Also on another note, with the whole sim unlocking thing going on right now and AT&T trying to sue the company, I dont' feel it's going to hold up for AT&T. The DMCA has an exception that carriers must provide unlock codes for these specific reasons, so if that goes through and AT&T has to start providing that this lawsuit may have backing
That DMCA exception does NOT mean that carriers have to provide unlock codes. What the exception is that third parties that unlock phones through a firmware modification, without permission of the carrier, aren't breaking the DMCA.
I'd love to see it unlocked too. It isn't subsidized, so it shouldn't be locked.
Imagine if Macs were locked to one ISP!
By only having the choice of ATT, in a way it is subsidized. Say it was sold unlocked and to any service provider, Apple would try to sell it for $800-$1000, and people would pay.
This lawsuit makes me hate the US. Stop being so friggin' ignorant and take responsibilty for your actions (as dumb and clueless as they might be)!
In view of the fact that ATT had to pay for enhancements to their network in order for the iPhone to properly function I believe that they will have a decent chance to defend themselves in court.
The interesting question is can an iPhone user in the US go to a country where the iPhone is (soon) sold and get a local "iPhone SIM" for use while they are in country? When I traveled to the UK on business I was able to get a local SIM card for my unlocked mobile (a Nokia bought in Australia) and it worked fine.
If Apple hasn't included this arrangement in the UK, Germany and France then one would be wise to take their old mobile with them and use that for phone calls.
As to the law suits - that's just an issue of Apple having a LOT of cash in the bank and a bunch of attorneys wanting some of it.
Yes he is an idiot, but his lawyers obvoiusly think theres a chance to win.
And if he does you wont be chained to at and t anymore.
When you buy a car you have many places to fill up the gas tank, not just one, shouldnt it be the same with a cell phone?
There's a chance that T-mobile and some of the other providers might be behind the scenes in this or other lawsuits... speaking with a T-mobile rep several weeks ago, they said they were "working" with the government to get the iPhone unlocked. Food for thought...
There's a chance that T-mobile and some of the other providers might be behind the scenes in this or other lawsuits... speaking with a T-mobile rep several weeks ago, they said they were "working" with the government to get the iPhone unlocked. Food for thought...
AT&T (Cingular at the time) was not the only provider Apple approached, I believe Steve said at a press conference that AT&T was the only one they asked that accepted the deal. Those that turned it down shouldn't complain.
Yes he is an idiot, but his lawyers obviously think theres a chance to win.
Litigation in the 21st. Century isn't about "winning" any more. It's about settlement. There is a high cost involved in litigation and many companies will settle because it's far cheaper to do so, than to actually litigate the facts at issue.
I had the opportunity to buy an iPhone, my current phone is falling apart and I've wanted one since Macworld 07. However, I didn't purchase one because they're locked to A.T&T, a company with not such great coverage that I got rid of in the past, plus the battery is soldered to the board and not user friendly. ANYONE with a single ounce of common sense who deecided to purchase a new phone had the opportunity, both on-line and at the store, to ask all the questions and get all the answers just as I did. Caveat Emptor applies here and the lawsuit has no chance of success if actually litigated. The question is... Does Apple lose more for its shareholders by litigating, together with A.T.&T. to the bitter end, or, by giving away a discount coupon on a newer model down the road, which is probably what the lawyers will settle for... well, that and their fees which will be exorbitant as always. Probably the latter, then, the latter ensures healthy sales for the second generation of iPhones. Certainly, they'll never give away anything of value outside their own equipment.
The only people making money are the litigation attorneys here and while I don't like Bush's solution through litigation reform, there should be far stricter penalties for frivolous filings such as these.
Apple Inc. is facing yet another class-action lawsuit over its iPhone, this time from a New York State resident who claims the company failed to adequately disclose to consumers that the handset is locked to AT&T's network and that using the device internationally would result in substantial data roaming charges.
Herbert H. Kliegerman's 9-page complaint, filed Monday in a New York Supreme Court, accuses Apple of engaging in deceptive and misleading practices by failing to properly disclose to iPhone buyers that their phones would be locked to only work with AT&T SIM cards and that the unlock codes would not be provided.
