This is a stupid lawsuit and won't go very far. Companies have a legitimate right to choose the distribution method for their products. Toyota is free to sell their cars only through Toyota dealers. If I invent something new, I'm free to sell it only through Best Buy or Walmart or Billy Bob's Bait and Tackle if I wish.
Consumers do not have an absolute right to any product they wish to buy. They have a right to buy it under terms that the seller chooses to offer. Any other rule would be a disaster.
We really need 'loser pays' for lawsuits in this country.
True but most phones sold cheap with a two year contract can switch the sim card if the carrier uses jt or for example most phones would let me put my Wifes sim card in almost any phone. With apple you cannot. Plus the messaging plan cost AT&T nothing to use. It uses packets non active to send text yet they charge you. You have to get a data plan and unlike other countries you cannot tether for free. Notice Apple stock has been slipping. With all the iPhone 4 headaches and now this. Apple and especially AT&T could really be in a jam here. The data plan and packages are way to expensive. Maybe we will get a 50% reduced bill for several years.
You can find and download the software with just a quick google search-
I personally like AT&T and wasn't eligible for an early upgrade and purchased the iP4 for $599-I am pleased with my service and find the phone worth every penny. I will jailbreak it as soon as it is released so I can add features to the system-and get true multitasking back like the JB on my previous 3g and 3gs offered. Plus a lot more ease of use functionality still missing from the iOS. If I travel abroad - my JB iP as I understand will work my purchasing a sim card and putting it in-there is already a way to make the larger sims fit the smaller sim holder in the iP4 so many options are open if I want to switch to any SIM based cell service-there are a zillion (baseband downloads) in the Cydia (the JB app store) to install from all over the world to make the US iP operate and cooperate with service abroad-and before any body says JB is for pirated software - eff off - i have bought over 200 apps. And never pirated anything! Well yes I have installed a hacked iOS but its my phone.
sorry for the ramble-but this whole entire forum is a big nonissue! which = ramble....
-david
OT. If any of you have a jb phone and experience problems with google phone go to cyndia and get the update.
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.
But surely that is Apple's own choice to make?
If they want to limit their potential sales, at the expense of a more complete service (I.e T-Mobile US cannot use 3G), they should be well within their rights too.
Would I be prevented from manufacturing an FM radio that can on receive 95-99 MHz range? No I wouldn't.
Could law prevent me from doing so? No.
Would consumers necessarily buy it? No.
If I made it really shiny and desirable would people buy it, want it more? Yes.
The only problem I see here is the consumer wants something under terms which aren't being offered. At the end of the day, that's just tough shit!
But suppose Toyota said you could only use Toyota dealers for service or that when you went to sell your car you had to sell it through a Toyota dealer. They would be putting restrictions on something that you own outright. With the Iphone at the end of your contract you own it outright yet you can't do what you want. Apple can choose AT&T as its exclusive distributor and they can specify sales terms but once you own it it is yours.
They do put those kind of restrictions in place, at least if you want to retain the manufacturer warranty/guarantee or did that fact escape you.
This seems to be the case in the UK.
Not totally the same, but it is an artificial restriction that is allowed, by law.
Very true, and the one weak point in Apples defense, If I buy an iPhone, do my 2 year sentence with AT&T and decide to go out of the country with it. I should be able to us it on another GSM network.
You can, you're just restricted to GSM networks that At&T has partnered with. Or did that fact escape you?
... If you?ve read the rest of the thread I?ve stated several times that they need to pass a law to make it illegal to keep ANY phones locked on ANY carrier after your contract has been satisfied. In the end, that needs a bill to be made into a law, not a civil lawsuit.
As pointed out earlier, it's already illegal, even without a law that specifically addresses it. In cases like this in general, a civil suit is in some ways the more appropriate remedy -- Congress can't pass laws specifically stating exactly which actions are legal and illegal for all time, and those laws wouldn't be retroactive, so a civil suit is the only immediate way to seek redress. So even though I think wireless is an important enough industry that Congress ought to pass laws specifically creating unambiguous consumer protections and putting the carriers under stricter regulatory oversight than they currently are, a civil suit in this case to end this policy of not unlocking is absolutely necessary, because carriers are not following current law.
