The valid part of the lawsuit is their refusal to unlock the device you paid for after you have satisfied your contract terms. They can force you to sign up with ATT in order to buy a new subsidized phone, but to force you to stay on ATT after your contract is up, or have your $600+ device rendered useless is pure BS. I don't want money from Apple or ATT, I want my phones all unlocked. Of course "our" lawyers will never accept that. They will go for a cash settlement so they can steal 60% of it and then send me a $3 coupon.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please post that portion of your contract that binds AT&T into unlocking your iPhone, at ANY point in time.
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.
We?ve 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 don?t 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 it?s as as important as Homo habilis? opposable thumbs (hypebole); the carriers will be wireless ISPs. They?ll fight it, but it?s inevitable. The great thing is it doesn?t matter how you feel about the iPhone or Apple, they paved the way and all cellphone users will benefit.
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."
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?
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 you?ve said, except for the conclusion to this issue. I think this suit will have no direct effect, but we?ll need a law regulating this, not the fear of a payout from civil lawsuit.
I agree with everything you’ve said, except for the conclusion to this issue. I think this suit will have no direct effect, but we’ll 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.
The valid part of the lawsuit is their refusal to unlock the device you paid for after you have satisfied your contract terms. They can force you to sign up with ATT in order to buy a new subsidized phone, but to force you to stay on ATT after your contract is up, or have your $600+ device rendered useless is pure BS. I don't want money from Apple or ATT, I want my phones all unlocked. Of course "our" lawyers will never accept that. They will go for a cash settlement so they can steal 60% of it and then send me a $3 coupon.
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
They will go for a cash settlement so they can steal 60% of it and then send me a $3 coupon.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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).
"AT&T said Wednesday that third quarter sales were boosted by a larger than expected number of iPhone 3G activations, resulting in long-term value at the expense of near-term profits."
"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.
"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?
Anyone who ever bought an iPhone on AT&T is now part of a class-action lawsuit taking aim at both the wireless carrier and Apple for their exclusive contract.
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!
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.
More & more people (children or adolescents perhaps?) feel that anything available to the public should be available on their terms. Narcissism is rampant indeed. If only we had "loser pays" frivolous lawsuits might end.
Comments
I think you'll see an out of court settlement to keep the bigger question of why I can't buy any phone I want and use it anywhere I can.
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.
The valid part of the lawsuit is their refusal to unlock the device you paid for after you have satisfied your contract terms. They can force you to sign up with ATT in order to buy a new subsidized phone, but to force you to stay on ATT after your contract is up, or have your $600+ device rendered useless is pure BS. I don't want money from Apple or ATT, I want my phones all unlocked. Of course "our" lawyers will never accept that. They will go for a cash settlement so they can steal 60% of it and then send me a $3 coupon.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please post that portion of your contract that binds AT&T into unlocking your iPhone, at ANY point in time.
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.
We?ve 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 don?t 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 it?s as as important as Homo habilis? opposable thumbs (hypebole); the carriers will be wireless ISPs. They?ll fight it, but it?s inevitable. The great thing is it doesn?t matter how you feel about the iPhone or Apple, they paved the way and all cellphone users will benefit.
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."
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?
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 you?ve said, except for the conclusion to this issue. I think this suit will have no direct effect, but we?ll need a law regulating this, not the fear of a payout from civil lawsuit.
Contact your congressman today!
I agree with everything you’ve said, except for the conclusion to this issue. I think this suit will have no direct effect, but we’ll 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.
I know that iPhone customers in Europe are able to get their iPhones unlocked after the terms of their contracts are fulfilled,
Best you get your facts straight. You can start here: SIM Lock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock
The valid part of the lawsuit is their refusal to unlock the device you paid for after you have satisfied your contract terms. They can force you to sign up with ATT in order to buy a new subsidized phone, but to force you to stay on ATT after your contract is up, or have your $600+ device rendered useless is pure BS. I don't want money from Apple or ATT, I want my phones all unlocked. Of course "our" lawyers will never accept that. They will go for a cash settlement so they can steal 60% of it and then send me a $3 coupon.
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
They will go for a cash settlement so they can steal 60% of it and then send me a $3 coupon.
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?
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.
Agree completely.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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).
Here:
"AT&T said Wednesday that third quarter sales were boosted by a larger than expected number of iPhone 3G activations, resulting in long-term value at the expense of near-term profits."
"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.
"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?
Anyone who ever bought an iPhone on AT&T is now part of a class-action lawsuit taking aim at both the wireless carrier and Apple for their exclusive contract.
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!
I find it difficult to believe that AT&T don't know how to do it.
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.
More & more people (children or adolescents perhaps?) feel that anything available to the public should be available on their terms. Narcissism is rampant indeed. If only we had "loser pays" frivolous lawsuits might end.