Raevon Terrell Parker has attempted to sue Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for “$2 priceless trillion,” claiming that the company kept his iPhone after a repair conducted in Apple Saint Louis Galleria, and used “special features” on his phone to develop features in iOS. The lawsuit was filed on June 1st.
Parker asserts he went to the Saint Louis Galleria Apple Store to fix an issue with his smartphone, detailed in other supporting documents as an iPhone 7. The store staff fixed the iPhone, but Parker claims they “kept it by deceiving the plaintiff knowing that it was the first phone to have new features,” and instead provided a replacement iPhone.
The supposed “new features” seemingly includes having the iPhone set up to “bypass certain start-up load screen options,” which enables the iPhones to “communicate with other devices faster and more accurately. A bolder claim in the earlier legal action includes a request for Parker to be compensated for the “discovery of the Group FaceTime feature.”
These features apparently aided Apple in “the creation of iOS 12,” which Parker believed he was due to be compensated over in the earlier lawsuit.
The earlier filing, dated March 28, 2019, included a valuation of the iPhone 7 in question at $1 trillion, iOS 12 at $1 trillion, “Raevon Terrell Parker’s mentality” as “priceless,” and with a total amount claimed for materials of “$2 priceless trillion USD.”
MacDailyNews Take: Obviously, Raevon Terrell Parker’s mentality can be characterized in many more ways than just “priceless.”
According to Wikipedia: In a noncriminal case in a U.S. District Court, a litigant (or a litigant’s attorney) who presents any pleading, written motion or other paper to the court is required, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify that, to the best of the presenter’s knowledge and belief, the legal contentions “are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law”. Monetary civil penalties for violation of this rule may in some cases be imposed on the litigant or the attorney under Rule 11. (Bold emphasis added – MDN Ed.)