I think you are wrong on this... there are many men only, women only, Christian Only, etc. businesses in the US. They are private clubs on private property that only allow members and their guests... and at many a quick way to get your membership revoked is to bring a guest who could not be a member... as far as opening a business in a public place... please define public.... public as in government owned like a concession stand in a park or public as in privately owned but any one can go (like a shopping mall)... you would be correct that the concessioner would have to serve all, but I could open a health club in a mall on only allow men, or whites, or women, or african americans to join and be with in my rights as long as I receive no state or federal funding.
See also Country Clubs...
Private clubs have a lot of leeway in this regard (e.g., the country club that runs the Masters golf tournament does not admit women as members) that businesses that serve the public do not (e.g., Denny's suit for passively refusing to serve African American diners) .
I still don?t get why people are making this an Apple and AT&T issue. THE iPHONE IS NOT THE ONLY PHONE IN THE US THAT IS LOCKED OR REMAINS LOCKED AFTER YOUR CONTRACT IS UP.
It's not just an Apple and AT&T issue. But, iPhone users are a clearly identifiable, well defined class, and because it's an iPhone case, it will automatically become higher profile, which hopefully will prompt legislators to pass stronger consumer protection law in this area, as well as stronger law regulating wireless carriers.
(I imagine the only reason Apple won't unlock iPhones sold for use on AT&T is that their contract with AT&T says they can't.)
True but most phones sold cheap with a two year contract can switch the sim card if the carrier uses jt or for example most phones would let me put my Wifes sim card in almost any phone. With apple you cannot. Plus the messaging plan cost AT&T nothing to use. It uses packets non active to send text yet they charge you. You have to get a data plan and unlike other countries you cannot tether for free. Notice Apple stock has been slipping. With all the iPhone 4 headaches and now this. Apple and especially AT&T could really be in a jam here. The data plan and packages are way to expensive. Maybe we will get a 50% reduced bill for several years.
How old are you?
Your comments are way off base.
Carriers (remember there are only two in the US that can use SIM cards) for the most part don't allow you to insert a different SIM particularly in a phone that has been subsidized until you fulfill your contract. Note that Singapore is the only country in the world that has a law against SIM locking.
Once your contract is fulfilled, you can do anything you want to with your iPhone. You don't even have to get a data plan.
I don't know of any carrier that lets you tether for free. Certainly not with companies offering 'unlimited data plans'. Canada is typical, i.e., limited data plans: in which any data usage by tethering is charged against. European carriers only allow tethering in their limited data plans and/or with other restrictions. http://wiki.maemo.org/Data_plans
"Notice Apple stock has been slipping" Only in your mind.
From previous experience, it appears that one needs an unlock code specific to the phone, which the carrier obtains from the manufacturer. Also, the iPhone, when it is unlocked, seems to become so when connected to iTunes, indicating that the unlocking is done by Apple, on carrier request.
So, do you even read the articles you are commenting on? The link simply points to a news item which duplicates the content of the article associated with this thread. Maybe you should change your name to DuHarder.
Some carriers will or are obligated to unlock once you have fulfilled your contract. With the exception of Singapore, there are no laws forbidding locking SIMs.
Most carriers who will unlock your phone will do so providing you can prove that it is legally yours. This is easy if you bought the phone from them and/or you have proof that you are the titled owner?understandable.
Most carriers don't unilaterally unlock phones and many don't even want to. The liabilities are a concern. However there are sources mentioned earlier that will show/tell you how to do it, some for a fee, or sell the necessary software to do-it-youselves.
One thing for sure, virtually every appliance, software, hardware, vehicle, electronic apparatus, etc., and even Conditions of Employment come with Terms and Conditions of Sale, Rental, Lease or Employment. You decide to alter the product, terms or conditions during the period in agreement in any manner and the consequences are yours to deal with.
You decide to alter the product once the period of agreement is passed, is your prerogative. The consequences of such are between you and to whom you may have to answer, or anyone that assists you in the process.
"The GSMA today announced that Dick Lynch, EVP and CTO of Verizon, a leading telecommunications operator in the U.S., has been appointed to the GSMA's Board. Lynch's appointment follows Verizon gaining full membership to the GSMA as a result of its commitment to deploy commercial services based on Long-Term Evolution (LTE), the next-generation technology for Mobile Broadband and part of the GSM family of technologies, in 2010."
