Apple, AT&T iPhone exclusivity lawsuit granted class-action status - Page 4

The way it is now is just fine Apple nor AT&T put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to buy an iPhone which they know come with a contract and with AT&T's service.
I have had the 3G, the 3GS and now the iPhone 4, and I am not crying, so grow up people and quit crying like babies.
And the service is not as bad as some people try to claim, I travel all over this country and 90% of the time I have 3G service.

Your example is completely flawed. Toyota cannot and does not force anyone to buy anything from anywhere. If you want to purchase a Toyota you have many avenues to choose from, buy it from a dealer, from a used car dealer, from an individual owner, etc. Or don't buy one at all. There is absolutely NO force used whatsoever. You have many, many choices of automobiles which you can purchase. You don't have a "right" to force a company to comply with your wishes. And the company doesn't have a "right" to force you to comply with theirs. In a free market, a truly free market, there is no force used against anyone. People are free to trade with one another of their own free will, without the use of force. That doesn't mean everyone will trade with you the way you want, and it certainly doesn't mean you have a right to force people to trade with you the way you want.

Secondly, Apple does not permanently tie you to a network, as if you have no choice in the matter. You can choose to use their product and abide by the rules they set forth for their product via the contract you sign. No one has a right to force any individual or group, such as a company, into running their business a certain way.

You have a ton of choices as to which electronic device you can purchase for making phone calls, playing digital music, taking pictures, etc. No one forces you to purchase an iPhone or any other product.

Lawsuits like this are ridiculous and completely unethical because they are all about forcing someone or a group of people to run their business or personal lives at the behest of another group. That's plain wrong, and needs to stop.

It is silly and unnecessary to expect anyone except tech geeks to jump through these kinds of hoops. They should simply do the decent thing -- which most carriers do and ATT does for its other phones -- and move on. It's not such a big deal.

This sort of attitude is completely idiotic. Yeah, people should just allow themselves to be used as doormats by corporations, no mind if their actions are legal or not.

That's why the notion of carrier unlock exists.

Predictions are cheap either way, but mine is: Apple and ATT are going to lose this one (or backtrack on this) big time.

My money is on the opposite.

We'll see what happens in a few months' time. Let's plan to check back.

Okay, I sort of see your point. But just because you want it, doesn't mean you are entitled to it.

You sign up for a phone that you are locked into an agreement for, for 2-years. In all cases of a contract iPhone (the world over except where the handset is purchased unlocked or outside of contract) you have to abide by whatever terms your carrier sets out in the CONTRACT that you signed up to. This will generally include your AGREEMENT that you use AT&T's roaming partners when abroad.

Yes you may get stiffed in charges, but you signed up to that. It's your fault if you couldn't be bothered to take the time to read that contract before you signed it.

As for unlocking outside your contract, that is a bit dodgy if AT&T won't actually allow you to. But that is a restriction put in place by AT&T, Apple has nothing to do with it. When I unlocked my iPhone at the end of the contract, I got in touch with my carrier O2, Apple played no part in the deal whatsoever.

However, I do believe that there can be issues using T-Mobile service in the US, and it's not quite as clear cut as unlock and enjoy as it is in other non-US countries because or radio/frequency differences (correct me if I'm wrong).

At the end of the day, whilst "IN CONTRACT" you don't have a leg to stand on, outside of a contract it isn't anything to do with Apple.

US Consumers need to get over this right to entitlement of everything they seem to have. It generally isn't the case, and it certainly won't be for the benefit of the consumer, at least not once you look past the very short-sighted view a consumer tends to have.

Is it just more or doesn't EVERY cell phone company have at least a couple handsets that are exclusive to them..

I'd say their actions are legal, as the CONTRACTS are upheld constantly when somebody tries to squirm out of them by defaulting, amongst other things.

Indeed we don't, and when we come to unlock our handset (aside from Jailbreaking) who do we have to go to get the unlock?

That's right, THE CARRIER. So why are Apple being sued again, it's nothing to do with them?

I stated my opinion and you stated your, that why this is a free country, however why buy something just to cry when you know the rules of the contract.

What the hell are you talking about.. even if you HONESTLY feel this can be called being treated like a door mat, you physically signed a paper agreeing to this!! It was COMPLETELY your choice.

