View Full Version : Oh! I hope this blows up in "AT&T Apple's" face!!
terryjohnson16
10-09-2007, 07:32 PM
I hope this puts Apple and AT&T in check for coming up with a stupid 5-year exclusive agreement, then deciding to brick people's phones that manage to break the weak lock placed on the i-phone:
Lawsuit accuses Apple of unlawful iPhone monopoly - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071009/tc_afp/technologyittrialtelecomcompanyapple;_ylt=AnOVVDDA XnpRcGyIOnI6DxaSxLEF)
Lawsuit accuses Apple of unlawful iPhone monopoly
2 hours, 24 minutes ago
SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - A civil lawsuit filed in California accuses Apple of creating an unlawful iPhone monopoly and vindictively releasing a software update that turns hacked devices into "iBricks."
The lawsuit, filed by attorney Damian Fernandez on behalf of a California man, accuses Apple of creating a monopoly by barring US customers from choosing a cellphone service provider other than US telecom giant AT&T.
The lawsuit also says Apple released last month a software update that disables iPhones that customers managed to unlock to choose another carrier.
Fernandez, who filed the lawsuit on October 5, is seeking "class action" status to expand the litigation to cover all US iPhone buyers.
In court documents, Fernandez estimates that Apple has sold 1.28 million iPhones since they went on sale in the United States on June 29.
Several hundred thousand of those phones were hacked to enable them to connect to service providers other than AT&T, which has a five-year deal to be the exclusive US telephone service for the devices.
The lawsuit says Apple has created a monopoly by forcing iPhone buyers to use AT&T and not "unlocking" the devices to allow service by rival carriers.
An update released September 27 for iPhone software disables hacked devices, turning the phones into "iBricks," the suit alleged.
"Apple punished consumers for exercising their rights to unlock their iPhones," Fernandez says in court documents.
"Apple issued a software update that 'bricked' or otherwise caused iPhone malfunctions for consumers who unlocked their phones and installed the update."
The suit demands a jury trial and asks the court to order Apple to unlock iPhones and provide warranty service to hacked devices.
It also demands Apple be forced to pay unspecified cash damages.
"Apple's unlawful trust with AT&T substantially lessens competition and tends to create a monopoly in trade and commerce throughout the entire United States," Fernandez claims in the suit.
Apple declined to comment.
I don't see this suit going anywhere.
Rzrlvr74
10-09-2007, 08:14 PM
It kind of falls into a grey area. If you want an iphone that bad, either you go with AT&T or nothing. It was pretty rotten of Apple to allow AT&T to be the only carrier to
offer the iphone, but the thought behind it was (initially) that only AT&T had the ability
to support all the iphone's features. However, it's like anything else, if you mod a phone or unlock a phone and brick it, your warranty is null and void. However, for Apple to knowingly and vindictively brick the iphones with an update is pretty bad. If they don't lose the lawsuit, their reputation as a company will still take a hit.
darkjedi
10-09-2007, 08:37 PM
Oy not another thread on this!!!
Keep it friendly peeps!!!
Personal note: This suit is friviulous with no chance of success.
Davesworld
10-09-2007, 08:41 PM
Truthfully, AT&T was the only carrier that would agree to Apple's draconian practices. They hit up other carriers first. If I were a carrier, no way would I want to do business with Apple the way that Apple has done with the iPhone. One should be able to leave the carrier store with a device already working for one.
gapboi954
10-09-2007, 09:07 PM
i doubt its going to go anywhere
jgebis
10-09-2007, 10:42 PM
I doubt much will happen with this lawsuit -- but, it's just another sign that more and more people are becoming disillusions with Apple. Will public opinion keep moving in that direction?
darkjedi
10-10-2007, 01:07 AM
I doubt much will happen with this lawsuit -- but, it's just another sign that more and more people are becoming disillusions with Apple. Will public opinion keep moving in that direction?
I really don't think the unlocking problem is going to affect them. First, most people and I say most because the largest estimate I've seen of people purchasing phones for the purpose of unlocking is 10%. We can all do that math and figure out that the other 90% is probably pretty happy with their purchase. Yes, Apple stumbled by reducing the price from a PR standpoint but thats consumer reality and I don't think that backlash will last if it already hasn't died. Mac sales are up, ipod sales will obviously peak during the next 3 months as we enter the holiday season. I think Apple is firing on all cylinders right now and while they haven't pleased everyone with the iphone, I don't think the general public is as informed as us forum users who follow these stories and stay up to date.