He files a 9 page complaint when Appleinsider sums it up in a few paragraphs.
Kliegerman is a moron! Quick, somebody get that iPhone away from him before he hurts himself... It's obvious, common sense is too much for his pee-wee brain to handle.
All those tired of these stupid baseless lawsuits, let's get together and go to a lawyer to file a class action lawsuit complaint against lawyers agreeing to accept dumbass lawsuits of the like from Mr. Kliegerman types.
AT&T (Cingular at the time) was not the only provider Apple approached, I believe Steve said at a press conference that AT&T was the only one they asked that accepted the deal. Those that turned it down shouldn't complain.
I don't believe T-Mobile or alltel was approached (since they have such low subscriber rates in comparison). I do know that Verizon was first approached and they turned apple down.
You sure are quick to accuse the guy of being an idiot when you don't have your own facts straight. I took my iPhone overseas recently. You are billed data roaming charges the minute you turn the thing on because there is /no way/ to turn off the EDGE data on it and it AUTOMATICALLY tries to connect to many services as soon as it's powered on. I racked up $5-10 of roaming just from turning the thing on and then back off again. I'm not complaining about this, I fully expected that to happen, but this other person may not have. It is pretty lame that Apple haven't added a toggle to turn off the EDGE data on the thing.
Yes he is an idiot, but his lawyers obvoiusly think theres a chance to win.
And if he does you wont be chained to at and t anymore.
When you buy a car you have many places to fill up the gas tank, not just one, shouldnt it be the same with a cell phone?
There are a lot of cell towers where you can fill your iPhone with service. For many years phones have been locked to a carrier, this is nothing new. It was also announced, in brochures and at the Apple site (shortly after the start of sale).
About the only ones that could actualy complain are the people that purchase their phone prior to Apple making these terms clearly available at all retail locations including apple Internet store.
It is funny how the iPhone raises awareness about practices and gouging that been going on for years. Even politicians are complaining.
The cell phone industry is what it is, apply the same measure to all phones and all carriers and then I join in the call.
As long as one entity is being discriminated against like the iPhone is, I can't join on the call to arms.
Agree all phones should be unlocked, there should be no contract (month to month), there should be no early termination, carriers should compete on service and price.
Hey Toto, I do not think we are in Kansas anymore.
Having read the replies so far given. I believe that many buyers do not read their contracts. But living in Europe we do not sue for everything, I have seen that many of the Law actions are taken with the idea we may win.
With roaming charges here in Ireland we are told many times that they are expensive and that one should check which operator offers the best rate overseas.
I know when I travel abroad. I either buy a ready to go system which can be bought in any country or limit myself to texting.
We were not all brought to have cell phones. It anything is that urgent there is email or voip.
Certainly 2000 dollars is a lot of phone calling. I would not use that much in a year on cell phone.
If there is no way to keep the phone from accessing the data network when roaming then I think both Apple and AT&T should be hit hard...
What are you talking about? The article says this guy was checking email and surfing the internet overseas. Unintentional use has nothing to do with this case.
This guy is a moron, I'm a little surprised the lawyers would take such a weak case. His whole argument is not that apple and ATT didn't give this information, but that he shouldn't have had to actually read his contract to find it out. Idiot.
What are you talking about? The article says this guy was checking email and surfing the internet overseas. Unintentional use has nothing to do with this case.
Not totally true, the iPhone is always checking for voice mail so even if you don't use data by choice your still getting charged for the background usage.
You need a way to turn off all EDGE access so the iPhone will only use WiFi access when traveling. It may be in the iPhone someplace but where?
Since you have a contract with AT&T they really have no reason to not unlock your phone when you travel so you could use a prepaid SIM card. Maybe they could allow you to purchase a prepaid SIM card here for the country your going to. That way they would still be in control and we would not get screwed. Oh, that card must be allowed to be recharged incase you run out of minutes.