There is nothing illegal about creating a business deal and offering to people. There is ZERO force involved here. They created a product, put together the service, and offered it to people. "you cool with all this? good its yours... No? fine then you don't have to buy it."

The irony is that all you people who feel that you should dictate how these companies are run and how they should offer their products actually makes YOU exactly what you are complaining about in these lame posts. Apple tells you how it's phone is gonna work and you call it corporate take over. You try and tell Apple how it's phone should work and you call it your rights as a consumer. Get a life.

I think 'tawilson' said it best a few posts ago.. "Just because you want something, doesn't mean you're entitled to it."

Okay fair enough, but whilst in a contract, under the terms of a fixed minimum term mobile phone contract, you more than likely have no right to switch SIMs "just because you want to".

Check your terms, you'll have to enable international roaming and use their official partners and get screwed over. That's what you signed up for. Don't like it? Maybe you shouldn't have signed it.

You are not entitled to do as you please, end of story. Just because it's an iPhone and people really want the phone, they seem to be under the impression that the rules have to change, just so that they do as they please. You're wrong! So stop it.

It isn't up to Apple to unlock the phones, the carrier is the only one who can "unlock" an iPhone. Apple can sell a phone without a lock, but that's a different kettle of fish altogether.

What rock have you been living under these past 3 years?

Sorry to disappoint you, but no carrier anywhere automatically unlocks a locked device once the contract is up. The onus is on the consumer to unlock their phone. After all, the user may not care (which will be the case more often than not). Also the unlock process does involve a reboot of the phone too.

While your at it, once the contract is up, why not end the contract, so that the user has no phone service too?

Just so you know, I live in the UK and I cannot legally use any sim (jailbreak etc. doesn't coutn) other than one I was provided with for my iPhone 4, until I've exited the minimum term and REQUESTED an unlock from O2. The same goes for every other handset with every other carrier in the UK that sells locked handsets.

This is due to a contractual limitation that I agreed to. In this case, it would be case closed instantly.

My original iPhone is now happily unlocked on T-Mobile, thanks to O2 (NOT Apple).

There are 4 or 5 carriers for the iPhone, and for each carrier the phones are locked to that carrier until the CUSTOMER REQUESTS an unlock at the END OF THEIR CONTRACT.

So, it's not that difficult. And the unlock in this case doesn't involve Apple, you have to talk to the carrier, as I did.

If Apple or any other manufacturer were to unlock their phones, I would imagine that they would be obligated to provide service and support for such.

There are a lot of misconceptions what carriers and manufacturers offer in particular US vs Europe and even Canada.

I would suggest that the following articles will enlighten and number of folks here to the better.

• SIM Lock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock#United_States
• Sim Cards: http://www.planetomni.com/FAQ_sim.shtml
• GSM Cell Phones: http://www.planetomni.com/FAQ_gsm.shtml
• Cell Phones in US: http://www.planetomni.com/ARTICLES-C...s-in-USA.shtml
• 3G and GPRS Data Service; http:http://www.planetomni.com/3g-and-gprs-data.shtml
• Cell Phones in Europe: http://www.slowtrav.com/europe/cell_phones.htm

This is reprinted from a New York Times article, I take no credit for the following........

What is That New Phone Really Going to Cost?



Phenomenal phones are flooding the market. In the past few weeks the new iPhone 4, the HTC 4G EVO, Droid X and HTC HD2 debuted, all phones with fast processors and big screens.

But these new phones come at a cost - a recurring monthly charge. So before you sign a contract for two years of payments, which phone is really the bargain?

Before I get too far, let me acknowledge that the value of a phone is in the eye of the beholder. The least expensive isn't a value if it doesn't have the features you want.

That said, all of these phones are high-powered computing devices, each with features to recommend. But let's take a look at pure costs, compiled with the help of cost calculator Validas.

Pricing of the HTC EVO ($200 with a contract after rebates) which works on Sprint's high speed 4G network, has raised some hackles. The reason is the phone requires a $10 premium data plan, whether you are in a 4G city or not. And chances are that you aren't - there are 33 4G cities, and they are modest markets like my home town, Baltimore. You won't find 4G in New York or San Francisco.

