A US federal judge has shut down some attempts by Apple and AT&T to dismiss a class action lawsuit that accuses the two of violating antitrust law with their iPhone exclusivity agreement, pushing the complaint closer to a possible trial.
Northern California District Judge James Ware said in his 31-page decision that both Apple and AT&T are still potentially liable for violating state rules meant to preserve fair competition as well as claims that Apple alone was responsible for violating federal and California laws for abuse, computer trespass, and fraud.
However, it also grants dismissals to some claims of "unfair and deceptive" practices in jurisdictions outside of the states of California, New York and Washington, where Apple and the two original plaintiffs reside.
I second the judge's ruling. All matters must be examined in open Court, after a full discovery process to reveal the terms of the exclusive agreement between Apple and ATT.
As the judge doesn't recognize jurisdiction outside the State of residence of the two plaintiffs, either new plaintiffs are added in every U.S. jurisdiction where the original iPhone was sold and the new 3G iPhone is sold, or new plaintiffs file a complaint in their State of residence.
At issue is the question of whether Apple and ATT are above the law, which I believe they are not, especially the Sherman Act which prohibits tied sales of an object, the iPhone, and a service, ATT cell phone service, and various provisions of the law preventing fraud on consumers for undisclosed terms in contracts and, more generally, the provisions of various State consumer protection laws.
Monopolies and monopolistic behaviors such as exclusivity agreements will be broken by Courts because they serve only the interests of parties to monopolistic agreements, not members of the general public, and have the effect of raising and maintaining high prices for consumers.
Competition is good for consumers because it lowers the prices and increases the quality of goods and services.
Competition is good for Apple in the long term. Should the present course of anti-competitive behaviour initiated by Steve Jobs be maintained by Courts, and backdated illegal stock options of more than a billion dollars not be challenged by Courts, Apple will go out of business within 10 years.
Android phones, Linux and Windows computers are competing for consumer and business dollars. If Steve Jobs can be deluded in believing that he is above the law and that Apple can survive with high prices to pay for unreasonable executive compensation as if Apple was Steve Jobs' personal piggy bank, it is the Courts role to challenge monopolies and enforce laws that benefit consumers in the long run through innovation and lower prices.
I've read the complaint in this case. It says that the US government has issued a ruling that says consumers have an absolute right to switch their cell phone carriers at any time. There is a statute called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the carriers were trying legally to use this statute to lock ther phones for several years. But in December 2006 the Register of Copyrights ruled that the carriers could not do so. It ruled that people have the right to unlocked phones and that unlocking phones does not violate the carriers (or in this case Apple's) copyright in the operating software. Apple and AT&T entered their exclusive contract for the iPhone one month later. According to the complaint they were deliberately trying to prevent iPhone users from unlocking their phones even though the government had just ruled they could.
Accepting what you have said above, I wonder what is the normal, legal route to getting a phone unlocked. A imagine a consumer would contact AT&T and request that their phone be unlocked.
The procedure would not normally be that users would exploit security flaws to hack their phone systems. I am not disagreeing with what you have said at all - that all makes sense - I am speculating that Apple's continuous attempts to secure their system from system hacking does not interfere with US citizen's rights to an unlocked phone.
I've read the complaint in this case. It says that the US government has issued a ruling that says consumers have an absolute right to switch their cell phone carriers at any time. There is a statute called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the carriers were trying legally to use this statute to lock ther phones for several years. But in December 2006 the Register of Copyrights ruled that the carriers could not do so. It ruled that people have the right to unlocked phones and that unlocking phones does not violate the carriers (or in this case Apple's) copyright in the operating software. Apple and AT&T entered their exclusive contract for the iPhone one month later. According to the complaint they were deliberately trying to prevent iPhone users from unlocking their phones even though the government had just ruled they could.
Sure they have the right, as long as they are subsidizing the phone for you they have every right to protect their investment, but your also right, the first iphone was not subsidy by AT&T and users did pay full price and it was still Locked down to only AT&T, am pretty sure they broke some laws when they did that
It ruled that people have the right to unlocked phones and that unlocking phones does not violate the carriers (or in this case Apple's) copyright in the operating software.
YOU have a right to unlock your own equipment for personal and private use. YOU do not have a right to unlock phones and then resell them, nor does is Apple or AT&T required to supply the unlock for you.
