The iPhone battery is built in to the device. It is not user-serviceable or replaceable. Most of us have known this for months, some of us grumbled about it, and a few more swore to never buy  one because of it.

None of us, however, tried to sue Apple. This is most likely because we aren't complete jerks.

Some guy from Illinois and his lawyer, however, decided that soldering the battery into the case was the sort of offense that requires monetary damages. Gizmodo has the entire filing here.

31 Jul 2007

Larry Drury and his client Jose Tujillo claim that Apple insidiously duped users into purchasing the iPhone by concealing the fact that the battery could not be changed by the user. As such, they say that users are being hit with $89.95 per year in hidden charges.  As a result, Trujillo deserves $75,000 from the company, they calim.

$89.95 per year? Yes, they claim, because the iPhone can only be charged 300 times before the battery must be replaced. Of course, unless Drury and Trujillo are privy to some secret data none of the rest of the world knows about, that 300 figure is utter nonsense.

According to Apple's web site, users can expect to keep full capacity for 300-400 charge CYCLES before the battery begins to lose capacity, and that after 400 cycles users can still expect the battery to retain at least 80% of its capacity.

To reach this in one year, as the suit claims, a user would have to drain the battery completely once every 30 hours or so. Basically, you would need to perform just about every computing and communication operation you do over the course of a day with your iPhone to even start to see a drop in capacity within one year.

It isn't the $54 million pair of pants, but it's not too far off. If there's any common sense left in the American justice system, this thing will be dismissed shortly and Apple will counter-sue for the bogus figures.