the respondent. 25/1/02 Applicant wrote a letter and attached it to an email sent to the respondent (the manager of [Apple 1]) via [email address] explaining his problems and what he wanted his technicians to do. The letter was essentially to avoid further miscommunications from his staff and to get written confirmation that $400 was the correct quote. 29/1/02 The respondent (Mr KHo, manager of [Apple 1]) replied with an email at 10.26am. In it, Mr KHo showed no interest in learning more about the applicant's situation. Mr KHo essentially said he would not do the repairs under any circumstances because: He felt the applicant was dictating the price. Reason: The applicant was stating the price given to him by Lorenzo and now one email from an independent Apple reseller. To this day the applicant still donÕt have a single piece of written evidence to tell him exactly how much it should have cost. Mr KHo does not say what the actual cost should be. The applicant should not have told him what his technicians should do. Reason: Well, how else is the applicant going to avoid further miscommunications on the part of his staff? By twiddling one's thumbs and hope for the best? Interesting to see how Mr KHo is not curious to ask the applicant why he had to explain to Mr KHo what he wanted done. He thought the applicant was an expert in asking for a specific hard disk, right down to allegedly quoting to his staff the Apple part number and model number. Reason: Mr KHo is now referring to another incident that occurred at his second store in [Apple 2] where the applicant decided to order a 700mA Toshiba hard disk but his staff obtained a different brand from the one the applicant ordered. Under no circumstances did the applicant ever give an Apple part number or hard disk brand, model number or other details of the hard disk except mentioning the capacity I wanted when making the order through [Apple 1]. The applicant would not supply the original Toshiba hard disk claiming the applicant had legally agreed to supply it after reading the clauses of a declaration "repair" form for which the applicant had allegedly refused to sign in order to give the respondent legal authority to have it. Mr KHo is careful not to mention specifically which component he is referring to. He just writes: "Under no circumstances would we ever accept a machine for repair without all of the components intact." Reason: A check through the alleged declaration form obtained from [Apple 2] where the respondent seems to have a gripe with clearly shows no evidence of a legal clause requiring the applicant to supply the hard disk for any reason (whether servicing or otherwise). It only states that should the applicant happen to leave the hard disk inside his computer during a repair, the respondent is not liable for any damage to the hard disk. The email from the respondent suggests Mr KHo is either confused with which hard disk the applicant was referring to (either at [Apple 1] or [Apple 2]), or he has concerns about the IBM hard disk ordered at [Apple 2]. If it is the latter, he appears to be ignoring the applicant's request for repairs at [Apple 1] in favour of another issue he has a gripe with at [Apple 2]. Or maybe Mr KHo knows exactly what is going on and just wants an excuse not to do the repairs until the applicant decides to supply his original Toshiba hard disk to [Apple 1]. The email from Mr KHo would finally end by asking the applicant to pick up his computer and take it elsewhere. NOTE 1: Mr KHo has never mentioned a technical explanation for why his technicians can't do the repairs without the Toshiba hard disk or why he could not use the IBM hard disk purchased by the applicant from Mr KWe. NOTE 2: Applicant has discovered from the survey he has conducted that other Apple-approved technicians outside of [Apple 1] and [Apple 2] are able to do the job without the presence of the internal hard disk. Applicant will supply evidence of this. 29/1/02 Applicant sent an email to the respondent (Mr KHo) at 11.20am explaining how he had been very clear in specifying the Toshiba brand as being absolutely crucial to the order made at [Apple 2]. It is true the applicant had mentioned the Apple part number during the order but only if confirmed by a sales representative named Ms KHu and that it was in conjunction with the requirement that it had to be a Toshiba brand. No other brand is acceptable. The two fundamental requirements of the order, both part number and the hard disk brand, were integral to ensure suitability of the hard disk when operating inside the applicant's computer. Applicant made a mistake in his email in assuming he signed a declaration form at [Apple 2] when in fact he signed a declaration form at [Apple 1]. In truth, the declaration form at [Apple 2] was never signed by the applicant and was never shown the form by the sales representative named TRTN. The applicant only had the chance to view it after the technician at [Apple 2] said he refused to do the inspection as agreed and just before the applicant left [Apple 2]. You see, when the applicant decided against going ahead with the inspection and not to purchase the IBM hard disk, both the technician and TRTN left the front counter leaving behind what the applicant believed was the form TRTN had filled