While I would love for the laws in the US to require carriers to unlock phones once the device is out of contract, it is not the law. This requires lobbying, not the suing of a specific company when the issue lays among the entire industry and requires a much more intelligent, non-greedy act to get to the root of the problem.
Sure they have the right, as long as they are subsidizing the phone for you they have every right to protect their investment, but your also right, the first iphone was not subsidy by AT&T and users did pay full price and it was still Locked down to only AT&T, am pretty sure they broke some laws when they did that
Thank you for making that point! I'm tired of everyone thinking Apple and AT&T are guiltless (read business as usual here). My first gen iPhone was bought at full price, and the contract ended legally (paid the early termination fee), my iPhone is my phone not AT&T's or even Apples. Why then can't my phone be unlocked by Apple or AT&T? I hate using the pwnage tool every time an update comes out. I'm wasting a lot of time chasing these updates or worse concerned what they might break in the form of functionality. It's just one more thing to blame when troubleshooting things that just don't work quite right.
The point is that this argument that we all signed a contract is moot once that contract has been terminated (by duration or penalty, it makes no difference).
And for the record the iPhone works just fine on other Carriers besides AT&T and T-Mobile (small regional providers like I found in Alaska for instance).
I'm tired of everyone thinking Apple and AT&T are guiltless (read business as usual here).
I'm not sure what you mean by 'guilt' here. Do you mean some ethical application should make a for profit companies unlock their phones despite the rules in the US not stipulating that it's required post-contract? The rules should be changed, IMO, but pointing a finger at Apple and AT&T is attacking the situation back-asswards.
YOU have a right to unlock your own equipment for personal and private use. YOU do not have a right to unlock phones and then resell them, nor does is Apple or AT&T required to supply the unlock for you.
While I would love for the laws in the US to require carriers to unlock phones once the device is out of contract, it is not the law. This requires lobbying, not the suing of a specific company when the issue lays among the entire industry and requires a much more intelligent, non-greedy act to get to the root of the problem.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'guilt' here. Do you mean some ethical application should make a for profit companies unlock their phones despite the rules in the US not stipulating that it's required post-contract? The rules should be changed, IMO, but pointing a finger at Apple and AT&T is attacking the situation back-asswards.
No, I didn't mean that ethically, nor did I imply it. I meant it in the same sense that the current suit against them does.
That would be very cool indeed, but the quoted text below I don't understand. Are the lower courts actually stating that the carriers paying $200 for the cost of the handset for the consumer, in no way grants them the right to provide a contractual obligation?
"The phone carriers urged the justices to require that their customers honor the contracts they had signed. The lower courts had declared those contracts "unconscionable.""
No, I didn't mean that ethically, nor did I imply it. I meant it in the same sense that the current suit against them does.
So you are saying that it is illegal for a carrier to lock a phone to their network. How is it that you have mentioned no other carrier or manufacturer as also breaking such a law? Exactly what law has been broken?
So all you people in the previous messages find it perfectly normal that after two years once the subsidy had been paid back to AT&T through the subscription fee, the owner should continue to have a locked phone that he can use nowhere else.
Let's say I move to another country, I am going to have to buy a new iphone because I wont be able to connect my iphone to any other network. Even if I stay in the United States, how can you be sure that in two years there won't be other GSM networks apart from T-Mobile that could potentially work with my iphone.
After two years, my iphone has been fully paid, everybody made a well deserved profit (Apple, AT@T), that should be enough... In other countries there is a limit of 6 months after which the operator has to give you an unlocking code, it does not mean that after that time all users rush to the store to get it unlocked, so why is Apple and/or AT&T not doing this after 2 years !
So you are saying that it is illegal for a carrier to lock a phone to their network. How is it that you have mentioned no other carrier or manufacturer as also breaking such a law? Exactly what law has been broken?
Like most things in the court system once "president" has been established the rest must conform or meet similar penalties.
Like most things in the court system once "president" has been established the rest must conform or meet similar penalties.
Which is why going after the companies to do something they are not required to do by law is pointless. Especially when all that money spent on lawyers could be spent on obbying for the much needed change in the laws governing unlocking of phones in the US.
Which is why going after the companies to do something they are not required to do by law is pointless. Especially when all that money spent on lawyers could be spent on obbying for the much needed change in the laws governing unlocking of phones in the US.
