Class-action charges Apple, AT&T with unlawful business practices

[AppleInsider]

A new class-action lawsuit charges Apple and AT&T with intentionally breaking the iPhones of customers who unlocked or installed third-party applications on the handsets, and further alleges that the two firms conspired from the inception of their partnership to illegally monopolize portions of the mobile cell phone market.

The 24-page formal complaint, filed Oct. 5 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, reads like a short story that begins by tracing the history of the U.S. mobile phone market, providing colorful background on its underlying architectures and technologies, and eventually Apple's emergence on the scene with its iPhone handset in late June.

In the suit, Washington resident Paul Holman and California resident Lucy Rivello allege that Apple and AT&T unlawfully agreed prior to the iPhone's release that the handset would not be unlocked under any circumstances as a means of preventing consumers from using programs or services other than those which directly generate revenues for the two companies.

Based on "information and belief" they claim that Apple and AT&T, once faced with a flurry of third-party iPhone applications and unlocking solutions, agreed to go beyond their already unlawful tactics of locking users down to their services and software by taking affirmative steps to break the iPhones of consumers who lawfully unlocked the AT&T SIM card or who installed third-party apps.

The suit cites Apple's Sept. 24 warning to customers who had unlocked their iPhones and asserts that the company had not actually "'discovered' that 'many' unlocking programs would 'cause irreparable damage' to the iPhone" but instead "had been busy engineering its software update so that it would disable any Third Party Apps and the SIM card unlocks."

"[T]he update was also designed to cause damage to the iPhone in the event that any use of non-Apple/AT&T products was detected," the complaint says.

None of these changes in the iPhone software update version 1.1.1 were technically required for the purpose of the upgrade, the suit claims, but were "designed solely to advance Apple's unlawful purposes and conduct."

Apple and AT&T are further charged at various points in the suit with illegally attempting to stifle outside competition from third-party developers who wish to write and sell applications for iPhone, imposing an unjustifiable AT&T service termination fee given that the handset is not subsidized, and making false claims to customers about third-party software and unlocking solutions voiding their handset's warranty.

"To protect its unlawful market position and the anticipated unlawful profits Apple and AT&T expected to earn, Apple repeatedly announced that any attempt to unlock the iPhone SIM or to install Third Party Apps would void the Apple warranty," the complaint says. "This assertion was false as a matter of federal law, and was known by Apple to be false when made. The Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prohibits conditioning the iPhone warranty on the use of Apple products only, or on the use of AT&T service only, [...], which is effectively what Apple's warranty approach unlawfully does."

Apple corporate is also accused of ordering its retail store employees to deny service to customers adversely affected by the v1.1.1 iPhone software update even though it was "technically feasible to restore the iPhone from version 1.1.1" and for instructing its spokespeople to make the absurd suggestion that customers adversely affected by the software update stop seeking help and instead just "buy a new iPhone."

These and several other manipulative measures on the part of Apple and AT&T are damaging to iPhone owners in that they are being forced to pay higher costs for services that would otherwise be more affordable, the suit claims, and are similarly being forced to forgo useful third-party improvements to their iPhones simply because they do not come from either of the two companies.

For instance, the complaint notes that because Plaintiff Holman travels for business a great deal, he generally unlocks his phones to accept other SIM cards, so that he can use them abroad with a "local" service provider at lower rates. But after buying an iPhone and traveling to Finland -- a country not covered by AT&T's "worldwide" plan -- his three days of data use on the iPhone, consisting primarily of downloading e-mail messages, cost him $381 in roaming charges.

Using a non-Apple unlocked phone on a recent trip to Amsterdam, Holman reportedly used a prepaid SIM card from T-Mobile to receive his email and was charged only $20, the suit says.

Overall, Apple and AT&T are charged -- either jointly or separately -- in the suit with six formal counts, which include alleged violations of the California Business and Profession's Code, The Cartwright Act, The Sherman Act, The Federal Trade Commission Act, The Communications Act of 1934, and The Telecommunications Act of 1996, as well as rules and policies established by the FCC.

On some of the counts, the suit seeks damages in the amount of "no less than $200 million," while in others it requests "no less than $600 million."