out earlier. The form was folded in half making it difficult for the applicant to see exactly what was on the form. Applicant felt obliged to check to see if this was the form filled in by TRTN as it was just on his left side where TRTN had been standing. An inspection showed it was the correct form. The applicant then made the decision to take the form with him for his records. NOTE: TRTN was to the left of the applicant listening to the conversation and carrying the form. He was also behind the counter. While the technician was on the applicant's right side in front of the counter. Applicant's computer was sitting on the counter in front and slightly to the right ready for the technician to inspect. The applicant finished his email by saying he has written a complaint to Apple Inc. in Sydney about the dispute. At 11.32am, the respondent (Mr KHo) returned with an email saying: ‘Thank you [applicant], we also have escalated your issue with Apple directly including your PDF emailed previously.' NOTE: The letters from Apple Inc. would show no evidence of the respondent sending anything to Apple. First letter from Apple reveals an Apple Customer Relations officer contacted the respondent first by telephone after receiving the complaint from the applicant. 30/1/02 Applicant begins conducting surveys by email and telephone of ACT and interstate businesses to learn more about the repairs to the processor board and whether the original Toshiba hard disk needs to be supplied. Applicant also learns how Toshiba is not only the brand for selling 700mA hard disks but it is not sold separately as a part number for upgrading the applicant's internal hard disk of his computer. The part can never be obtained separately and as a brand new part from any reseller. Applicant also learns from other technicians not affiliated with [Apple 1 or 2] that the repair to the processor board can be done without the internal hard disk. 5/2/02 Applicant returned to [Apple 1] to pick up his computer. He would also get back, with some surprise, the IBM hard disk (sitting inside the original cardboard box). At first Mr KWe hesitated whether he should give the applicant the IBM hard disk, but he eventually did. This is the original IBM hard disk the applicant had purchased from Mr KWe several weeks ago and which is next to useless to him if (i) the hard disk does not operate properly inside the applicant's computer; and (ii) the PowerBook remains unrepaired. The returning of the IBM hard disk to the applicant proved the product was definitely not brand new at time it was sold by the respondent to the applicant. Otherwise the product would have been returned to Apple and a full refund provided. Not knowing the state of his computer, the applicant returned home to check it. Since the computer remained inoperable and the applicant could not use the IBM hard disk for anything other than a coffee cup holder, he had to consider the option of at least getting a refund for the IBM hard disk because he was still not fully aware that there was indeed a manufacturing fault with his computer at the time. The respondent had kept quiet about this issue. He just thought the respondent were being difficult with the customer. NOTE: The respondent, in defending themselves at a conference held on 16 December 2003, would reverse this by saying the applicant is the one being difficult with the respondent. Reason? It would appear because the applicant would not supply the original Toshiba hard disk as part of the repairs and felt they did not have to give an explanation to ask for it. 6/2/02 Applicant sends a letter via registered post (No.RB48286393) to Apple Inc. in Sydney explaining his situation. In particular he wanted to know what is so special about supplying the original Toshiba hard disk to the respondent, and why did the respondent chose not to perform the repairs? And why did the applicant have problems in the first place using the IBM hard disk? 11/2/02 Applicant received an official response from Ms Linda Kewin, an Apple Customer Relations officer. Her letter said she had spoken to Mr KHo. After the discussion, Kewin wrote in her letter that Mr KHo can create any kind of policy he likes when it comes to repairs. Therefore it is in his legal rights to ask for the applicant's hard disk (presumably this meant the Toshiba hard disk, although Kewin does not mention the IBM hard disk already purchased by the applicant). But what is the official Apple policy regarding the internal hard disk for Apple computers requiring repairs to be done by an Apple reseller? And why does the Apple PowerBook Instructions Manual permit Apple customers to remove the hard disk for servicing and security? And what about the legal clauses in the repair form as well as the lack of a technical explanation why the respondent needed the original Toshiba hard disk as part of an inspection and later a repair? Unfortunately, Ms Kewin could not give a complete response. 