After all, litigation is not a mock court. Since Apple has been sued, we should pay attention to both the process and the result; We should pay attention to both social and legal effects. Recently, the news of "French students suing Apple's mobile phone without charger" triggered a heated debate. In this regard, there is a view that "suing apple for not sending a charger is more meaningful than the result". But is that true? In fact, civil litigation has pursued the "filing and registration system" for many years, that is, in reality, the threshold for suing apple is not high. From this point of view, the above view is somewhat untenable. What is the focus of the debate? This is not the first time Apple has been sued for not having a charger. Since it has entered the judicial field, the significance of the prosecution and whether it can win depends on the rationale and law. The judgment of a case is inseparable from "taking the facts as the basis and the law as the criterion". The fact that apple is not equipped with a charger is not much controversial. In 2020, apple canceled the attached power adapter and headset in the iphone12 series products, and continued not to be equipped with a charger in the newly released iphone13 series products. There are no more than two controversial points disclosed by the two sides in the media. First, has Apple fulfilled its obligation of "not equipped with charger"? Second, is Apple's separation of mobile phones and chargers a policy encouraging behavior and a normal phenomenon in the industry? In the previous dispute, Apple's agent pointed out that the charger was clearly not included in the packaging box of iphone12 Pro max, and the power adapter was not included in the sales contract between the two parties. Student representatives suing Apple pointed out that Apple's tips on power design were not significant. Consumers can't charge with an existing (old) power adapter, as stated on Apple's official website. Apple made it clear that consumers can use USB to connect to the computer or power adapter for charging. The plaintiff said that the lightning cable attached to Apple could not use the existing power adapter (only usb-a port) for charging. Both sides are telling the truth. Charging Apple mobile phone is actually very simple. It can be easily realized as long as there is a computer or power adapter with usbtype-c interface. The old apple power adapter and the old original charging cable can also charge the mobile phone. In addition, a wireless charging device can be selected. For the vast majority of old users of Apple mobile phones, the replacement without power adapter does not affect the use of mobile phones. From the perspective of the plaintiff, apple does not attach a power adapter and does not specify the difference between usb-a port and usbtype-c port, which is not friendly to some new users of Apple mobile phones. As for whether Apple can conclude that it has "failed to fulfill its obligation of prompt and explanation" on the above uncontested facts, it has to be submitted to the court for judgment. The focus of the latter controversy is also to say their own words. Apple believes that the separation of sales of mobile phones and power adapters is a normal phenomenon in the industry. The plaintiff held that this kind of separated sales is not a common industry phenomenon. The fact is that more and more mobile phone manufacturers have implemented separate sales of mobile phones and chargers. In terms of port, micro USB interface has been gradually eliminated. The mobile phone company is not responsible for the power adapter, the connection plug and port, or even the unification of the operating system. This mainly depends on market demand and industry standards. In a fully competitive market, no mobile phone manufacturer can force users to choose products. If you are not satisfied with the mobile phone manufacturers without chargers, you can choose other manufacturers. Pay equal attention to social effect and legal effect There is a view that these law students sue apple for not sending chargers, which has public welfare value. If the lawsuit is finally won, it will help promote apple to pay attention to the voice of consumers and restore free chargers. In fact, it should be noted that there is no free lunch in the world, and apple has never "sent" a charger. It's not difficult for apple to include a charger. Just raise the price. The ideal benefit game may be that Apple should respect consumers' choice more. If you learn from other friends, launch a variety of packages. So that consumers who support environmental protection and choose not to include a charger can get a price discount. At the same time, we should also pay attention to consumers who just need chargers, so that they can also buy mobile phone suits that can be used directly in Kaifeng. Back to this case, before the court decision is made, the author is not willing to prejudge the outcome of the lawsuit. Saying that "prosecution is victory" actually implies that we are not optimistic about the outcome of the lawsuit. For law students suing apple, the support of public opinion for the plaintiff should first restore law students to ordinary consumers. In this way, we can eliminate those preset prejudices. After all, litigation is not a mock court. Since Apple has been sued, we should respect the judiciary and the defendant; Pay attention to both process and result; We should pay attention to both social and legal effects. (Xinhua News Agency)