[.:MirrorminD:.]

Originally Posted by Eurisko

Sorry, not good enough. People here seem to want case numbers to provide legitimacy of their claims, so either provide the case number or keep quiet.

Hate to do this to you buddy, but even i remember this case when it happened years ago. You couldnt turn on a tv without hearing about it. And the reason she sued wasnt because she sipped it and it was hot, it was because she had it between her legs to put cream in it and it splashed on her thighs giving her 3rd degree burns. If i recall she was in the hospital for almost 8 days....so to clear some things up: Here is the case # for the McDonalds lawsuite Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants: D-202 CV-93-02419 you can go here to view court documents: Caselookup - Disclaimer

Case Number Current Judge Filing Date Court
D-202-CV-9302419 ROBERT H SCOTT 03/12/1993 ALBUQUERQUE DISTRICT


The iphone will have turn-by-turn eventually but i dont see it happening anytime soon. As for liabilty, usually the software waives it and defers it to the hardware. Hence all the warning messages when you use TomTom on a Tilt or something similiar. As for SDK there are ways around it that is why Navteq has said they are confident in bringing turn by turn to the iphone

[Eurisko]

Haha, I was being facetious I don't really care about case numbers, but when someone goes on a rant like that, I like them to put their money where their mouth is.

I think if turn by turn does come, it'll be from Apple itself. But I guess we'll see.

[.:MirrorminD:.]

Originally Posted by Eurisko

facetious

oooh big word

[swiftbmx]

I want a built in NASA satellite in mine. I'm looking to get GPS with turn by turn directions on the moon. Anything less and I hate Apple.

[MiltyKiss]

Originally Posted by Eurisko

Haha, I was being facetious I don't really care about case numbers, but when someone goes on a rant like that, I like them to put their money where their mouth is.

I think if turn by turn does come, it'll be from Apple itself. But I guess we'll see.

I wasn't ranting (I didn't feel like I was), but I linked that Wikipedia article because it has the case numbers and such (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc., No. D-202 CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 18, 1994)) along with more information. I understand that a case number probably means close to nothing to most people, so linking to the wiki also provides more information.

My feeling on the matter is that you were too quick to answer my post (a simple click and check would have given you the case number).

[Eurisko]

Originally Posted by MiltyKiss

My feeling on the matter is that you were too quick to answer my post (a simple click and check would have given you the case number).

You must be a politician, I asked for a case number and I'm provided with a weblink? Is a weblink a case number? It's even simpler to answer the question asked.

[MiltyKiss]

Originally Posted by Eurisko

You must be a politician, I asked for a case number and I'm provided with a weblink? Is a weblink a case number? It's even simpler to answer the question asked.

For the record, I'm not the one that was talking about case numbers. I just posted to provide information for those that wanted to know more about it.

Yes, it would have been easier for me to post the case number, but like I said the case number means nothing to most people.

I didn't mean to get in this silly argument that santiagodraco and you were having. :P