This really isn't a big deal. Verizon has been planning on switching to LTE for sometime. It's supposedly supposed to start rolling out late 2010-Early 2011. Lets see if they are better at rolling out new technology than AT&T is at upgrading EXISTING...
Once you have completed your contract you should be able to use the phone on another network that is compatible.
Why? You knew the deal when you chose the iPhone.
Why should Apple be forced to change their phone? So you can stop doing business with an important partner of theirs? How does that make money for Apple?
That's a bad example. What if Toyota made the car to use a special gasoline from only one gas station?While everyone else is going to whatever gas station they wanted to with their cars.
Toyota could improve the user experience if they did that. How many times do customers clog up service lines and service facilities complaining about Toyota products, when the real answer is bad gas?
If Apple owned Toyota, they would be certain that customers couldn't do anything that would ruin the UX. No third-party fluids. No third-party parts. And the cars would be insanely great.
Come again? How can something be “against the law" if there is no law?
I didn't say there was no law. What I said was that just because there is no law that specifically says, verbatim, "Carriers must unlock phones once the contract is fulfilled," doesn't mean that not unlocking them doesn't violate some principal of law encoded in a more general statute, or even common law.
The courts would seem to agree that carriers cannot legally not unlock phones, even though there is no law that specifically addresses this, as every decision in every suit (that I've heard about) over phone unlocking has gone against the carriers.
I didn't say there was no law. What I said was that just because there is no law that specifically says, verbatim, "Carriers must unlock phones once the contract is fulfilled," doesn't mean that not unlocking them doesn't violate some principal of law encoded in a more general statute, or even common law.
The courts would seem to agree that carriers cannot legally not unlock phones, even though there is no law that specifically addresses this, as every decision in every suit over phone unlocking has gone against the carriers.
Okay, now I see what you are saying. Yes, I concur, good point.
Comments
This is a stupid lawsuit and won't go very far. Companies have a legitimate right to choose the distribution method for their products. Toyota is free to sell their cars only through Toyota dealers. If I invent something new, I'm free to sell it only through Best Buy or Walmart or Billy Bob's Bait and Tackle if I wish.
Consumers do not have an absolute right to any product they wish to buy. They have a right to buy it under terms that the seller chooses to offer. Any other rule would be a disaster.
We really need 'loser pays' for lawsuits in this country.
True but most phones sold cheap with a two year contract can switch the sim card if the carrier uses jt or for example most phones would let me put my Wifes sim card in almost any phone. With apple you cannot. Plus the messaging plan cost AT&T nothing to use. It uses packets non active to send text yet they charge you. You have to get a data plan and unlike other countries you cannot tether for free. Notice Apple stock has been slipping. With all the iPhone 4 headaches and now this. Apple and especially AT&T could really be in a jam here. The data plan and packages are way to expensive. Maybe we will get a 50% reduced bill for several years.
Uh-hello-
They probably jailbreak it!
You can find and download the software with just a quick google search-
I personally like AT&T and wasn't eligible for an early upgrade and purchased the iP4 for $599-I am pleased with my service and find the phone worth every penny. I will jailbreak it as soon as it is released so I can add features to the system-and get true multitasking back like the JB on my previous 3g and 3gs offered. Plus a lot more ease of use functionality still missing from the iOS. If I travel abroad - my JB iP as I understand will work my purchasing a sim card and putting it in-there is already a way to make the larger sims fit the smaller sim holder in the iP4 so many options are open if I want to switch to any SIM based cell service-there are a zillion (baseband downloads) in the Cydia (the JB app store) to install from all over the world to make the US iP operate and cooperate with service abroad-and before any body says JB is for pirated software - eff off - i have bought over 200 apps. And never pirated anything! Well yes I have installed a hacked iOS but its my phone.
sorry for the ramble-but this whole entire forum is a big nonissue! which = ramble....
-david
OT. If any of you have a jb phone and experience problems with google phone go to cyndia and get the update.
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.
But surely that is Apple's own choice to make?
If they want to limit their potential sales, at the expense of a more complete service (I.e T-Mobile US cannot use 3G), they should be well within their rights too.
Would I be prevented from manufacturing an FM radio that can on receive 95-99 MHz range? No I wouldn't.
Could law prevent me from doing so? No.
Would consumers necessarily buy it? No.
