The lawsuit filed against Apple (AAPL) and AT&T (T) by a user named Jose Trujillo has generated a lot of heated discussion here and elsewhere, much of it aimed at lawyers and their litigious clients. (See iPhone Class Action Suit Filed in Cook County and subsequent comments.)

Leaving aside the lawyer jokes (we've heard 'em all), there seems to be some confusion about the facts of the case, which centers on whether or not Apple informed purchasers ahead of time that the iPhone's battery was sealed and would need to be professionally replaced after a fixed number of charges -- leaving the owner without a cell phone in the interim.

The complaint claims that this information did not appear in the product's packaging and never came up in Apple's promotion or marketing of the device. (link) A group called the Foundation for Consumer and Taxpayer Rights made a similar complaint about a week after the iPhone went on sale.

At the risk of being called as a witness in the trial, this is what I've learned about what Steve Jobs and Apple said about the battery issue and when they said it:

At the MacWorld keynote in which he introduced the iPhone, Jobs gave specs on battery life but did not volunteer the information that it wasn't user replaceable. Neither does Apple's Jan. 9 iPhone press release.

In subsequent coverage in the press and blogosphere the battery was often described as non-replaceable (see here and here), although the source of this information is not clear. For example, The Small Wave points to a July 9 post in SlashGear that describes the battery as "sadly non-removable." But the first comment on the SlashGear post reads:

I’d hold off on the “non-removable” battery thing until someone from Apple says for sure… It has to have a removable panel for the GSM SIM card and that’s likely the gray area along the lower backside. (link)

The battery issue came in for intense scrutiny in the Apple blogs after John Dvorak's famous April iPhone podcast, in which he quotes an unnamed Cingular (AT&T) executive complaining about the "amateur mistake" Apple made in not having a removable battery. “You run 20 minutes and you’re using up half the battery power. You get 40 minutes total talk time."

But Dvorak, as many have noted, was wrong about the battery life. Besides, the issue here is not what the press reported or the blog writers surmised, but what Apple said or didn't say.

On June 18, Apple issued another press release:

CUPERTINO, California—June 18, 2007—Apple® today announced that iPhone™ will deliver significantly longer battery life when it ships on June 29 than was originally estimated when iPhone was unveiled in January. iPhone will feature up to 8 hours of talk time, 6 hours of Internet use, 7 hours of video playback or 24 hours of audio playback.*

Nothing about battery replacement, what Apple would charge for it or what you were supposed to use for a cell phone while it was being replaced.

On June 29, the iPhone was released and sold like hot cakes.

On July 2, Glenn Fleishmann on TidBits posted an item complaining that Apple had not yet provided details about the cost of replacing the battery (see My First Days with the iPhone). A week later, he posted a corrective:

...in fact, those were apparently available for at least a day on the Apple Store's ordering page for the iPhone (click the Warranty button in the bottom right). Other repair information appears to have shown up on or around 02-Jul-07.

Among the information Fleishmann says showed up "on or around July 2" is Apple's "iPhone Service FAQ." That file contains this paragraph:

My iPhone warranty has expired. What are my service options?

Apple offers two service options for iPhones that are no longer within warranty. If your iPhone requires service only because the battery’s ability to hold an electrical charge has diminished, Apple will replace your battery for a service fee of $79, plus $6.95 shipping and handling.

The FAQ also describes Apple's $29 Apple Care Service Phone program, which provides a loaner cell phone for use during the three business days yours is off being repaired.

According to Trujillo's complaint, Apple spokesperson Jennifer Hakes confirmed that "Apple posted the battery replacement program details on its website after the iPhone went on sale."

On July 23 Apple posted its iPhone Battery page, describing the proper care and feeding of an iPhone battery. It contains this key paragraph:

Charge Cycles
A properly maintained iPhone battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 400 full charge and discharge cycles. You may choose to replace your battery when it no longer holds sufficient charge to meet your needs.

That "replace" link takes you to a page that tells you what it will cost for the service.

Does any of this justify a class action lawsuit or entitle Mr. Trujillo, his lawyers and the class of iPhone purchasers to damages? You be the judge.

For more on the battery issue, see Joe Nocera's column in the June 30 New York Times, which looks at it from pretty much every angle except the legal and gives Steve Dowling and others at Apple PR a couple of chances to say their piece. (Free subscription required.)

ADDENDUM: This came in over the transom from an expert in these kind of cases:

Christopher S. Griesmeyer, a partner in the Litigation Practice at Levenfeld Pearlstein LLC in Chicago, who previously represented a U.S. cell phone manufacturer in federal trade secret litigation, notes that information, not technology, is the key to this case.

“While Apple will surely disagree with some of the technical allegations regarding the iPhone, the technology debate is almost irrelevant here,” said Mr. Griesmeyer. “In many respects, it doesn't matter whether the battery needs to be replaced once a year, or once a week, and it doesn't matter how expensive that process will be. What matters is how well Apple communicated that information to its customers before they bought the phone. What did Apple know, when did Apple know it, and how long did it take Apple to communicate the information to potential customers?”

Mr. Griesmeyer also notes that the class makeup may pose some problems for plaintiffs' lawyers should the case go to trial. “Most juries are not going to have much sympathy for a bunch of people who spent $500 or $600 on a phone,” he says. “At the same time, the plaintiffs' lawyers are betting that the jury will have even less sympathy for a large corporation that allegedly increased its profits by withholding vital information from its customers. This is a high-stakes gamble, which is why most cases of this type settle quickly after the court makes a decision on class certification.”