It is funny how the iPhone raises awareness about practices and gouging that been going on for years. Even politicians are complaining.
The cell phone industry is what it is, apply the same measure to all phones and all carriers and then I join in the call.
As long as one entity is being discriminated against like the iPhone is, I can't join on the call to arms.
Agree all phones should be unlocked, there should be no contract (month to month), there should be no early termination, carriers should compete on service and price.
Hey Toto, I do not think we are in Kansas anymore.
The iPhone isn't being 'discriminated" against. The iPhone differs in one major way from other cell phones on a carrier. AT&T may lock all their phones, but if you are using a Sony or a Nokia or a Motorola or a Samsung or an LG, they will provide you an unlock code if you tell them you are travelling. With an iPhone, they apparently won't. Thing is, the iPhone is where you especially need to have the device unlocked in order to travel, because with a RAZR or something you can just limit the number of calls you make to a bare minimum, but with the iPhone, as several people have already pointed out, it's going to be accessing the network all the time whether you like it or not.
It's really egregious, and it means that if you do any travelling, you're going to have to have a spare phone from another manufacturer for that purpose.
The best way a consumer can change anything is with their pocketbooks, not by being sue happy. Hate that the iPhone is locked, hate AT&T - DON'T BUY THE IPHONE!. You will still live without it.
Don't want to be locked into a contract, buy a phone at FULL PRICE. Stop taking free phones.
But this lawsuit stinks like the McDonalds coffee is hot lawsuit - DUH!
That McDonalds coffee lawsuit was perfectly valid. The coffee was being served far hotter than it should have been. People always bring this lawsuit up as an example, but it really is the poorest example you could choose to use.
As for this case, (1) Apple aren't running the network, so they have no control over the rates charged - the guy should be suing AT&T, and (2) the documentation is very clear about the free data being on AT&Ts network, and why would roaming be any different for any other phone.
I wouldn't mind if the iPhone allowed the use of non-AT&T SIM cards in areas where there was no AT&T network available. That will allow the use of local networks when abroad rather than roaming, but wouldn't mean that the phone was unlocked back in its 'home country'.
Comments
Also on another note, with the whole sim unlocking thing going on right now and AT&T trying to sue the company, I dont' feel it's going to hold up for AT&T. The DMCA has an exception that carriers must provide unlock codes for these specific reasons, so if that goes through and AT&T has to start providing that this lawsuit may have backing
That DMCA exception does NOT mean that carriers have to provide unlock codes. What the exception is that third parties that unlock phones through a firmware modification, without permission of the carrier, aren't breaking the DMCA.
I'd love to see it unlocked too. It isn't subsidized, so it shouldn't be locked.
Imagine if Macs were locked to one ISP!
By only having the choice of ATT, in a way it is subsidized. Say it was sold unlocked and to any service provider, Apple would try to sell it for $800-$1000, and people would pay.
This lawsuit makes me hate the US. Stop being so friggin' ignorant and take responsibilty for your actions (as dumb and clueless as they might be)!
Cars and cellphones are alike in that they are squarish, but that is about where the similarity ends.
The business model for each is quite different, its unfair to make this comparison, who started it anyway?
Anyway the sooner the iPhone gets to Japan the better! With or without carrier locking.
in america, to be rich, all you have to be is DUMB AS A POST. what a country!
May I borrow 15.7 billion dollars?
Actually the car analogy is a bad one.
Cars and cellphones are alike in that they are squarish, but that is about where the similarity ends.
The business model for each is quite different, its unfair to make this comparison, who started it anyway?
Anyway the sooner the iPhone gets to Japan the better! With or without carrier locking.
Just stop it with the analogy thing, you don't need to explain this.
It's like buying a phone and being told you can only use it with one network, and that serious roaming charges apply when/if you travel overseas.
People can't understand that?
The interesting question is can an iPhone user in the US go to a country where the iPhone is (soon) sold and get a local "iPhone SIM" for use while they are in country? When I traveled to the UK on business I was able to get a local SIM card for my unlocked mobile (a Nokia bought in Australia) and it worked fine.