If I made it really shiny and desirable would people buy it, want it more? Yes.
The only problem I see here is the consumer wants something under terms which aren't being offered. At the end of the day, that's just tough shit!
But suppose Toyota said you could only use Toyota dealers for service or that when you went to sell your car you had to sell it through a Toyota dealer. They would be putting restrictions on something that you own outright. With the Iphone at the end of your contract you own it outright yet you can't do what you want. Apple can choose AT&T as its exclusive distributor and they can specify sales terms but once you own it it is yours.
They do put those kind of restrictions in place, at least if you want to retain the manufacturer warranty/guarantee or did that fact escape you.
This seems to be the case in the UK.
Not totally the same, but it is an artificial restriction that is allowed, by law.
Very true, and the one weak point in Apples defense, If I buy an iPhone, do my 2 year sentence with AT&T and decide to go out of the country with it. I should be able to us it on another GSM network.
You can, you're just restricted to GSM networks that At&T has partnered with. Or did that fact escape you?
... If you?ve read the rest of the thread I?ve stated several times that they need to pass a law to make it illegal to keep ANY phones locked on ANY carrier after your contract has been satisfied. In the end, that needs a bill to be made into a law, not a civil lawsuit.
As pointed out earlier, it's already illegal, even without a law that specifically addresses it. In cases like this in general, a civil suit is in some ways the more appropriate remedy -- Congress can't pass laws specifically stating exactly which actions are legal and illegal for all time, and those laws wouldn't be retroactive, so a civil suit is the only immediate way to seek redress. So even though I think wireless is an important enough industry that Congress ought to pass laws specifically creating unambiguous consumer protections and putting the carriers under stricter regulatory oversight than they currently are, a civil suit in this case to end this policy of not unlocking is absolutely necessary, because carriers are not following current law.
I think you are wrong on this... there are many men only, women only, Christian Only, etc. businesses in the US. They are private clubs on private property that only allow members and their guests... and at many a quick way to get your membership revoked is to bring a guest who could not be a member... as far as opening a business in a public place... please define public.... public as in government owned like a concession stand in a park or public as in privately owned but any one can go (like a shopping mall)... you would be correct that the concessioner would have to serve all, but I could open a health club in a mall on only allow men, or whites, or women, or african americans to join and be with in my rights as long as I receive no state or federal funding.
See also Country Clubs...
Private clubs have a lot of leeway in this regard (e.g., the country club that runs the Masters golf tournament does not admit women as members) that businesses that serve the public do not (e.g., Denny's suit for passively refusing to serve African American diners) .
I still don?t get why people are making this an Apple and AT&T issue. THE iPHONE IS NOT THE ONLY PHONE IN THE US THAT IS LOCKED OR REMAINS LOCKED AFTER YOUR CONTRACT IS UP.
It's not just an Apple and AT&T issue. But, iPhone users are a clearly identifiable, well defined class, and because it's an iPhone case, it will automatically become higher profile, which hopefully will prompt legislators to pass stronger consumer protection law in this area, as well as stronger law regulating wireless carriers.
(I imagine the only reason Apple won't unlock iPhones sold for use on AT&T is that their contract with AT&T says they can't.)
True but most phones sold cheap with a two year contract can switch the sim card if the carrier uses jt or for example most phones would let me put my Wifes sim card in almost any phone. With apple you cannot. Plus the messaging plan cost AT&T nothing to use. It uses packets non active to send text yet they charge you. You have to get a data plan and unlike other countries you cannot tether for free. Notice Apple stock has been slipping. With all the iPhone 4 headaches and now this. Apple and especially AT&T could really be in a jam here. The data plan and packages are way to expensive. Maybe we will get a 50% reduced bill for several years.
How old are you?
Your comments are way off base.
Carriers (remember there are only two in the US that can use SIM cards) for the most part don't allow you to insert a different SIM particularly in a phone that has been subsidized until you fulfill your contract. Note that Singapore is the only country in the world that has a law against SIM locking.
Once your contract is fulfilled, you can do anything you want to with your iPhone. You don't even have to get a data plan.
I don't know of any carrier that lets you tether for free. Certainly not with companies offering 'unlimited data plans'. Canada is typical, i.e., limited data plans: in which any data usage by tethering is charged against. European carriers only allow tethering in their limited data plans and/or with other restrictions. http://wiki.maemo.org/Data_plans
"Notice Apple stock has been slipping" Only in your mind.