18/2/02 Applicant wrote another letter to Apple asking for further details regarding Apple's policy on internal hard disks during servicing. Applicant also wrote an email to Mr KHo at 1.08pm asking for a refund of $300 for the IBM hard disk he had purchased from [Apple 1]. The applicant asked Mr KHo for a refund on the following grounds: The applicant is not confident the IBM hard disk was brand new; and The IBM hard disk is not power-rated to suit his PowerBook G3 Series "Wall Street" computer. He keeps getting file corruption problems because of an overheating issue. His original hard disk was a Toshiba rated at 700mA. 19/2/02 The respondent's (Mr KHo) email came at 8.20am. It shows the respondent is mixing up the events that occurred at [Apple 1] and [Apple 2] to present a case in support of the respondent's own position that he is not legally entitled to provide a refund to the applicant. In essence, the email flatly refuses to provide a refund because: The hard disk was allegedly brand new. (Respondent was probably referring to the one at [Apple 2], otherwise no evidence was provided to prove this was so at [Apple 1]) The applicant gave very exact instructions when ordering the drive, even right model to the model number. As Mr KHo stated: "You did not ask us for a drive for a particular machine" (Referring to the one at [Apple 2]) The applicant had performed the entire installation of the hard disk in his own computer thereby avoiding the respondent's responsibility for it. (Referring to the one at [Apple 1]) The respondent argued the Toshiba 700mA hard disk should be hotter than the IBM 500mA hard disk. In other words, Mr KHo was saying he could not believe the IBM hard disk could suffer overheating inside the applicant's computer. On the first point, it is clear to the applicant how Mr KHo had shown no interest in learning how the hard disk was sold to the applicant by his sales representative at [Apple 1] Mr KWe. If he took the time to find out, he would have known the dubious nature of the hard disk product sold to the applicant unless, of course, Mr KWe is protecting himself and his job by not telling the truth as to how the IBM hard disk was prepared. In fact, one could seriously question whether the IBM hard disk at [Apple 1] was of merchantable quality given the way it was sold to the applicant. However, the applicant agrees the IBM hard disk at [Apple 2] was brand new because it was sealed inside an anti-static protection bag. On the second point, Mr KHo is confused by the applicant's order made at [Apple 2] where an Apple part number was mentioned but only after confirmation was obtained from Ms KHu. The refund being asked by the applicant, however, refers to the hard disk at [Apple 1]. And the applicant never gave a part number or asked for a particular hard drive model. He was relying on the respondent (Mr KWe) to provide the correct drive based on the type of computer the applicant had. Even when shown the computer, Mr KWe did not indicate a problem with providing the hard disk he wanted to sell to the applicant based on what he saw. However, once Mr KWe was made fully aware the IBM hard disk did not operate correctly inside the applicant's computer, the question then becomes whether the respondent had done anything to find a replacement (ie. a Toshiba brand). If no replacement was found, the applicant believed he should have received a refund. On the third point, Mr KHo appears either not to have spoken to Mr KWe, or if he has, he has been given incomplete information about who performed the critical installation. It is true the applicant had opened up his computer, inserted the hard disk, and closed up his computer. But all this is in accordance with what is printed in the Apple PowerBook Instructions Manual as provided to all Apple customers for the type of computer owned by the applicant. And this does not constitute the critical and full installation as Mr KHo is trying to suggest here. As for the fourth point, Mr KHo is assuming the rating of 700mA on the label for a Toshiba brand implies it runs hotter than a 500mA IBM hard disk. This is not necessarily true because it depends on the circuit design on the hard disk and how well it can handle the extra current at 700mA. The best analogy is to imagine two copper wires of identical width and thickness. By passing through 500mA of current through one of the wires and 700mA through the other, the heat emitted by the wire carrying 700mA would be hotter. However, what we have here in the applicant's situation is 500mA passing through a standard copper wire (ie. an IBM hard disk) and 700mA passing through a thicker copper wire (ie. a Toshiba hard disk). The thicker wire will emit about the same amount of heat as the thinner wire. But if you try to pass 700mA through the thinner wire (ie. an IBM hard disk), the heat emitted is going to be much greater than the heat emitted by the thicker wire passing through the same amount of current. This is exactly what is happening to the IBM hard disk. The IBM hard disk is trying to operate in an environment where the computer is passing through 700mA of current into a 500mA IBM hard disk, and the hard disk is not power rated to handle this. As a result, the IBM hard disk is forced to malfunction and behaved irratically at much higher than expected temperatures as observed by the applicant. 