If Apple hasn't included this arrangement in the UK, Germany and France then one would be wise to take their old mobile with them and use that for phone calls.
As to the law suits - that's just an issue of Apple having a LOT of cash in the bank and a bunch of attorneys wanting some of it.
Yes he is an idiot, but his lawyers obvoiusly think theres a chance to win.
And if he does you wont be chained to at and t anymore.
When you buy a car you have many places to fill up the gas tank, not just one, shouldnt it be the same with a cell phone?
There's a chance that T-mobile and some of the other providers might be behind the scenes in this or other lawsuits... speaking with a T-mobile rep several weeks ago, they said they were "working" with the government to get the iPhone unlocked. Food for thought...
There's a chance that T-mobile and some of the other providers might be behind the scenes in this or other lawsuits... speaking with a T-mobile rep several weeks ago, they said they were "working" with the government to get the iPhone unlocked. Food for thought...
AT&T (Cingular at the time) was not the only provider Apple approached, I believe Steve said at a press conference that AT&T was the only one they asked that accepted the deal. Those that turned it down shouldn't complain.
Yes he is an idiot, but his lawyers obviously think theres a chance to win.
Litigation in the 21st. Century isn't about "winning" any more. It's about settlement. There is a high cost involved in litigation and many companies will settle because it's far cheaper to do so, than to actually litigate the facts at issue.
I had the opportunity to buy an iPhone, my current phone is falling apart and I've wanted one since Macworld 07. However, I didn't purchase one because they're locked to A.T&T, a company with not such great coverage that I got rid of in the past, plus the battery is soldered to the board and not user friendly. ANYONE with a single ounce of common sense who deecided to purchase a new phone had the opportunity, both on-line and at the store, to ask all the questions and get all the answers just as I did. Caveat Emptor applies here and the lawsuit has no chance of success if actually litigated. The question is... Does Apple lose more for its shareholders by litigating, together with A.T.&T. to the bitter end, or, by giving away a discount coupon on a newer model down the road, which is probably what the lawyers will settle for... well, that and their fees which will be exorbitant as always. Probably the latter, then, the latter ensures healthy sales for the second generation of iPhones. Certainly, they'll never give away anything of value outside their own equipment.
The only people making money are the litigation attorneys here and while I don't like Bush's solution through litigation reform, there should be far stricter penalties for frivolous filings such as these.
Apple Inc. is facing yet another class-action lawsuit over its iPhone, this time from a New York State resident who claims the company failed to adequately disclose to consumers that the handset is locked to AT&T's network and that using the device internationally would result in substantial data roaming charges.
Herbert H. Kliegerman's 9-page complaint, filed Monday in a New York Supreme Court, accuses Apple of engaging in deceptive and misleading practices by failing to properly disclose to iPhone buyers that their phones would be locked to only work with AT&T SIM cards and that the unlock codes would not be provided.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
He files a 9 page complaint when Appleinsider sums it up in a few paragraphs.
Kliegerman is a moron! Quick, somebody get that iPhone away from him before he hurts himself... It's obvious, common sense is too much for his pee-wee brain to handle.
All those tired of these stupid baseless lawsuits, let's get together and go to a lawyer to file a class action lawsuit complaint against lawyers agreeing to accept dumbass lawsuits of the like from Mr. Kliegerman types.
AT&T (Cingular at the time) was not the only provider Apple approached, I believe Steve said at a press conference that AT&T was the only one they asked that accepted the deal. Those that turned it down shouldn't complain.
I don't believe T-Mobile or alltel was approached (since they have such low subscriber rates in comparison). I do know that Verizon was first approached and they turned apple down.
Yes he is an idiot, but his lawyers obvoiusly think theres a chance to win.
And if he does you wont be chained to at and t anymore.
When you buy a car you have many places to fill up the gas tank, not just one, shouldnt it be the same with a cell phone?
There are a lot of cell towers where you can fill your iPhone with service. For many years phones have been locked to a carrier, this is nothing new. It was also announced, in brochures and at the Apple site (shortly after the start of sale).
