> > That's not what Apple argued. (Time was, smoking in the > machine room was a firing offence; sometimes a > firing-with-contusions offence.) > > Apple argued that the substance in the laptop was a > biohazard, the substance was added by the user, and that they > weren't equipped to deal with it. Since all are absolutely > and entirely facts, it's going to be tough to argue the point > in court.
Apple seem to be prepared to carry out a non-warranty repair - the so-called biohazard doesn't seem to be so important that they're not prepared or equipped to work on it. I'd also question whether it's a biohazard anyway, in the form that they encounter it. They can't breathe it in or ingest it in any way as long as they're wearing the right gloves and masks, which they should probably be wearing in any case. They also return the so-called biohazard to the owner instead of calling out some sort of emergency disposal team from the environmental health department, which is what you'd expect with a real biohazard. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
