DavidScubadiver said:I don't deserve a coupon because I am not entitled to one. If I were entitled to a coupon, it would be ethical to collect it. Its that simple. You however, are much simpler.

Of course you think you deserve a coupon. You proved you have no ethics. Thanks for helping me prove that as well DavidNoEthicsDiver.

mikef07 said:DavidScubadiver said:I don't deserve a coupon because I am not entitled to one. If I were entitled to a coupon, it would be ethical to collect it. Its that simple. You however, are much simpler.

Of course you think you deserve a coupon. You proved you have no ethics. Thanks for helping me prove that as well DavidNoEthicsDiver.You are welcome. To recap, out of your mouth, you are or may be: dumb, stupid, a moron, an idiot and a nut job. And, you think I lack ethics. Good work.

ArbolLoco said:DavidScubadiver said:mikef07 said:
The AMEX loops matter 0 once again. It is the final outcome that does. Going through collecting life insurance can be a pain, but once you recieve it you are made whole and you don't get more if it is harder to collect.

Emotional Distress? Have you ever even done a price protection claim of any kind?Okay, I guess I need to go through your example so you understand things better. When I run you over with my car, and you are very much dead, the "life insurance" does not "make you whole." You keep saying that, but ipse dixit is poor logic. I do not tell your children or your parents, Gee, Mike is dead and I am sorry, but you are made whole by the life insurance proceeds, so please do not sue me. I know, I was at fault for running him down, but you are made whole and it would be unethical for you to collect more for your son's/father's life. He'd have wanted it this way...."You really don't understand the concept of life insurance, do you?

The "insurance" part must have thrown you off.

It's not like car insurance that you pay a fixed premium every month for a fixed amount of insurance coverage to cover property damage and personal injury [self and liability to 3P].

Life insurance is an investment vehicle that pays a determinable amount of return upon the death of the insured.

The "life insurance" you are trying to use an example would more appropriately be an individual's liability insurance [umbrella, corporate or otherwise].

So yes, if I run over "Mike", and my liability insurance fully compensates the family for future lost earnings, emotional distress, loss of consortium, etc... then yes I could appropriately tell the family "Gee Mike is dead and I'm sorry but you are made whole by the full and final settlement you obtained from my liability carrier, so please do not sue me. I know, I was at fault for running him down, but you are made whole and it would be IMPOSSIBLE for you to collect more for your son's/father's life. He'd have wanted it this way if he understood the concept of liability insurance."I think you lost the thread their. mikef07 said:It absolutely makes one whole. Are you clueless? When you get back $200 you paid $399. You, ethically, speaking are not entitled to a coupon. Do you even know what the term whole means? Second how many people will pay taxes on that $200 from AMEX? None. Why? Because they were made whole, just like life insurance. This is why people are not taxed on life insurance. There is no profit involved in life insurance. You are made whole for your loss.I was merely responding that life insurance makes nobody whole. But more to the point, what the hell does life insurance have to do with the price of tea in china, or whether it is ethical or not to take an apple coupon for which one qualifies?

ArbolLoco said:DavidScubadiver said:I think you lost the thread their.Their what?'

OMG. I have not stopped laughing.

Amazing we have had 3 people outhink the lawyer.

mikeres said:Mike07, I'm having a lot of trouble following your thinking.

If a manufacturer offers a coupon to purchase their product is it unethical to accept two or three times the value of the coupon from the vendor that sells that product?

Is it unethical to use a General Mills coupon at a supermarket and then accept double or triple the value of that coupon when purchasing GM cereal (if the supermarket is offering double or triple coupon days)?
I doubt the manufacturer expectred the customer to be able to double dip and benefit from the generosity of the supermarket in addition to the face value of the manufacturers coupon.
Is this unethical?

What about accepting 5% Cash Back from your CC if you were to charge your purchase - is that unethical?
Neither the manufacturer nor the vendor expects you to get price reductions through Cash Back.

Why do you find it unethical to accept a coupon from Apple who is offering this coupon as an apology and as an attempt to appease their loyal customer base.

The money a customer might receive from their CC is a benefit that CC customers have paid for through the interest payments they make to the CC companies.
This is a benefit that the CC companies make available to all customers for all purchases with no limitations relative to coupons.
Again it a benefit that CC customers have paid for and are entitled to.
Why is it unethical to accept it?

