A judge in L’Aquila, Italy convicted seven earthquake experts of manslaughter this week for having made a perfunctory analysis of an earthquake threat and falsely reassuring the public in advance of an earthquake which occurred in 2009.

On March 31, 2009, the seven experts convened for a meeting of Italy’s National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks held in L’Aquila. The meeting was called for the purposes of investigating a rash of small- to medium-sized tremors that had occurred in the region over the preceding 3 months. The subsequent information disseminated by the experts, according to the prosecution, led to 30 of the earthquake’s 309 victims staying inside on the night of the earthquake, which rocked the town only 6 days after the Commission’s meeting. The prosecution contended that this act of staying inside, as opposed to the normal protocol of seeking safety outdoors, caused the deaths of the 30 individuals.

The deputy of the National Commission had stated prior to the experts’ meeting that there was “no danger” posed by the tremors, and that the tremors were actually a positive occurrence in discharging energy. In response to this statement, the lawyer of another of the defendants sought to separate the deputy’s reassurance from the rest of the experts. Another defense attorney argued that earthquake prediction is impossible, and reasoned that his client provided no such reassurances.

Although the trial has extended for over a year, the legal process has not yet run its course. Defense counsel has 45 days to issue an appeal, and the defense attorneys have stated that they plan on doing so.

Recently, two consumer advocate groups in Italy filed a class action lawsuit against Apple.  Allegedly affecting thousands of Italian customers, the groups accuse Apple of unethical business practices in not giving adequate clarification regarding the required two-year warranty on most of their products.  Apple employees and policies encourage customers to purchase the extended AppleCare warranty without explaining that the products are already under a warranty for two years according to the required minimum two-year guarantee under E.U. law.

The purchasers who had been induced into buying an extra warranty are being given six months to decide whether or not to participate in the lawsuit.  The risk for the purchasers is relatively low.  In the event the lawsuit is not successful against Apple, the consumer advocate groups have agreed to assume the bulk of the legal fees.  Also, in the event of success, the consumers would only be contributing 10 to 15% of their financial compensation to the consumer groups moving the lawsuit forward.

Apple has a checkered past in its marketing practices within Europe.  The claim brought by the groups cite a recent fine for €900,000 imposed on Apple by Italy’s Antitrust Authority last December.  Officials in the European Union have also encouraged consumer groups to keep a close eye on Apple’s business practices all across Europe.

In the United States, consumers generally laud Apple’s customer service as one of the best.  No law in the United States requires Apple to have a two-year warranty on their products.  In the U.S., Apple has a limited one-year warranty from the date of purchase with the option of extending the warranty for three years with AppleCare.  The E.U. mandatory two-year warranty makes AppleCare less of an incentive, which is also the same three-year warranty in Europe.

Despite having a reputation of quality products in Italy, Apple seems to be known for less than clear marketing and business practices.  The contrast between the perception in America and Italy regarding Apple’s integrity begs a further discussion of the differences between antitrust laws in America, Italy and the additional laws imposed by the European Union.  Apple’s business practices should likewise be tailored to the specific laws of different countries, perhaps fine-tuning their AppleCare warranty to appeal consumers in different countries with different laws and protections.

On February 17, 2003, United States Agents abducted Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, a suspected Islamic militant, on his way to his mosque.  The agents took Nasr to an air base, flown to Germany, and then to Egypt, where Nasr claims he was tortured.

In 2009, the agents were convicted.  One year later, an appellate court upheld their convictions. Two weeks ago, the matter was argued in Italy’s highest court where it upheld the convictions of the twenty-three Americans.  Twenty-two of these were Central Intelligence Agency employees and the remaining defendant was an Air Force colonel.  Twenty-two of the Americans received sentences of seven years, while the C.I.A. station chief received nine years.  This case was one of the first, if not the first ruling that successfully challenged the American rendition program.

Currently, the Americans are located within the jurisdiction of the United States of America.  At this point, it is unclear whether the Italian government will seek extradition of the Americans. While the United States and Italy have an extradition agreement, this request will likely create some tensions between the two countries.

This case represents a landmark victory for those that oppose the American practices of rendition.  Whether this will create precedent that will force the United States and their allies to alter their methods remains to be seen, however, if the Italians seek extradition, this story will likely turn into a much larger issue than it currently is and pose a significant strain on Italian-American relations.

Based on a New York Times Article by Elisabetta Povoledo published on September 20, 2012, on page A5 of the New York edition with the headline: High Court In Italy Backs Convictions For Rendition.