The premium brings the monthly price for unlimited service to $110. That is, unless you want to add hotspot service, which lets you connect your computer to the Internet through your phone. That costs an additional $30 a month.

But that isn't the most expensive plan. You'll pay more for an iPhone 4 ($200 for the 16GB memory, $300 with the 32GB memory, with contract) unlimited plan at AT&T. The iPhone's unlimited plan will run you $115 a month. But don't forget that the AT&T unlimited plan is no longer unlimited. New customers are capped at 2GB of data a month, with a $10 per gigabyte charge when you go over the limit. By AT&T's count only 2 percent of its users exceed 2 gigabytes a month.

Still, it is not the most expensive plan. That honor goes to Verizon, whose unlimited plan for a phone like the Droid X ($200 with contract after rebate) is $120 a month. Like the HTC EVO, the Droid X has a hotspot feature that lets you use it as a router to connect a computer to the Internet. Add that service and it's an additional $20 a month. That brings it to parity with the Sprint's EVO.

So if you aren't going to use the hotspot, the EVO costs less per month than the Droid X. If you are going to use the hotspot, they are equal.

That brings us to the least expensive unlimited plan, which is T-Mobile's, at $95 a month. T-Mobile's HTC HD2 ($100 with contract after a Web-only discount), with a 4.3-inch screen, was the largest display available on a phone when it was released a few months back. It is on the Windows Mobile operating system, which I found quirky, glitchy, and confounding to use. You might splurge for the MyTouch slider ($180 with contract), an Android phone with a slide-out keyboard, a button dedicated to activating voice commands, and a set-up assistant that makes it easy to get the phone configured.

To any carrier's monthly bill you also have to add an average $9 in taxes and surcharges, a total of $216 over the life of a standard two-year contract.

In the end, the HTC HD2, the most economical choice, would cost about $2,600 while the Droid X costs about $3,290 over a two-year contract, a savings of nearly $700.

That is how the pricing shakes out with the unlimited plans, but the best way to save money is to buy the minimum number of minutes you need, so you aren't throwing away money on voice, data and text that you don't use.

According to Validas, a 450-minute plan with unlimited text and data is plenty for most single users and saves $20 to $30 per month. For families with two lines, the company said average use is about 735 minutes, so a 900-minute plans would be ample and save you $10 to $20 per month.

You can check your past bills to find your actual usage, or use an online service like Validas or BillShrink which take your bills and calculate the best deal for you.

this statement is incomplete. It should be 'under the terms the seller chooses to offer, in so far as those terms do not violate any terms set by the manufacturer or local law'

So for example, if the law says sim locked phones are 100% illegal, the seller "Youtalk Wireless" can't lock the phone himself.
If a book publisher (in this case the 'manufacturer') sets a 'street date', the seller "Youread Bookstore" can't sell it before that date. Or if the publisher refuses to make an ebook, the seller can't scan the book and sell it in that form himself.

and so on.

ATT's lost lawsuit on unlocking 'dummy' phones came in part because they didn't have exclusive agreements on those devices. So they were deemed 'unnaturally' tying the phones to their network. Smart phones were left out of the judgment because it is legal to have such exclusive contracts with a manufacturer and on said phones, they existed (and not just at ATT).


Correct. Case law has added abusing one's monopoly in one market to gain in another as a no no (which is what got Microsoft a few years back). But dominance formed by being the best is not a crime. Again, Microsoft and Windows is a key example. In the early days, they were the most available, hooked up with OEMs etc and it just happened. Unlike Apple which wanted to use their right to not allow clones and marketed to a smaller group of people (universities, creative professionals etc)

The other side is apparently trying to argue that Apple and ATT are in effect the same since a cell phone without a carrier is rather pointless. So they are basically divisions of the same 'company' and that Apple is using it's monopoly on the hardware to unnaturally push their 'service side' (ATT) to a higher level.