About the only ones that could actualy complain are the people that purchase their phone prior to Apple making these terms clearly available at all retail locations including apple Internet store.
The cell phone industry is what it is, apply the same measure to all phones and all carriers and then I join in the call.
As long as one entity is being discriminated against like the iPhone is, I can't join on the call to arms.
Agree all phones should be unlocked, there should be no contract (month to month), there should be no early termination, carriers should compete on service and price.
Hey Toto, I do not think we are in Kansas anymore.
With roaming charges here in Ireland we are told many times that they are expensive and that one should check which operator offers the best rate overseas.
I know when I travel abroad. I either buy a ready to go system which can be bought in any country or limit myself to texting.
We were not all brought to have cell phones. It anything is that urgent there is email or voip.
Certainly 2000 dollars is a lot of phone calling. I would not use that much in a year on cell phone.
Airuser.
Read the contract.
If there is no way to keep the phone from accessing the data network when roaming then I think both Apple and AT&T should be hit hard...
What are you talking about? The article says this guy was checking email and surfing the internet overseas. Unintentional use has nothing to do with this case.
This guy is a moron, I'm a little surprised the lawyers would take such a weak case. His whole argument is not that apple and ATT didn't give this information, but that he shouldn't have had to actually read his contract to find it out. Idiot.
What are you talking about? The article says this guy was checking email and surfing the internet overseas. Unintentional use has nothing to do with this case.
Not totally true, the iPhone is always checking for voice mail so even if you don't use data by choice your still getting charged for the background usage.
You need a way to turn off all EDGE access so the iPhone will only use WiFi access when traveling. It may be in the iPhone someplace but where?
Since you have a contract with AT&T they really have no reason to not unlock your phone when you travel so you could use a prepaid SIM card. Maybe they could allow you to purchase a prepaid SIM card here for the country your going to. That way they would still be in control and we would not get screwed. Oh, that card must be allowed to be recharged incase you run out of minutes.
It is funny how the iPhone raises awareness about practices and gouging that been going on for years. Even politicians are complaining.
The cell phone industry is what it is, apply the same measure to all phones and all carriers and then I join in the call.
As long as one entity is being discriminated against like the iPhone is, I can't join on the call to arms.
Agree all phones should be unlocked, there should be no contract (month to month), there should be no early termination, carriers should compete on service and price.
Hey Toto, I do not think we are in Kansas anymore.
The iPhone isn't being 'discriminated" against. The iPhone differs in one major way from other cell phones on a carrier. AT&T may lock all their phones, but if you are using a Sony or a Nokia or a Motorola or a Samsung or an LG, they will provide you an unlock code if you tell them you are travelling. With an iPhone, they apparently won't. Thing is, the iPhone is where you especially need to have the device unlocked in order to travel, because with a RAZR or something you can just limit the number of calls you make to a bare minimum, but with the iPhone, as several people have already pointed out, it's going to be accessing the network all the time whether you like it or not.
It's really egregious, and it means that if you do any travelling, you're going to have to have a spare phone from another manufacturer for that purpose.
The best way a consumer can change anything is with their pocketbooks, not by being sue happy. Hate that the iPhone is locked, hate AT&T - DON'T BUY THE IPHONE!. You will still live without it.
Don't want to be locked into a contract, buy a phone at FULL PRICE. Stop taking free phones.
But this lawsuit stinks like the McDonalds coffee is hot lawsuit - DUH!
That McDonalds coffee lawsuit was perfectly valid. The coffee was being served far hotter than it should have been. People always bring this lawsuit up as an example, but it really is the poorest example you could choose to use.
As for this case, (1) Apple aren't running the network, so they have no control over the rates charged - the guy should be suing AT&T, and (2) the documentation is very clear about the free data being on AT&Ts network, and why would roaming be any different for any other phone.
I wouldn't mind if the iPhone allowed the use of non-AT&T SIM cards in areas where there was no AT&T network available. That will allow the use of local networks when abroad rather than roaming, but wouldn't mean that the phone was unlocked back in its 'home country'.