Wednesday, December 10, 2003

Disappointment: iTrip by Griffin I ordered the Griffin iTrip for the iPod this last summer.  It had been on backorder for months and finally came in this week.  I am disappointed in this product. The two advantages that the iTrip offers over other similar devices like the iRock is that (1) the iTrip draws its power from the iPod and therefore needs no batteries and (2) the iTrip can be tuned to any vacant FM station rather than being limited to two or three choices. When I installed the software, however, the "playlist" that defines the available stations did not copy, and thus there is no way to tune the device to a desired FM station.  I am stuck with the default 87.9.  More importantly, however, the iTrip offers very poor range.  The iRock that I bought this summer will transmit to my car radio and to an FM radio in my basement without any problem.  The iTrip, by contrast, seems to have a range of no more than about 12 feet, and it will not transmit through walls or floors.  This has been a long wait for a disappointing product. 4:57:23 PM     Law and the cost-benefit analysis David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy, offering "More on the McDonald's Coffee Case", including this among four reasons for the verdict: (4) Testimony by Mr. Appleton, an executive at McDonald's, hurt the company. Yes, from what I've read he seemed cold-hearted, concerned with the efficient solution rather than expressing sympathy for the victims of coffee spills. Yet I don't know any theory of Torts that suggests that liability should depend on whether the jury likes the attitude of a particular witness or not. Unfortunately, however, many cases are decided on such factors. Just try to present testimony to a jury regarding a rational cost-benefit analysis, the kind Torts professors tell students companies are supposed to do. The company involved will be stand accused of "putting a price on human suffering," and, as Prof. Kip Viscusi has shown, will likely be hit with punitive damages as well. Some system. I have always understood the "cost-benefit analysis" theory as a description of what companies do in the real world, not something that should ever be offered to a jury in open court as an articulated point of defense.  No defense trial attorney worth his pay would ever think of fashioning such a defense, for the reasons that Bernstein notes.  This analysis is intended for the dry discussion of business, economics, and law professors, not for the consideration of a jury in a courtroom. Let me guess.  I would bet that Bernstein is a law professor and has never practiced as a trial lawyer.   But more troubling for me is the nagging question:  Did the defense in McDonald's case in fact overtly raise and argue such a point?  7:43:06 AM

© Copyright 2004 Franco Castalone. Last update: 1/1/2004; 7:12:27 PM.