But this is likely to fall apart on them due to two things

1. Apple and ATT are not the same company (unlike the Microsoft Windows/Internet Explorer thing which was a single company dipping into many ponds)
2. The widely referenced Nielsen study published in June of this year lists the iphone as 2nd in % of the market after RIM and the collective whole of the competition is 3 to 1 over the iPhone. No way does that pass the dominance (to be abused) test

The most these folks might gain is the FCC etc looking into the question of whether exclusive contracts are in the consumer's best interest and deciding no they are not. And setting a new law that there can be no more such deals and any existing ones can not be extended past current signed contracts and the dates such deals end must be immediately published (with validating materials filed with some overseeing office) and at that end time all phones locked must be unlocked at the customers request if the carrier service contract is over or the customer pays the ETF.

But even this will be due less to the actual lawsuit and more on the press it has created.


The only way that would be true would be if, instead of unlocking the phone and putting in all the hardware and software to support everyone, Apple went to each carrier and said they would add the bits to support X only if the iphone was the only smartphone the carrier had or it was the only one on display, in ads by the company.

Otherwise, Apple isn't doing anything but making their phone an open market. Letting the consumer decide.


this information is incorrect.

The cost of a no contract (but still locked) iphone 16gb is $599 + sales tax (in several states on the full amount no matter what)
ATT's subsidy on a new contract or fully eligible upgrading contract is $400 (which is why they raised the ETF to $375 starting in June instead of losing $200 on every phone that was cut early)
According to ATT you pay back that amount over the course of your 24 month contract, which is how they justify the ETF in the first place.

So assuming you go the full 2 years or you pay the ETF, folks like this suit argue that you 'own' the phone outright and should be able to do with it as you please. Just like Psystar tried to argue that they bought the software and could put it any hardware they want and Steve Jobs could go eat his own liver (goes nice with Fava Beans and Chianti)

Meanwhile Apple and ATT will argue that by completing the sale, you agreed to the Terms and Conditions which were that the phone is locked to ATT and at no point was it even inferred that they would end this exclusive deal or that you have a right to demand unlocking (as allowed by the rules the FCC has tossed back at several complainants)


No YOU are the incorrect one. ATT most certainly subsidizes their phones, just like everyone else. They stated this themselves when called upon to explain why ETFs exist and why they were the amounts they were and not some token $25 or such.


Since ATT is in no way involved in the creation of the iphone or the OS, they probably don't know how to unlock it. And the policy is likely due to the question of folks claiming they are moving overseas but they really aren't.

So I see two possibles for you to look into.

1. What would prevent you, when you get to Europe, from restoring your phone using 'local' software that while not unlocked perhaps is at least set for the carrier you would be using. And if there's nothing in the software, how do you go about gaining that local software to do it

2. What about, if #1 can't be done, simply selling the phone before you go and using the money to buy a new one when you get back to Europe. Yes you would be out a phone for a few days but it's better than nothing

It will be $20 you can apply towards the purchase of a new iPhone on AT&T.
And the lawyers will walk away with $750,000.

I know that iPhone customers in Europe are able to get their iPhones unlocked after the terms of their contracts are fulfilled, so it seems to me that AT&T is failing to fulfil a legal and contractual obligation by unlocking the iPhone after the contract is fulfilled.

I believe that the settlement for this should include an "at equity" term that requires AT&T to employ the same unlocking procedure that European carriers use when the terms of the contract are fulfilled and the customer requests unlocking.

My understanding of the process is that the carrier representative logs into a secured Apple site, enters some codes to verify that the iPhone is no longer under contract, and then the next time the customer syncs his or her iPhone with iTunes, the iPhone is unlocked.

And where does it specify in the contract that AT&T or Apple will allow unlocking of the phone after your contract is up? Where in the contract does it say that you'll ever be able to unlock the phone, at any time, to work with any other carrier?

That's right, nothing specifies that. You can't just magically add constraints to a contract. That would render all contracts useless.

No one has any legal, moral, ethical, or contractual right to force any company or individual to behave in a way that suits THEM. If you don't like the fact that the iPhone is only available on AT&T, don't get an iPhone. There are many, many other options available to you.

Please post that portion of your contract that binds AT&T into unlocking your iPhone, at ANY point in time.

Weve been over this so many times. The laws in Europe and elsewhere have no baring on the US. Right now, there is no law requiring a carrier to unlock a phone. This is NOT just AT&T. This is NOT just the iPhone. This is the US as a whole.