Vista failures and drawbacks have given Apple an open door and while have they haven't capitalized on that the pitch hasn't gone by either. There is a void right now from Microsoft as they move back to XP and onto a post Vista world and Apple if they can react quickly enough just might be able to capture another few percentage points in the market.
Apple's "response" to Vista, the new version of OS X (10.5 "Leopard") should ship this month.
And for what it's worth, it seems that the update bricked as many un-modified, un-unlocked iPhones as it did modified ones. (Several major tech blogs have conducted admittedly unscientific polls on the subject.) The phones were bricked because of a flaw in the update, not because Apple decided to brick all the evil hackers' iPhones. The update was designed to re-lock the iPhones to AT&T and restore them to their original state, but not turn them into $400 paperweights...this time. :)
soccerjohn
10-11-2007, 07:20 AM
I can understand why he guy is going through this but I will agree, I don't see it going very far. I didn't know that Apple and ATT had this contract for 5 years. I thought it was less.
NetDawg
10-13-2007, 10:33 AM
We have unlocked IPhones on T-Mobile and as long as you don't install the IPhone update it won't brick your phone. I don't understand why people updated their phone when it was sure to brick.
Galvatron
10-14-2007, 02:56 AM
well im anti apple period aln also the conep of apples business model violates not only the warenty law but also att's unlocking policy.
also because of apples sance on unlocking devices they are barrred from selling the ibrick in france. beacuse french laew requires that if you are to sell them ther us MUST sell them unlocked.
Isn't this great news for Apple?
What's the worst case here????
I wonder if we'll see a Steve Jobs rant about business practices in telecom soon... similar to his statements concerning the music industry. ;)
dkb218
10-15-2007, 10:59 AM
The part of the suit about An Apply Monopoly... Not going anywhere....
The part about Apple releasing a patch that bricks peoples unlocked phone? Apple's gonna get hit hard for that.
The part of the suit about An Apply Monopoly... Not going anywhere....
The part about Apple releasing a patch that bricks peoples unlocked phone? Apple's gonna get hit hard for that.Really??? Don't you think the patch is related to the monopoly piece? Why is Apple going after unlocked phones? Hmmmmmm.... I wonder. :)
dkb218
10-16-2007, 11:05 AM
Really??? Don't you think the patch is related to the monopoly piece? Why is Apple going after unlocked phones? Hmmmmmm.... I wonder. :)
(economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price ...
exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no monopoly on intelligence"
First, what monopoly? Has Apple stopped anyone from creating a touch screen, MP3 player telephone combo?
The patch will be argued by Apple as an update to it's itunes software. Once it's found that Apple intentionally added software to this update that is desinged to go after and brick unlocked iphones, thats when the law suites start to happen.
First, what monopoly? Has Apple stopped anyone from creating a touch screen, MP3 player telephone combo? How do you define the audio/radio market? Personally, I include iPod, XM, DirecTV, HD-Radio, FM/AM, 8-track, etc. However, interestingly, many want to define the market and what's good for the consumer in terms of technology (i.e., XM and Sirius = satellite radio).
In case of this lawsuit, they appear to be defining the iPhone as its own market. In those terms, one might claim that Apple and at&t own 100% of the legitimate market.
The patch will be argued by Apple as an update to it's itunes software. Once it's found that Apple intentionally added software to this update that is designed to go after and brick unlocked iphones, thats when the law suites start to happen.From what I understand, the patch affected those that used the needle method (hardware/software hack) to unlock their device. In my case, I had no problem going forward and back in terms of firmware... but then I just waited for a software solution and just smiled at IRC as I watched George and the iPhone Dev team do their work time and time again.
As for iBricks, I highly doubt Apple spent any cycles to develop a way to brick unlocked phones. I've asked, and no one has ever been able to give me a good and sane reason for Apple to go out of their way to break devices. And anyone that has ever worked in or with IT knows that the testing of software is a monumental task... and there are always more than enough problems to solve without purposefully creating new ones.
On the other hand, what is obviously evident is Apple actually spent resources to determine compatibility between a variety of hacks and their new iPhone firmare, and then warned the public of danger. Please name another company that does this... M$ and xbox? Nintendo? Who?
Now, did they make some modifications to further verify the identity of the SIM and service at time of activation and sync... and will they continue to further define and protect their exclusive relationship with at&t? Heck yeah. They have a contract they have to live up to, and a strategy they're executing to that we are not fully aware of. I believe this is the focus of the lawsuit.
Do I think the lawsuit has merit? Of course not.
Do I enjoy the increasing publicity the telecom industry is receiving? Hells yes.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.