Attorneys for Hoffman & Lazear, which filed the suit on behalf of Holman and Rivello, said they seek to expand their class-action to cover all individuals and entities who purchased an iPhone on or after June 29, 2007 and sustained damages as a result. At this time, they say, the size of the Plaintiff Class exceeds 100 but the exact number cannot be determined without discovery of accounting records from both Apple and AT&T.

A similar class-action was filed against Apple in California, also on Oct. 5.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[physguy]

Why is the article here again. Wasn't this suit already covered here????

[Taskiss]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Based on "information and belief" they claim that Apple and AT&T, once faced with a flurry of third-party iPhone applications and unlocking solutions, agreed to go beyond their already unlawful tactics of locking users down to their services and software by taking affirmative steps to break the iPhones of consumers who lawfully unlocked the AT&T SIM card or who installed third-party apps.
...
At this time, they say, the size of the Plaintiff Class exceeds 100 but the exact number cannot be determined without discovery of accounting records from both Apple and AT&T.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

Ah, the great American pastime - sue someone successful. Sorta like the lottery but the ticket costs a bit more.

They're fishing for info. I'm guessing the info they are seeking would fetch a pretty price.

Originally Posted by physguy

Why is the article here again. Wasn't this suit already covered here????

That's a different case.

[SpamSandwich]

Apple must quickly crush these lawsuits or risk further negative publicity for iPhone. I know, I know, this lawsuit is without merit, but it's bad for business.

[Kasper]

Originally Posted by physguy

Why is the article here again. Wasn't this suit already covered here????

This is a different class-action.

K

[onceuponamac]

These are certainly interesting times for apple - i don't recall other cell phone releases experiencing this degree of activism - Certainly, Apple must be learning more about their customer base from this experience. I'm sure they (and ATT) thought through the legal analysis over and over before the product's release. It will be interesting to see (assuming any of these cases actually are litigated) what consumers rights are with respect to cell phones, plan restrictions, and attempts by a company to alter warranty coverage based on alterations to a product's software!

[EagerDragon]

Maybe a counter-Suit is the ticket, they are spreading some very nasty rumors there. Very unlikely they can back up their claims.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by onceuponamac

These are certainly interesting times for apple - i don't recall other cell phone releases experiencing this degree of activism - Certainly, Apple must be learning more about their customer base from this experience. I'm sure they (and ATT) thought through the legal analysis over and over before the product's release. It will be interesting to see (assuming any of these cases actually are litigated) what consumers rights are with respect to cell phones, plan restrictions, and attempts by a company to alter warranty coverage based on alterations to a product's software!

I think Apple is remembering that the majority of its long-time users, refuse to be walked on by a corporate entity. One of the things that made Apple great is that they didn't act like a Corporation. Now they do and their user-base is fighting back.

I don't own an iPhone, but power to the people, I say. For this, cause I'd be willing to see AAPL tumble a bit. They need to remember who they were when their numbers were few but loyal. We were a family. Now we're an emo cult following an idol, damnitall.

-Clive

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by EagerDragon

Maybe a counter-Suit is the ticket, they are spreading some very nasty rumors there. Very unlikely they can back up their claims.

I admit that I'm ignorant in the ways of our legal system, but how do you counter a class-action?

-Clive

[crees!]

Originally Posted by onceuponamac

These are certainly interesting times for apple - i don't recall other cell phone releases experiencing this degree of activism - Certainly, Apple must be learning more about their customer base from this experience. I'm sure they (and ATT) thought through the legal analysis over and over before the product's release. It will be interesting to see (assuming any of these cases actually are litigated) what consumers rights are with respect to cell phones, plan restrictions, and attempts by a company to alter warranty coverage based on alterations to a product's software!

You signed a contract. What's more to say. If the contract is in-fact legal, then you're SOL because you agreed to those terms, whether you read it all or not.

[VeloRandy]

I'm betting Apple is second guessing this whole phone business.

[MacTel]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Apple must quickly crush these lawsuits or risk further negative publicity for iPhone. I know, I know, this lawsuit is without merit, but it's bad for business.

Otherwise they'll regret getting into the phone market. Man alive, I believe they have about a half dozen iPhone related lawsuits on the books now. The battery issue, bricked phones, limiting the iPhone to AT&T, and I can't think of the other ones if there are more. Anyone have the tally?