Also, do you believe that Apple should benefit from unjust enrichment just because a CC customer is receiving some additional benefits that they have paid for?

Apple offered this as an apology to those who paid $599 for an iPhone. When you receive a price protection check or credit to cover the difference from your CC you did not pay $599, you paid $399. Now if you did not have a CC with price protection then I would tell that person to take the $100 gift certificate.

Another example would be to file for a rebate for something you bought and then return it after you send the rebate in so that you get the rebate + the full refund for the item. A grocery store has chosen to honor manufacturers coupons and do offer triple coupons from time to time knowing that these same people will probably use both. If you were to use all of those coupons and then file a price protection claim and get the difference back somehow that would be unethical. Manipulating a system for profit is unethical and may be legal. It happens all the time, I am not naive. I choose to live my life as ethically as possible.

It is not unethical to accept the price protection check. It is unethical to act as if you paid the full price to Apple and then get a certificate. Now if you were to call Apple up and say that you got $200 back from your CC to cover the price drop and a live person said we don't care you can still ahve the certificate then you have done your part ethically. If you can't reach a live person or it is an automated system then you are on the honor system.

Furthermore there was nothing unjust about what Apple did. They released a product for $X. People who bought it agreed to pay $X. At that exact point they decided it was worth that amount.

mikeres said:mikef07 said:Apple offered this as an apology to those who paid $599 for an iPhone. When you receive a price protection check or credit to cover the difference from your CC you did not pay $599, you paid $399. Now if you did not have a CC with price protection then I would tell that person to take the $100 gift certificate.It seems to me that you're basing your argument of unethical behaviour on the premise that Apple's purpose in offering a $100 credit is to make early adapters whole.

Is it possible that Apple has made a business decision to allocate a couple of million dollars to an advertising campaign to convince current an future customers that Apple is a company that they should (continue to) do business with and to repair the damage to their company's reputation.
If so, it's unlikely that Apples cares on bit whether a customer is made whole or if the customer receives "excess" payments.
It's merely a ruse to convince people that Apple is a "good" company.

Is there any reason to believe that your premise is more valid than the one i just proposed?

EDIT: spelling

Anyone who bought an iPhone last week would still be considered an early adopter. 3 months into this product is still very early. None of these people are being given a store credit. Why? Because they paid less. What this shows is that Apple is giving this as an apology (not to make a person whole) for those who paid $599. When you do price protection you no longer paid $599. You paid $399.

DavidScubadiver said:mikef07 said: Anyone who bought an iPhone last week would still be considered an early adopter. 3 months into this product is still very early. None of these people are being given a store credit. Why? Because they paid less. What this shows is that Apple is giving this as an apology (not to make a person whole) for those who paid $599. When you do price protection you no longer paid $599. You paid $399. You miss the point. Again. Being an "early adapter" AND being overcharged, is that for which Apple is offering the coupon. It is their way of saying, "Thank you, and we apologize for making you stand on long lines to be overcharged, but we appreciate your business, so please, buy something more from us." AND it may be their way of making amends to those people who had to convince the credit card company to give them a refund for the overcharge. When I buy a phone I don't expect to have to use it to dispute my bill for the purchase of that phone. And I am entitled to a coupon if its offered. God damn it.

I think a court of law probably would agree that you would be entitled to the coupon. But don't confuse that with it being ethical to get the refund AND use the coupon.

I think a court of law would say that Apple is not required to give away coupons, but it would be unethical of them not to do so. Of course, to suggest that there is a 'right' and 'wrong' way to accept or reject a coupon offered without restrictions is a bit silly, IMHO.

Edited: Silly, but I'd vigorously defend your right to do so. Because what some people think right, others think wrong. That's what keeps the lawyer in business. Fortunately, when there is a "tie", the winner is the one the law sides with.

hate2work said: I think a court of law probably would agree that you would be entitled to the coupon. But don't confuse that with it being ethical to get the refund AND use the coupon.Actually, I think the more interesting question is whether you can use the coupon and then get the price protection. After all, you wound up "purchasing" an iPhone and a Coupon, but are seeking to get your money back for just the i-Phone. In other words, you may pay more for a phone and a $100 credit (maybe not $100 more due to restrictions, but more nonetheless), and therefor the price protection folks may feel you are entitled to "less" on the price protection guarantee unless you give them the coupon.

I would happily support the price protection program in that position if the terms and conditions warranted. Nothing to do with ethics though.