Student Wins '1984' Suit, $150K Against Amazon

How is this worth $150k? I have to pay my university $50k a year to take "a good amount of notes." This is screwed up.

Screwed up, also as in many governments and the laws.

Punative damages. Is it excessive yes, but so was what Amazon did. Normally I would say suck it up to the kid, but what Amazon did is beyond the pale. They broke a trust with their customers and should have to pay somebody something. No millions of dollars, but something. This kid was first in line.

He didn't win, they settled. There is a difference. It may have been worth way more than 150k to Amazon to make this go away. Punitive Damages can be ridiculous, especially with a jury pointed to make an example of a big company. Big Deal?

depends on if that $150k was to pay for legal costs etc plus damages and what not but i mean seriously the logical thing would be to give a free copy of the book and a few credits towards other books/products etc, why 150k?

Good for Justin!!! Amazon should pay for this with more then just sorry. I bet now they are wishing they had just left the illegal copies to continue to float as it wouldn't have cost them nearly as much!

Simple, it's cheaper than the cost of the defense. Let's see... the lawyer gets $50K off the top. Figure $10K for expenses. Justin Gawronski must pay taxes on the whole amount of the award, not just what he received, so figure, $38K (based on a conservative tax rate of 25%).

So, after all is said and done, Justin gets around $52K.

That's what Amazon gets for being stupid!

Its trivial, as is any compensation for any crime. How do you put a figure over a death? a wrongful imprisonment, etc.

It seems more like Amazon settled out of court but perhaps it was a verdict (I can't really tell from the article). At any rate, this is more about Amazon infringing on their customers rights than anything else. Amazon sold something to customers without having the proper agreement(s) in place, in turn, they attempted to correct the issue by taking the books away from customers who already purchased them.

In all fairness, if Amazon made a mistake, it should be Amazon that pays for the consequences, not their customers. Paying one person $150K doesn't make it right but I can see the reasoning behind the decision.

I think that amount is reasonable considering what they did as well. And they will have hopefully learned from this whole fiasco and not repeat it.

There is nothing excessive or wrong about the judgment. Amazon violated an agreement and a person's privacy. Of course, I am sure Amazon spent that much or more on their defense.

Well, I think it is fair. I mean how much of a price do you put on what Amazon did? We all agree that what they did was not only not right, but the fact they, without even so much as a heads up, deleted this book from not just the kid but everyone who had it is pretty will #@$% up. Almost smacks of cenesorship given the title they deleted and all. What I mainly get out of this is not only a very good apology from the CEO, but a company who later not only apologizes but stands by what they said and makes amends. Say what you will but that is something you just do not see and it is nice to know there are those people and companies out there like that. Hey this might even bring more people to Amazon. Maybe.

Maybe instead of just trusting spell check you should actually proof read your articles. How do you half of you still have jobs?

Its america!
Change!
Have not seen any.
Yes, we can!

It is obvious you can't.

This is exciting news for those who have fallen victim to a dog eating their homework.

How do you half of you?

I would say fair play to the kid... if it paid his college fees or whatever, but going and reading the article it seems the kid is giving it to charity (after the lawyers have taken their slice). So much respect to him.

I would have to be honest and admit I would be sorely tempted in his position to release a statement about using it to pay my tuition fees, a holiday and maybe a rainy day fund with the rest going to charity.

The kid who's Kindle at his homework

... should that read "ate" ? Proofread headlines moar.

^ lmao... fail

Another example of how ridiculous things are here in the U.S. A kid loses his notes and gets $150,000 for it. Fine! I'm going to sue drivers that drive slowly in front of me that cause me to be late for work. If I get fired I'll want an additional $500,000 in "lost wages".

What this boils down to is nothing more then a new case law precident so that in the future software companies who subvert on the terms of their own EULA can be held liable for damages.

I'm not familiar with Kindle devices, but I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the owners manual or during a download purchase a EULA is show, just like when you purchase something from iTunes. Within those EULA's is usually a line or paragraph that use of the material once purchased is that of the consumers discretion so long as it is not reproduce or distributed ect, but that the intellectual and creative rights still belong to the publisher/author. That being said boils down to while you may not resale it or alter it from it's intended use, no one, not even the creative source has the legal right to deny you or withdraw use of service after purchase. Imagine if a car manufacture tried to reposses vehicles simply because an end dealer sold add on packages that used products they didn't authorize. It happens everyday, but the manufactures can't do squat because the end dealer actually owns the end user rights of the vehicle untill sold to the consumer. When a recall on a vehicle is issued due to manufacturing issues they can't legally make you take your vehicle in to the dealership because even though it may be made by them and carry their logo they don't own it anymore. I hope all that just made sense.

Amazon really did get off easy.

The headline should also read "whose" not "who's".

Who's = "Who is/has/was"

Do these authors even take time to read their own articles before they put them on the site? I mean really it doesn't make your news credible at all when you write articles and just throw them up there. How do I even know these figures are accurate when you cannot even proofread a simple and short article?

The difference is, he's not paid to have proper grammar or spelling when releasing comments for the masses to criticize. This actually falls more on the editors who are supposed to catch these mistakes. I'm starting to think Tom's is just an open market for the writers to put whatever dribble they want in the News section even though most of the articles are opinion based Editorials.

FFS.. you gotta be kidding me. 150K for the student huh? Bet lots of the rest feel stupid now for not sueing

Perhaps the kid should have had a hard copy of his notes. Shame on amazon, but also shame on him. If we had a blackout would he go after the power company next?

Manos, I think most of us would rather have it working again instead of investing time into a lawsuit.

Honis & ssalim, "you" can refer to more than just one person. ie... "you all." or, it could be a comment directed at each person who reads it.

He has an extra "you" in his sentence. What he probably meant to write: How do half of you still have jobs.

I wish someone would delete some of y stuff. You can throw all of my electronic records and history and computers from the last 15 years out the window if you had me a 150k settlement.

"The kid who's Kindle at his homework has successfully sued Amazon for $150,000."

How do you "at your homework?" A grammar or spelling error here & there is somewhat excusable. Grammar errors in every "article" no so much. Errors in the headline; you're fired.

Awesome, really the only winners here are the lawyers... The kid probably only got a little after he pays his fees.

This fails to mention probably the biggest answer to most of the gripes I'm hearing.

"The money, after going to the law firm representing the teen, will be donated to charity."

This kid isn't getting anything.

Now he can pay one semester's tuition.