[Taskiss]

Originally Posted by MacTel

Otherwise they'll regret getting into the phone market. Man alive, I believe they have about a half dozen iPhone related lawsuits on the books now. The battery issue, bricked phones, limiting the iPhone to AT&T, and I can't think of the other ones if there are more. Anyone have the tally?

You forgot the one against Apple for dropping the price $200.00 and how that hurts resale value.

I love that one.

I'd say that Apple knew this was coming. I'm guessing, but I'd say that AT&T gets sued a LOT. Heck, for that matter, so does Apple. Weren't there claims agains them for battery not being replaceable on the iPod, the scratches on the iPod, the cracks in the case of the square lucite Mac, etc? Probably even some for their stopping using serial connectors, scsi interfaces, etc...

You can't throw a rock in the US without hitting a lawyer these days, and I can't think of a better reason to throw a rock.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by crees!

You signed a contract. What's more to say. If the contract is in-fact legal, then you're SOL because you agreed to those terms, whether you read it all or not.

I know this might be a technicality, but apparently it's possible to unlock your phone without being confronted with a EULA.

-Clive

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by Taskiss

You forgot the one against Apple for dropping the price $200.00 and how that hurts resale value.

I love that one.

HAH, that one was so ridiculous. I know for a fact that it doesn't hold water. A few of the others, I'm not so sure.

-Clive

[hubfam]

Clive- You don't know a thing! I am one of the early Mac fans...remember OS7..? I do, and I bought and love the iphone. These ripples are being caused by the new adopters and people that thought they could make a killing buying iphones and selling them at an inflated price on ebay. Apple shut those people down and they don't like it. Grow up people...Apple has ALWAYS been a corporation. They make great products that people want and will spend money for. They never sell things at a loss to gain market share, and their model has worked. Name one other company with their kind of success? Success on their terms. Try and buy a car that doesn't "lock" you into the oil industry one with all the features of a production car. Oh yea, you can "modify" it, but then try to take it in to the dealer and have them repair it under warranty.

[Superbass]

Isn't it interesting that with iTV, the updates didn't brick units with hacks/mods to expand the iTVs capabilities and use unsupported software, while with the iPhone, it does?

Pretty difficult to say that Apple is innocent on this one - in the case of iTV, the mods increased the useability, while as with the iPhone, they increase useability AND take profit away from AT&T, who Apple has to support....

If the plaintiffs use this argument (which they should) Apple might be screwed.

[rjwill246]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

I think Apple is remembering that the majority of its long-time users, refuse to be walked on by a corporate entity. One of the things that made Apple great is that they didn't act like a Corporation. Now they do and their user-base is fighting back.

I don't own an iPhone, but power to the people, I say. For this, cause I'd be willing to see AAPL tumble a bit. They need to remember who they were when their numbers were few but loyal. We were a family. Now we're an emo cult following an idol, damnitall.

-Clive

What??? Listen, bud, Apple has always had to act as a corporation. The fact that it is acting to protect its rights and ATT's huge risk in this iPhone venture has obviously gone over your head.
If what you, and so many want to see happen... instant unlocked iPhone and crumbling contracts-- you can kiss good-bye to the kind of unique venture that got this phone to market in the first place. You know about killing the goose that laid the golden egg?? Go ahead-- next time all you'll get is feathers... An excellent way to support great products, I don't think.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by Taskiss

You forgot the one against Apple for dropping the price $200.00 and how that hurts resale value.

I love that one.

I'd say that Apple knew this was coming. I'm guessing, but I'd say that AT&T gets sued a LOT. Heck, for that matter, so does Apple. Weren't there claims agains them for battery not being replaceable on the iPod, the scratches on the iPod, the cracks in the case of the square lucite Mac, etc? Probably even some for their stopping using serial connectors, scsi interfaces, etc...

You can't throw a rock in the US without hitting a lawyer these days, and I can't think of a better reason to throw a rock.

It's to the point where Apple should convert their corporation to an LLC, move offshore and sell product without a warranty.

[i.s]

Originally Posted by crees!

You signed a contract. What's more to say. If the contract is in-fact legal, then you're SOL because you agreed to those terms, whether you read it all or not.