20/2/02 Ms Kewin's reply came in a letter dated 20 February 2002. She said: "Thank you for your response that was received on the February 20, 2002. As already stated to you in my previous letter, you will need to take your PowerBook to an authorised Apple Service Centre for repair. Mr KHo and I have discussed your issue and Mr KHo is happy to look at your PowerBook and give you a quote on the repair needed. Alternatively, as your PowerBook is out of warranty, you are free to take it to any computer service centre." Could Apple be trying to wash its hands of the applicant's problem? Does Apple know something about the way the applicant's computer was manufactured? This quote officially confirms a sudden change in behaviour by Mr KHo. He has now decided to give a quote to repair the applicant's computer. But unfortunately the applicant is still in the dark about the internal hard disk issue. For all he knows, if the applicant returns the computer to the respondent, the whole series of events with regards to the internal hard disk would almost certainly be repeated. The applicant still doesn't trust these people until he receives complete information about all of his concerns. Anyway, there is still no confirmation as to the legal rights of the applicant in this area. It is also interesting to note that neither Mr KHo nor Ms Kewin during their discussions made any mention of a possible manufacturing fault in either the applicant's computer or the IBM hard disk. NOTE: Applicant is certain, however, the IBM hard disk is okay. The problem lies with the manufacturing of his "demonstration model" computer by Apple (since the internal hard disk cannot be upgraded with a Toshiba brand as requested by the applicant). But neither the respondent nor Apple are prepared to say anything about this to this very day. 22/2/02 It is clear at this point for the applicant that not only is Apple being very careful not to answer the critical questions in his letters, but there is no doubt in his mind that the respondent had been dishonest with him on this legal issue regarding the internal Toshiba hard disk. At first, the applicant found the IBM hard disk would not function properly inside his computer due to a serious overheating problem. Fine. He thought he should be able to get a refund or a replacement for a Toshiba brand just on this reason alone. Then the applicant learnt he could not get a replacement for a Toshiba brand. Alright. It is time to repair and pay for whatever is wrong with his computer assuming there are no manufacturing faults. The respondent already had the applicant's fully paid IBM hard disk and his computer in their possession during the repairs. But the respondent chose not to do anything without the original Toshiba hard disk. They didn't even ask Apple if there were any known manufacturing faults. With no technical explanation given for why the respondent needed the original Toshiba hard disk or whether there were known manufacturing faults with the applicant's computer, the respondent decided not to carry out repairs. The explanation: the respondent had to incorrectly state an alleged clause in a declaration form claiming the respondent had legal entitlement to the original hard disk during repairs. And later this would be expanded to include anything else the respondent can find to show their gripes with the applicant. 24/2/02 Applicant wrote another letter to Ms Kewin at Apple Inc. explaining what he has discovered so far. In that letter he explained Mr KHo's official explanation for not providing a refund, including his dangerous assumption that the IBM hard disk should work in the applicant's computer because it draws less power than his original Toshiba hard disk and hence should not overheat. However, Ms Kewin has chosen to keep quiet on the matter to this day. 8/3/02 Applicant sent another email, this time to Mr KWe at 2.16pm on 8 March 2002 asking for a written quote to repair his PowerBook and a refund for the IBM hard disk. Mr KWe has acknowledged receiving the applicant's email at 2.27pm and said he would pass it on to Mr KHo for a decision. As stated in his email: Hi [applicant's name] I have forwarded your email to KHo , [Apple 1] General Manager. [KHo] will be in contact with you. Regards [KWe] No reply from the respondent (Mr KHo). It seems to the applicant that Mr KHo is taking on the same stance as Apple Inc. on this matter. 21/3/2002 Applicant sent a letter to the ACT Office of Fair Trading explaining the entire situation up to that point in time and asking for advice and assistance in this matter. As the applicant explained in the opening of his letter: "I am writing this letter to you so that you may learn of my circumstances regarding the following issues: (i) the way staff from an ACT business [ie. the respondent] have handled my request for purchasing a new internal hard disk for my computer and in repairing my computer under customer directions; and (ii) the poor refund policy for the internal hard disk issued by the staff and the manager. The ACT business is called [Apple 1] managed by Mr KHo. Furthermore, I would like to know whether I would be entitled to a refund under the Trade Practices Act for the internal hard disk I purchased from the ACT business." Mr Luke Fitzgerald of the ACT Office of Fair Trading was put in charge of handling the dispute. 3/5/02 At 3.46pm, the applicant received a voice message on his mobile phone from Mr Fitzgerald. Mr Fitzgerald said the applicant should get free legal advice from the Law Society on 6207 0425 regarding this dispute. He can also arrange for the applicant to meet a lawyer by contacting him on 6247 5700. 