Again, there is no legal obligation for them to do so and most US citizens dont travel outside the country so most simply have no idea how or why this is an issue. What is needed is legislation to pay a law to require phones to be unlocked once your contract has been sufficiently fulfilled. This would NOT require Apple to sell the iPhone on other carriers. This would NOT require Apple to keep adding HW to the iPhone to make usable on all networks. That would go against the free market.

PS: Note how this looming issue has only received attention because there is a handset people actually care about more than the carrier. We used to choose the carrier and then pick from their crappy phones, now we are wanting to pick the handset and then carrier. This paradigm shift may seem nominal but its as as important as Homo habilis opposable thumbs (hypebole); the carriers will be wireless ISPs. Theyll fight it, but its inevitable. The great thing is it doesnt matter how you feel about the iPhone or Apple, they paved the way and all cellphone users will benefit.

While one can craft an argument to support keeping phones locked while in contract, there is absolutely no justification, legal or otherwise, for doing so out of contract. Just because companies can do something doesn't mean they should be allowed to.

The whiners and cry babies here are the ones blathering about entitlement and other bullshit. AT&T and Apple will be forced to unlock iPhones as a result of this suit, and for those whining about lawyers, well, they wouldn't really have an opportunity to file these suits if companies always behaved honorably, would they?

I agree with everything youve said, except for the conclusion to this issue. I think this suit will have no direct effect, but well need a law regulating this, not the fear of a payout from civil lawsuit.

Contact your congressman today!

I agree we do need laws to directly address this. But, not everything not specifically prohibited by law is legal and not every thing not specifically allowed by law is illegal. The courts have consistently ruled against carriers on this issue, indicating that current law already forbids it, and that carriers who don't unlock are engaged in illegal business practices. But, yes, since carriers continue to act like this is a gray area, it should explicitly be made illegal, while at the same time they will likely come under increased regulation and legal restraint in other ways as a result of such legislation. They won't like it, but they'll have brought it on themselves.

If they were smart, they would simply announce a policy change now saying that they will begin to unlock out of contract (including ETF'd) phones, defusing the whole issue, which they will lose in court, and which they are wasting their money defending.

Best you get your facts straight. You can start here: SIM Lock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock

i totally agree here, the lawyers fighting this probably use Blackberrys anyways, and are just wanting cas, they couldnt give a shit if they get the phones unlocked. i dont care about my .75 cent share of the settlement. but i do think after my contract is over or terminated and bill has been paid i should be allowed to unlock my phone

As opposed to you- the badass individual consumer who had the legal resources all set to go and get justice for himself and all of his fellow iPhone users for free, in a way the lawyers couldn't- because you understand so much about the "system," right man?

Agree completely.

Apple can sell you an unsubsidized iPhone, but it's still locked to AT&T, you can't just take it over to T-Mobile, put their SIM in it, and use it on their 2g network, without jailbreaking and some other hoops.

Please refrain from throwing logic into an emotional argument!

Really? Care to tell us why that ETF magically disappears at the end of the contract (in actuality, a few months before)?

In all likelihood, the $175 (I think it's $275 now) is simply ATT's estimate of the average remaining full cost of the iPhone, derived based on the average number of months to expiration in a typical early contract cancellation. In other words, they may win or lose a little bit with individual contracts, but on average, they break even (given what they paid Apple up front).

"Long term value" implies profit during the life of the contract. That's really what matters (and that's the number that any half-way decent analyst would model in assessing ATT's worth).

In other words, the underlined portion is simply no implication that they lose money on iPhones. Indeed, ATT's sentence does not even suggest that -- it could just as well mean that their profit was lower than expected, that's all.

You need to read the my original post entirely. As I said, AT&T investment in the iPhone is long term. You didn't think when I said losing money that meant they are actually not getting return from iPhone users, did you?

So, those of us who are satisfied with our iPhone, and AT&T's service should do what, commit suicide? I signed a two year contract, and so far everyone has lived up to their end of the bargain.

Yes, I realize that the whiners won't like my comments. Poor babies!

Here in Australia all 5 carriers, to my knowledge, will unlock an iPhone at any time when requested.

I find it difficult to believe that AT&T don't know how to do it.