Well I guess that would be why they're suing, huh? Because they don't believe the business practices in which Apple and AT&T are engaging are legal. Software users enter into what is supposedly a legal and binding contract when they accept a EULA, but that didn't stop Microsoft from being sued for monopolistic practices, now did it?

Please, people, stop mindlessly droning, "you signed a contract" ... not everybody who sues a company is doing so out of greed. A class-action suit for monopolistic practices, if valid, is a good thing!

[TenoBell]

A few of the others, I'm not so sure.

None of them do. You cannot sue Apple for not supporting software that Apple told you it won't support. If you don't like your phone being locked to AT&T you had the option of not buying the phone or signing the contract in the first place.

[parky]

What a sad country the USA is, when stupid lawsuits like this are being raised all the time.

These people knew the limitations and conditions when they bought the phone, but now they are not happy with them sue the company rather than just admitting they were stupid!

I would not mind if these people just sued to get their money back, but $600 million, they are pariahs, trying to make money, it it nothing more than extortion.

The USA really need to sort out the legal system to stop meaningless and corrupt claims like these. You are making your legal system a laughing stock!

Where is the common sense? Does it not exist in the US any more.

Why this guy would buy a phone that he knows does not take other SIMS and then sue because he can't do just that is nothing more than insanity.

Ian

[hubfam]

Superbass-

Where did you go to law school? Cracker Jack U?

[i.s]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

I know this might be a technicality, but apparently it's possible to unlock your phone without being confronted with a EULA.

Exactly right. Nothing these users are doing is in violation of any law or contract. You can buy an iPhone (and it becomes YOUR PROPERTY without signing anything at all with AT&T. There is positively nothing outside the law or in violation of any legal agreements by unlocking your phone and using it with another carrier.

Apple is essentially going out of their way to force lock-in to one carrier in the US without any technical reason whatsoever. This is monopolistic. Those who buy an iPhone are not legally bound to have an AT&T account.

[TenoBell]

Isn't it interesting that with iTV, the updates didn't brick units with hacks/mods to expand the iTVs capabilities and use unsupported software, while with the iPhone, it does?

These are two different products. The iPhone software update reloaded the entire OS to fix bugs and close up security holes, the Apple TV OS has yet to receive this type of update.

but that didn't stop Microsoft from being sued for monopolistic practices, now did it?

MS wasn't sued for being a monopoly. MS was sued for using its power to illegally stifle competition for the entire computer industry. Apple is not doing any of that.

[parky]

Originally Posted by i.s

Well I guess that would be why they're suing, huh? Because they don't believe the business practices in which Apple and AT&T are engaging are legal. Software users enter into what is supposedly a legal and binding contract when they accept a EULA, but that didn't stop Microsoft from being sued for monopolistic practices, now did it?

Please, people, stop mindlessly droning, "you signed a contract" ... not everybody who sues a company is doing so out of greed. A class-action suit for monopolistic practices, if valid, is a good thing!

This is not a monopoly! That is a daft thing to say. Are you only able to buy a mobile phone from Apple and AT&T, NO you can buy loads of phones from many providers, therefore no monopoly.

Sure Apple and AT&T control the iPhone, but nobody forces you to buy one and there are many other 'smart' phones on the market, therefore no monopoly.

[thomasfxlt]

Originally Posted by i.s

Well I guess that would be why they're suing, huh? Because they don't believe the business practices in which Apple and AT&T are engaging are legal. Software users enter into what is supposedly a legal and binding contract when they accept a EULA, but that didn't stop Microsoft from being sued for monopolistic practices, now did it?

Please, people, stop mindlessly droning, "you signed a contract" ... not everybody who sues a company is doing so out of greed. A class-action suit for monopolistic practices, if valid, is a good thing!

Monopolistic practices????

I can't think of an industry right now that is less consolidated than the cellular market, on both the device and carrier sides. And to think that companies cannot develop strategic partnerships for a profit benefit is just this side of socialist.

[TenoBell]

There is positively nothing outside the law or in violation of any legal agreements by unlocking your phone and using it with another carrier.

There is no law that says Apple has to support unlocked phones either.

This is monopolistic. Those who buy an iPhone are not legally bound to have an AT&T account.

You treat monopoly as though its a bad in general. A monopoly is not against the law. Using your monopolistic power to stop healthy competition is against the law.