15/5/02 Mr Fitzgerald finally tracked down the elusive Mr KHo. Apparently Mr KHo was setting up a new Apple store in Newcastle. The applicant received a telephone call from Mr Fitzgerald sometime after 3.30pm from Mr Fitzgerald where he would receive the official reason why the respondent is refusing to provide a refund: The applicant performed the entire installation of the IBM hard disk and therefore the respondent is not required to provide a refund. No other explanation from the respondent was given according to Mr Fitzgerald. In other words, one must assume this alleged installation by the applicant included things like taking out the IBM hard disk from Mr WestonÕs very own computer in his presence! And all this without a single complaint from Mr Weston about the installation procedure! Very unusual indeed! Even the director of [Apple 1] named Mr HEl does not reveal anything in his claims about a complaint from Mr KWe in the installation process. Please note that the statement provided by Mr KHo to the ACT Office of Fair Trading mentioned nothing about the second incident at [Apple 2]. Mr KHo is clearly focussing on the installation process at [Apple 1] and nothing else as the fundamental reason for refusing the refund on the IBM hard disk. After hearing this, the applicant explained to Mr Fitzgerald why he believed the critical aspect of the installation was performed by the respondent (Mr KWe). Mr Fitzgerald said the applicant should explain this to the respondent because this appears to be the only thing holding back the respondent from providing the refund. Mr Fitzgerald also adds that the respondent (Mr KHo) is happy to look at the applicant's computer to see whether there is a manufacturing fault. Unfortunately the respondent conveniently mentions nothing about how much this would cost the applicant and what the situation is with the original Toshiba hard disk. The applicant has an earlier email from the respondent saying Mr KHo would charge for the inspection and any repairs that need to be done irrespective of whether or not there are manufacturing faults in the PowerBook. This is the first time the respondent has ever mentioned the possibility of a manufacturing fault associated with the applicant's computer. 16/5/02 The applicant wrote an email to Mr Fitzgerald officially acknowledging the possibility of a manufacturing fault in his computer. The applicant also asks whether: the ACT Office of Fair Trading has a facility to do an independent assessment of his PowerBook by a qualified technician not affiliated with the respondent's own; and the respondent can use the serial number of the applicant's computer to determine from Apple Inc. whether there is a known manufacturing fault associated with it (ie. in the hard disk area). NOTE: Why didn't the respondent check the serial number with Apple Inc. when [Apple 1] had the applicant's computer in their possession? 17/5/02 Mr Fitzgerald replied by email: 'The ACT Office of Fair Trading does not have in its capacity to provide any form of technical opinion. As discussed, it may be advantageous to obtain legal advice...' The applicant responded with an email dated 17 May 2002: 'Thank you for your email. I have talked to someone at the ACT Law Society in person. Apart from looking like he has answered too many legal questions from people on a free basis, he believes I should be entitled to a refund. He says I should write a letter to Mr KHo requesting that a refund be provided within 7, 14 or 28 days (depending on what I choose). If nothing eventuates from this letter, I should take the matter to the Small Claims Tribunal and represent myself in the process. 'I mentioned to the lawyer (or someone providing the free legal advice) that I may need some extra legal weight such as a letter from the Office of Fair Trading. He didn't seem to oppose this idea. I wonder, could you write this letter on my behalf? 'In the meantime, I have sent an email to Mr KHo explaining "the installation process" as I recall it at the moment, exactly as you have suggested in our telephone conversation. I have also asked Mr KHo to confirm what he has said to you by telephone just to be sure I have it clear and there is no room for possible misinterpretations. 'As at time of writing this email, Mr KHo has not replied. I'll give it about 7 days and try again with an official letter requesting a refund together with a copy of my email and send it by registered post...' No reply from Mr Fitzgerald as to whether he could write a letter. May-June 2002 The applicant still wanted the refund on the IBM hard disk, so he wrote an email to the respondent (Mr KHo) to explain what happened during the installation process as requested by Mr Fitzgerald. The email was sent at 10.32am 16 May 2003 via [email address]. There would be a significant delay in Mr KHo responding to the applicant's explanation of what happened. At first Mr KHo did not reply to the email because he was accessable only through a different email address to the one he had given to the applicant in his previous emails. Applicant was forced to send a letter via registered post (Registered Post No.RD19015945) to [Apple 1] on 13 June 2003. The respondent acknowledged receipt of the