Apple faces new class-action suit over locked iPhones - Page 2

Wi-Fi Airtime is FREE! Mr. Kliegerman probably checked his email and web sites on a CELL network and was charged international airtime minutes.

I believe, after signing up for a Wi-Fi site, wherever, for a specified amount of time, there is no additional charge.

On the face of it, this looks like Mr. Kliegerman is blaming some else for his actions.

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.

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)!

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.

May I borrow 15.7 billion dollars?

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?

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.

private

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Airuser.

Read the contract.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

Thing is, he admits he knew this. So he could have asked for the code ahead of time, and found out there was no code. Did he do this? Noooo. So he knew he would be paying roaming charges (according to the contract) which he should have read.

The only small hitch I see here, may be the fact, that you and a couple others mentioned, that the Apple iPhone cannot be stopped from checking the network for mail, etc. But again, Apple does state you will pay roaming charges ("International Roaming: Substantial charges may be incurred if phone is taken out of the U.S. even if no services are intentionally used.") and it does state "even if no services are intentionally used", which Apple could say covers this.

"hotter than it should have been" - according to who???? Starbucks currently sells coffee hotter than mcdonalds, home coffee machines can make coffee hotter than 'it should have been'. Its about personal responsibility as a consumer. It is a perfect example of how Americans would rather sue than actually take the responsibility for their actions.

If I am going to travel internationally with an iPhone, heck, even out of state, I am going to check my coverage, and see what additional roaming charges I may incur - IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY as a consumer.

So, you're saying that it's impossible for coffee to be served too hot to a consumer?

About the iPhone. Was not its use supposed to be only for USA.

Airuser

what are you saying? that the iPhone should be available on EVERY cellular network.

"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."

Yeah, I bought the iPhone to use on my Verizon plan. They did not disclose to me the type of network I have to use. I am now going to sue.

Yes it would. Less money for Apple long term especially if they intro cheaper phones....

Apple has a revenue sharing agreement with ATT. They get part of the monthly fee ATT charges to use the phone. This is why no other carrier would go with them and it is an industry first.

Injured in this use is a legal term. It doesn't necessarily mean "hurt" in the way we consider it. This make sense if you consider the etymology of the word. the "jure" is much like "jury" and many other j and i words and terms related to the legal field.

I think he was pointing out that your dissertation on coffee hotness was ridiculous

Then you go ahead and top it with the Verizon analogy

Well, the guy is correct, there really was probably no way to easily know that AT&T would treat international roaming differently than every other phone they sell. You could probably even ask some of their sales people today and they wouldn't have a clue. In fact when the iPhone came out, I remember people discussing here that they should be able to do this. So, he is probably due some kind of refund (allthough, not looking into international roaming charges before a trip is not an excuse).

But, if the guy wants to sue Apple to force them to sell unlocked phones ... well, there's nothing in US law to force them to do that. He needs to move to Europe or elsewhere where governments actually make laws to encourage competition and protect consumers rather than pander to big business.

You can change things. Vote with your wallet. That's how capitalism works, not mucking around with lawyers and crap like that, suing because you're an irresponsible pinhead who didn't even read the contract you signed.

i guess it would be inevitable that someone would sue over international charges. If ATT would give it to you out of their own accord just bring in a lawyer to do. According to my manager, when cingular was the only company with the razr they would not give out the unlock for them at the time, so precedent is on their side. If he did call in before going to Mexico, he would have known that he couldn't use a foreign, why did he use the data part of the phone. Oh well ATT will probably settle with the guy and credit his account for the overages to save the bad press.

interesting article here:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireles...d_N.htm?csp=34

Perhaps unlocking will happen eventually anyway.

Seems like this guy just wants to get out of paying his bill, but maybe he'll end up with an extra fee for the lawyers as well after he loses.

Attorneys usually work on contingency in these types of cases. Dare I say, the attorney may even have been a persuasive influence in the decision to file a suit in the first place.

But on the other hand how would you feel if simply by leaving your cell phone on, you were unknowingly accessing data over Edge and ended up with an unexpected $2,000 invoice? Not too happy I'm assuming.

m

Amen!

what's ridiculous are these lawsuits - whether its coffeee or the iPhone.

Educate yourself, don't be stupid to put hot coffee between your legs, don't buy the iPhone if you don't want AT&T, don't sue a company because YOU made an assumption on roaming charges. No company OWES you an iPhone. Nobody owes you a phone to use with any network you want. Nobody owes you international unlimited airtime just because you THOUGHT you were getting it.

You are correct, about nobody owing anything, but still iPhone is sold as a GSM phone, and GSM phones were designed, with removable and changeable SIM cards on purpose.