[parky]

Originally Posted by i.s

Exactly right. Nothing these users are doing is in violation of any law or contract. You can buy an iPhone (and it becomes YOUR PROPERTY without signing anything at all with AT&T. There is positively nothing outside the law or in violation of any legal agreements by unlocking your phone and using it with another carrier.

Apple is essentially going out of their way to force lock-in to one carrier in the US without any technical reason whatsoever. This is monopolistic. Those who buy an iPhone are not legally bound to have an AT&T account.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Yes the phone is yours, BUT the software is only made available to you to use under a license that you agree to when you activate your phone. That license is granted by Apple and can be removed at any time, the software is not yours. If you change the software to unlock the phone you have broken the software license.

It is illegal for a car manufacturer the refuse to fix your car engine under warranty if you have modified the engine? No it is not and they would refuse to fix it. Just because this is software it makes no difference. If you meddle with the product in a way that is not approved by the manufacturer (which you all know about before you do it), then you are not covered under the warranty. It is just the same for computers, Apple do not warranty the software on your Mac, only the hardware!

[hubfam]

[QUOTE=i.s;1155285]Exactly right. Nothing these users are doing is in violation of any law or contract. You can buy an iPhone (and it becomes YOUR PROPERTY without signing anything at all with AT&T. There is positively nothing outside the law or in violation of any legal agreements by unlocking your phone and using it with another carrier.


There is also nothing that forces these customers to update to 1.1.1 Apple warned people against it! True it is your phone and if you want to use it the way you wish you can. Just don't request Apple to give you the itunes store or any other update they put out. This is why Apple is accounting for the phone over the 2 year contract. The money you pay for the monthly service includes the new features. If you don't pay for the services you don't get the updates. Business is more complex then the tiny brains can handle.

[DionRodrigues]

Is it just me, or wasn't Apple sued just yesterday? God these people are stupid.

[physguy]

Originally Posted by Superbass

Isn't it interesting that with iTV, the updates didn't brick units with hacks/mods to expand the iTVs capabilities and use unsupported software, while with the iPhone, it does?

Pretty difficult to say that Apple is innocent on this one - in the case of iTV, the mods increased the useability, while as with the iPhone, they increase useability AND take profit away from AT&T, who Apple has to support....

If the plaintiffs use this argument (which they should) Apple might be screwed.

OK, I have the iPhone and AppleTV. First, the 1.1 update did, infact, 'brick' the AppleTV in a number of significant ways. It removed network access to the file system (AFS and SMB) and it did a few other 'nasty' things to those of us using the hacks. There was a 'safe' upgrade path found by copying parts of the 1.1 update over. This was possible because the underlying API was 10.4.7+ and was STABLE.

Note in this discussion, i'm excluding anyone that unlocked the SIM on the iPhone because there is no parallel on the AppleTV.

iPhone is 10.5+ (use uname on a hacked 1.0.2 phone) its leopard (Darwin 9.0...). The API for leopard on the Mac is just now going fully stable. The iphone has other drivers, etc. Apple announced that they wouldn't support third-party development at this time so why should they worry about playing with the API, there is nothing external to support, right???

The SIM unlocking simply adds another level to the process and to protect that, Apple added the stronger encryption and hid the key better than the first round.

If you read the 1.1.1 blogs you'll note there are TWO major problems

1) They can't unencrypt the firmware image - IMO, done to protect sim unlocking.

2) The second level is that the API's have changed significantly so that, even after getting in through a security hole, a number of apps won't work until re-compiled. This shows the API is changing, significantly. Springboard whitelist (a list of those apps that will appear on the screen) has changed location and access.

Are these changes 'purposeful'? Who the F??K knows. No one here, that's for sure and they are far far from illegal.

If the original contract broke the law (which I highly doubt) then there might be something here, but since any number of phones are sold locked, seems doubtful.

Beyond that Apple has hidden nothing about how the iPhone was being sold, marketed, used, etc.

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by i.s

Apple is essentially going out of their way to force lock-in to one carrier in the US without any technical reason whatsoever. This is monopolistic. Those who buy an iPhone are not legally bound to have an AT&T account.

Get a clue about what "monopoly" really means.

How the hell would it be a monopoly when you have the choice of many many other phones to buy and many other carriers to use? Nobody is forcing you to buy an iPhone, there are tons of alternatives.