letter on 14 June 2003. The respondent (Mr KHo) wrote back via email asking the applicant to resend his letter to the respondent's Newcastle store. The applicant's original letter sent to [Apple 1] was destroyed "due to the sensitive nature of your ongoing hard drive issue". The email from Mr KHo also arrived in the mail box of Janice Carruthers at [email address] and an unknown third-party player named Mr GJGr, manager of AG Advertising at [email address]. There is no obvious relevance of Mr GJGr getting involved in this dispute. Yet Mr KHo believes it is necessary. Further investigations into AG Advertising by the applicant has revealed the company is particularly keen at employing talented and experienced people in graphic design (ie. via Adobe software) using Macintosh systems. But why is the company involved in this dispute? There has been a recent merge between A Australia Limited (with offices in New Zealand and Australia) and G Advertising. The company is located in the same area as the old [Apple 1] location at [location specified]. Applicant resent his letter to the respondent's new address in Newcastle. The Registered Post Number for this item was RD18510010. No delivery confirmation card was received. 11/6/02 The applicant kept Mr Fitzgerald informed of the latest developments in his email in which he stated: 'I thought this would be a good opportunity to keep you informed of the latest developments regarding the hard disk refund issue. 'As you may already know, I have sent an email to Mr KHo, manager of [Apple 1], explaining the installation procedure as I recall to the best of my knowledge as you have advised me. In that email, I also asked Mr KHo to confirm what he has said to you by telephone to ensure no verbal misunderstandings on my part. 'That was over two weeks ago, and it appears as if either (i) he did not receive my email message (I assume his email address hasn't changed); or (ii) he has chosen to ignore it and perhaps go about finding any other means of supporting his own case in order to avoid giving a refund. 'I have decided to send him a hard copy of that email by Registered Post (with delivery confirmation) this Thursday. That should tell me which of the above two scenarios is true - that is, a no response from Mr KHo would confirm to me that he is avoiding his responsibilities to the customer. But if he does respond, then either he has created new evidence to support his case, or he is willing to listen to my case and consider a refund. 'If there is no evidence he can provide to me to justify his stance on the matter, I will ask if you could write a legally enforceable letter stating that a refund is due within 14 days on delivery of that letter. The lawyer I spoke to at the ACT Legal Aid Centre didn't say it wasn't a good idea for you to do so. 'Would you be able to do that for me?' No reply from Mr Fitzgerald. An email from the ACT Office of Fair Trading dated 11 June 2002 stated that "Mr Fitzgerald is on leave until Monday 17 June, 2001." 18/6/02 Mr Fitzgerald sent an email stating: 'As advised this matter represents a civil dispute that only you can pursue an action on. Accurate legal advice and information concerning the ACT Small Claims Court is the correct avenue.' 24/6/02 The applicant feels there is something unusual going on at the ACT Office of Fair Trading because he can't get a complete response to his questions. Applicant sent another email dated 24 June 2002: 'May I ask you three more questions please and I won't bother you again after receiving your written response. The questions I would like to know the answer to are as follows: '1. Enclosed is a copy of the email I sent to Mr KHo. In reading this material, could you tell me in your opinion whether you think I am entitled to a refund on the hard disk I've purchased? '2. Would you be willing to write a letter on my behalf with the appropriate words asking Mr KHo to provide a refund within 14 days on receiving the letter? '3. Is there anything else Mr KHo has spoken to you about this hard disk issue or anything else that I need to know about? In other words, could I safely assume he has no other explanation for not providing a refund other than "[applicant's name] did the entire installation himself"?' 2/7/02 Mr Fitzgerald replied by email: 'Thanks again for keeping this office informed of your progress. It certainly is not a bother and the OFT will always want to assist where it has the power to do so. 'As discussed, it appears that you have exhausted the avenue of attempting to conciliate this matter (thru this office ) in your dispute with Mr KHo. It certainly appears the case that this matter is representative of a civil dispute that can only be adjudicated by the lower courts in the ACT. 'Unfortunately this office would not be in a position to see its way clear to advocate on your behalf. It may appear that the OFT would be taking sides if correspondence from this office asking for a refund was sent to Mr KHo. 'Only a court as described above can decide on the basis of available evidence whether you have an automatic entitlement to the recovery of disputed costs in this dispute (ie refund). Indeed it is important that a clarification of your contractual position be made - hence the Law Societies free service. This would appear to be the final forum for this matter.' So what else has Mr KHo said to Mr Fitzgerald? Is the installation process the only explanation the respondent can find to refuse a refund? Mr Fitzgerald is being careful not to officially write Mr KHo's explanation in his email. 