(I imagine the only reason Apple won't unlock iPhones sold for use on AT&T is that their contract with AT&T says they can't.)
is it not the carrier that does the unlocking?
is it not the carrier that does the unlocking?
From previous experience, it appears that one needs an unlock code specific to the phone, which the carrier obtains from the manufacturer. Also, the iPhone, when it is unlocked, seems to become so when connected to iTunes, indicating that the unlocking is done by Apple, on carrier request.
As pointed out earlier, it's already illegal, even without a law that specifically addresses it.
Come again? How can something be ?against the law" if there is no law?
So Shall It Be Done... http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...rZx7AD9GT46I00
So, do you even read the articles you are commenting on? The link simply points to a news item which duplicates the content of the article associated with this thread. Maybe you should change your name to DuHarder.
is it not the carrier that does the unlocking?
Some carriers will or are obligated to unlock once you have fulfilled your contract. With the exception of Singapore, there are no laws forbidding locking SIMs.
Most carriers who will unlock your phone will do so providing you can prove that it is legally yours. This is easy if you bought the phone from them and/or you have proof that you are the titled owner?understandable.
Most carriers don't unilaterally unlock phones and many don't even want to. The liabilities are a concern. However there are sources mentioned earlier that will show/tell you how to do it, some for a fee, or sell the necessary software to do-it-youselves.
One thing for sure, virtually every appliance, software, hardware, vehicle, electronic apparatus, etc., and even Conditions of Employment come with Terms and Conditions of Sale, Rental, Lease or Employment. You decide to alter the product, terms or conditions during the period in agreement in any manner and the consequences are yours to deal with.
You decide to alter the product once the period of agreement is passed, is your prerogative. The consequences of such are between you and to whom you may have to answer, or anyone that assists you in the process.
It may be about to change though as Verizon have today hopped on the GSM train:
http://www.gsmworld.com/newsroom/pre.../2010/5105.htm
"The GSMA today announced that Dick Lynch, EVP and CTO of Verizon, a leading telecommunications operator in the U.S., has been appointed to the GSMA's Board. Lynch's appointment follows Verizon gaining full membership to the GSMA as a result of its commitment to deploy commercial services based on Long-Term Evolution (LTE), the next-generation technology for Mobile Broadband and part of the GSM family of technologies, in 2010."
This really isn't a big deal. Verizon has been planning on switching to LTE for sometime. It's supposedly supposed to start rolling out late 2010-Early 2011. Lets see if they are better at rolling out new technology than AT&T is at upgrading EXISTING...
Once you have completed your contract you should be able to use the phone on another network that is compatible.
Why? You knew the deal when you chose the iPhone.
Why should Apple be forced to change their phone? So you can stop doing business with an important partner of theirs? How does that make money for Apple?
That's a bad example. What if Toyota made the car to use a special gasoline from only one gas station?While everyone else is going to whatever gas station they wanted to with their cars.
Toyota could improve the user experience if they did that. How many times do customers clog up service lines and service facilities complaining about Toyota products, when the real answer is bad gas?
If Apple owned Toyota, they would be certain that customers couldn't do anything that would ruin the UX. No third-party fluids. No third-party parts. And the cars would be insanely great.
Come again? How can something be “against the law" if there is no law?
I didn't say there was no law. What I said was that just because there is no law that specifically says, verbatim, "Carriers must unlock phones once the contract is fulfilled," doesn't mean that not unlocking them doesn't violate some principal of law encoded in a more general statute, or even common law.
The courts would seem to agree that carriers cannot legally not unlock phones, even though there is no law that specifically addresses this, as every decision in every suit (that I've heard about) over phone unlocking has gone against the carriers.
I didn't say there was no law. What I said was that just because there is no law that specifically says, verbatim, "Carriers must unlock phones once the contract is fulfilled," doesn't mean that not unlocking them doesn't violate some principal of law encoded in a more general statute, or even common law.
The courts would seem to agree that carriers cannot legally not unlock phones, even though there is no law that specifically addresses this, as every decision in every suit over phone unlocking has gone against the carriers.
Okay, now I see what you are saying. Yes, I concur, good point.