What you're saying is like suing McDonalds because they won't let you buy a Big Mac from Burger King.

Having a "monopoly" on iPhones isn't a monopoly. It's only a monopoly if one company is selling all the mobile phones, when Apple is only selling a fraction of a percent of phones so far.

[physguy]

Sorry, one more idiotic things - damages. If they are truly looking for damages of total $800 million then WTF!!!! Let's say Apple has sold 1.5 million phones to date at an average price of $500 then that's $750 million total!!! I would wager that the great, great majority of those that bought don't feel damaged in the least, especially since the iPhone has, and does, everything it was advertised to do. How do you get damages, at the start, in excess of the total sales of the product?

These types of suits should be thrown out by the Judge.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by hubfam

Clive- You don't know a thing! I am one of the early Mac fans...remember OS7..? I do, and I bought and love the iphone. These ripples are being caused by the new adopters and people that thought they could make a killing buying iphones and selling them at an inflated price on ebay. Apple shut those people down and they don't like it. Grow up people...Apple has ALWAYS been a corporation. They make great products that people want and will spend money for. They never sell things at a loss to gain market share, and their model has worked. Name one other company with their kind of success? Success on their terms. Try and buy a car that doesn't "lock" you into the oil industry one with all the features of a production car. Oh yea, you can "modify" it, but then try to take it in to the dealer and have them repair it under warranty.

OS 7, of course. Do you remember the Apple II? Whatever. That has no bearing on who's right or wrong in this case.

The difference between your car analogy and the mobile phone market is that there are laws in place to protect consumers from being locked into a certain carrier because it's classified as monopolistic behavior. I didn't write the laws, so don't blame me, but it's a fact. Meanwhile, if you're fine being controled by corporations, that's your problem.

And again, I do not, nor have I ever owned an iPhone, so I am not biased as some here are.

Originally Posted by rjwill246

What??? Listen, bud, Apple has always had to act as a corporation. The fact that it is acting to protect its rights and ATT's huge risk in this iPhone venture has obviously gone over your head.
If what you, and so many want to see happen... instant unlocked iPhone and crumbling contracts-- you can kiss good-bye to the kind of unique venture that got this phone to market in the first place. You know about killing the goose that laid the golden egg?? Go ahead-- next time all you'll get is feathers... An excellent way to support great products, I don't think.

No, no. Do not take me out of context. I have never once said I thought Apple had a legal obligation to provide unlocked phones. They don't in the US. My previous posts on other threads specifically state that Apple should be required to provide a restore tool to bring the phone back to factory (locked) settings, henceforth unbricking iPhones and allowing users the opportunity to enter into contract with AT&T... or if they so choose, hack again, with the knowledge that Apple will not support unlocked or 3rd party-ready iPhones.

The fact is, Apple has the complete firmware code. It would take a single developer under a week to write a restore applet for iTunes. There's very little monetary consequence to Apple, and it doesn't jeopardize Apple's reputation of becoming a monopolistic entity.

A win-win if you ask me.

-Clive

[ouragan]

Overall, Apple and AT&T are charged -- either jointly or separately -- in the suit with six formal counts, which include alleged violations of the California Business and Profession's Code, The Cartwright Act, The Sherman Act, The Federal Trade Commission Act, The Communications Act of 1934, and The Telecommunications Act of 1996, as well as rules and policies established by the FCC.

On some of the counts, the suit seeks damages in the amount of "no less than $200 million," while in others it requests "no less than $600 million."

I told you so. And I did it to warn investors.

Now, you know why Apple general counsel had to leave, less than a year after receiving an $18 million signing bonus.

Contrary to what analysts wrote, there is no "game changing" plan, as it is illegal, damaging for Apple's image with consumers and investors, and a public relations nightmare (just like Steve Jobs' 2006 illegal and backdated $646 million bonus, making him the highest paid CEO on the planet for 2006).

Apple is repeating its 1986-1990 mistake of not licensing the Mac OS and insisting on making a 50% profit margin on every Mac they sold, driving its U.S. market share from 35% down to 2%, overpricing its products to the point of driving Apple close to bankruptcy.