3/7/02 The respondent (Mr KHo) finally responded to the applicant's letter with an email at 5.01pm 2 July 2003. Applicant received it at 9.57am 3 July 2002. The new email address is [email address]. Upon reading the email, it would appear to the applicant that Mr KHo is avoiding his legal responsibilities of providing a refund by claiming this dispute had nothing to do with who installed what and how it was done. Rather Mr KHo explains the real reason is because the applicant had ordered another hard disk at [Apple 2] and because the applicant did not purchase it, Mr KHo claims he had lost money in ordering it in and is now keeping the $300 to pay for it. As the respondent stated in the email: 'I am prepared to agree to disagree as to who installed the hard drive. Irrespective of who installed the hard drive under no circumstances does it validate a refund. 'The product has a full 12 month warranty and if a claim is verified by our technicians it will be replaced. You have already cost me the price of one hard drive at my AppleCentre store I am not prepared to take loss on this drive. 'As with all products submitted into our service departments we will require the service form filled out and signed prior to the comment of the assessment.' So why wasn't the hard disk returned to Apple Inc. when the respondent was fully informed of the fact that it wasn't the correct brand? And why did the respondent not tell this reason to the ACT Office of Fair Trading? What is causing the respondent to refute what he had already officially given to the ACT Office of Fair Trading? The applicant is clearly noticing Mr KHo ignoring important information from the applicant. The respondent also raises for the first time the possibility that the applicant may had deliberately refused to sign a repair form when requested by Mr KHo's technicians because the applicant had allegedly accepted the technicians' requirements for repairs (presumably to supply the original Toshiba hard disk etc). The applicant refutes this allegation and would like to see evidence of this from the respondent. If the respondent can show a copy of the declaration form corresponding to the original now held by the applicant (in which case it should be absolutely identical in every respect), it will prove there is no signature from anyone. But what the respondent is careful in not mentioning to the ACT Office of Fair Trading is that the form was not filled in by the applicant himself and that the applicant had not given explicit approval for repairs to be done to his computer. The applicant has always stated he had given permission for the technician at [Apple 2] to inspect the applicant's computer to determine if a flexible hard disk cable can be installed and nothing else. The applicant has never allowed the technician to perform a repair of any kind until after the inspection was made so the applicant can decide what to do next. It should be noted that the declaration form was actually filled in by a sales representative named TRTN at [Apple 2]. He filled it in without explaining the nature of the document to the applicant nor did he show what he had written on it. TRTN took the form away to give to the technician before the applicant had a chance to view it. 4/7/02 Applicant wrote an email to the respondent (Mr KHo) at 10.22am. The email from the applicant highlights the disparity found in the two official explanations given by the respondent for refusing the refund. At first, the respondent had allegedly said to Mr Fitzgerald at the ACT Office of Fair Trading that this dispute was in relation to the installation procedure for the IBM hard disk at [Apple 1] and how it was claimed the applicant had performed the entire installation of the IBM hard disk. Now, the dispute is really in relation to not purchasing the second IBM hard disk at [Apple 2] without a good and valid reason. The respondent (Mr KHo) replies at 12.25pm. This email shows his willingness to take the issue to the Small Claims Court for a decision: [Applicant's name], I am nothing short of flabbergasted with your response. If this is as large an issue for you as you make out I will expect a Small claims court summons in the near future. Otherwise please do not contact me again. KHo The applicant later wrote an email to Mr Fitzgerald: 'Thank you for your email. I appreciate your effort so far in helping me resolve my dispute.... 'I wonder, would you be able to give me some indication of where I can find a copy of the Trade Practices Act (is there one online?). 'In the meantime, I will let you know that Mr KHo has provided a written reply at roughly the same time as you have delivered your email (and this time with a new email address of [email address]). In it, I have discovered that it is not a question of who did what during the installation process, but rather I had wasted his money by ordering another hard disk at his [Apple 2]. And for this, I am being punished by not receiving the refund. 'I don't know how you interpret this, but if I recall correctly,