Steve Jobs came back to Apple in 1997, more than 10 years ago. With the imminent release of Mac OS X Leopard, he has accomplished all that he could do for Apple. If he stays on, it's only to promote his own self interest.

It's time for Steve Jobs to go. Let him clear his name in the SEC criminal proceedings for illegally backdating stock options to benefit himself in the unprecedented amount of $646 millions to the detriment of Apple stockholders.

It's time to go. Steve Jobs has done enough damage to the company.

[physguy]

Originally Posted by ouragan

I told you so. And I did it to warn investors.

Now, you know why Apple general counsel had to leave, less than a year after receiving an $18 million signing bonus.

Contrary to what analysts wrote, there is no "game changing" plan, as it is illegal, damaging for Apple's image with consumers and investors, and a public relations nightmare (just like Steve Jobs' 2006 illegal and backdated $646 million bonus, making him the highest paid CEO on the planet for 2006).

Apple is repeating its 1986-1990 mistake of not licensing the Mac OS and insisting on making a 50% profit margin on every Mac they sold, driving its U.S. market share from 35% down to 2%, overpricing its products to the point of driving Apple close to bankruptcy.

Steve Jobs came back to Apple in 1997, more than 10 years ago. With the imminent release of Mac OS X Leopard, he has accomplished all that he could do for Apple. If he stays on, it's only to promote his own self interest.

It's time for Steve Jobs to go. Let him clear his name in the SEC criminal proceedings for illegally backdating stock options to benefit himself in the unprecedented amount of $646 millions to the detriment of Apple stockholders.

It's time to go. Steve Jobs has done enough damage to the company.

I accuse you of killing your neighbor.

You must be guilty - time for you to go to jail.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

Get a clue about what "monopoly" really means.

How the hell would it be a monopoly when you have the choice of many many other phones to buy and many other carriers to use? Nobody is forcing you to buy an iPhone, there are tons of alternatives.

What you're saying is like suing McDonalds because they won't let you buy a Big Mac from Burger King.

Having a "monopoly" on iPhones isn't a monopoly. It's only a monopoly if one company is selling all the mobile phones, when Apple is only selling a fraction of a percent of phones so far.

Companies can have monopolistic behaviors without actually being a monopoly.

For example, when MS started bundling WMP with Windows, they got nailed for monopolistic behavior because WMP was unrelated to the OS so users weren't presented a fair choice in media players.

While this is not a direct analogy, it's similar to behavior by handset manufacturers who lock consumers into a select carrier.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if these people have a case, but I do know that there are specifical laws targeting handsets, so I would venture to guess that some of the counts listed in the claim *might*, in fact, constitute a violation.

-Clive

[studiomusic]

Originally Posted by ouragan

It's time for Steve Jobs to go. Let him clear his name in the SEC criminal proceedings for illegally backdating stock options to benefit himself in the unprecedented amount of $646 millions to the detriment of Apple stockholders.

It's time to go. Steve Jobs has done enough damage to the company.

Steve Jobs made no money on those options. And, his board and general council were telling him it was OK... He has been cleared of ANY wrongdoing in that affair.
The options he sold for the $646 million were from years of options, years that he took $1 as CEO. If he hadn't turned Apple around, he would have made negative money on his options.
Better than the golden parachutes of CEOs elsewhere!

Troll somewhere else.

[physguy]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

Companies can have monopolistic behaviors without actually being a monopoly.

For example, when MS started bundling WMP with Windows, they got nailed for monopolistic behavior because WMP was unrelated to the OS so users weren't presented a fair choice in media players.

While this is not a direct analogy, it's similar to behavior by handset manufacturers who lock consumers into a select carrier.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if these people have a case, but I do know that there are specifical laws targeting handsets, so I would venture to guess that some of the counts listed in the claim *might*, in fact, constitute a violation.

-Clive

I'm sorry but I must reiterate - get a clue about monopolies!!

Most 'monopolistic behaviors' as you put it are just basic good business practices in a competitive environment AS LONG AS you are not a monopoly - which Apple and iPhone are NOT. It is only for monopolies that society chooses to curb these practices to encourage innovation, or control prices, etc. MSFT's practice with WMP and IE is no different than Apple's with Safari and QT/iTunes. It is because MSFT IS a monopoly that that practice was curbed.

There are NO monopoly issues with the iPhone.