Yes, getting good laws passed that advocate for the consumer is admirable. However, and I don't want the following to be taken as an attack on Apple (just view it as macro statement). The enemy of your enemy, is your friend. These lawyers and this suit will provide a little relief till what you propose is established. Until then, I'm just happy that something is happening.
These lawyers and this suit will provide a little relief till what you propose is established.
In what way do you think there will be relief? Do you think a court is going to say that iPhone should be unlocked while no other phone in the US is required to do so? The only thing BS lawsuits do is jack up the prices the consumer has to pay.
Amen with the ruling. Apple sold its soul when they hooked up with AT&T. It's the worstdecision that Apple has ever made. I am a total Apple kool-aide consumer with the exception of this disaster. We ahve our house running with 4 Apple systems, this is not from a person who has an axe to grind with Apple but one who does have an axe to grind with AT&T's predatory practices. I have been the recipient of those practices and will do whatever I can to diss AT&T. Each time that I use my iphone I am reminded that Apple has sold their soul to a piece of, well, you get the idea, Steve needs to rethink this decision. A very happy consumer with Apple products, A very, very, very disgruntled Apple customer having to use AT&T to make a simple phone call. I wish I could be more negative but I would embarrass my mother.
So all you people in the previous messages find it perfectly normal that after two years once the subsidy had been paid back to AT&T through the subscription fee, the owner should continue to have a locked phone that he can use nowhere else.
Let's say I move to another country, I am going to have to buy a new iphone because I wont be able to connect my iphone to any other network. Even if I stay in the United States, how can you be sure that in two years there won't be other GSM networks apart from T-Mobile that could potentially work with my iphone.
After two years, my iphone has been fully paid, everybody made a well deserved profit (Apple, AT@T), that should be enough... In other countries there is a limit of 6 months after which the operator has to give you an unlocking code, it does not mean that after that time all users rush to the store to get it unlocked, so why is Apple and/or AT&T not doing this after 2 years !
I've been with Verizon since 2002. It's not because I have the smartphone of my dreams and am forced to be there or love the service. The smartphones offered don't impress me. I want to develop and leverage the iPhone and OS X across networks. I could f'n careless about Windows Mobile or Hemorrhoid, especially developing on them.
It's a f'n phone I use. I'm not under contract restrictions, but I'm not interested in switching because I am not impressed with the entire Telco plans. The Apple plan from AT&T doesn't impress me, either. I'll wait and focus my talents elsewhere.
I'm willing to wait and later use the iPhone.
What I will not do is re-commit to Verizon. They've bugged the crap out of me for 4 f'n years and the most they've been willing to offer is 50 minutes more for more money.
F'em. I use the phone as little as possible.
Would the iPhone being offered by Verizon or T-Mobile [I'd rather die in a spike than use their service] or Sprint/Nextel change my mind?
Not if they don't make their minutes, bandwidth/month and more better.
We used to mock people as little girls when they gabbed on the phone for hours growing up in the 70s and 80s. Now every little prick is a b**** and makes those girls seem reasonable.
Keep pissin' your money down the drain to chat as my stock thanks you for it, but get a life. Give me back my causeways with drivers who don't ramble on the phone to suzy while changing lanes without signaling.
This restriction blame on Apple is a load of crap. Apple would love to sell it's phone, as-is, on other networks. Verizon, Sprint, US T-Mobile want to determine what as-is is and they lost out to AT&T.
Someone explain to me how my non-iPhone continues to be useful without my Verizon SIM card? It's tied to the Telco and that is how the Higher Courts will rule--in favor of Apple.
Quote:
The judge also heads off a motion by Apple to dismiss the case based on the company's recent addition of support for third-party apps in iPhone firmware 2.0. The real issue is an allegation that Apple knowingly limiting access to certain functions where it has a "financial interest," the ruling explains.
Other sections of the document also note that the claims fraud and trespass, both of which would have occurred by ruining modified iPhones, aren't necessarily invalidated by Apple's advance warning of possible damage to hacked phones by applying 1.1.1 or even the need to willfully download and install the update. Customers were reportedly never told at the beginning that potentially damaging updates could come in the future.
This is an absolute joke! Every f'n Telco cripples their phones developed by third parties. Come on Judge. Go after the entire Telecommunications Industry. Apple will walk out of this smiling and possibly holding the Telcos accountable for being unable to cripple systems as part of the rights to use their backbone.
Telcos can't cripple servers and home computer systems while running on their backbones. What the hell allows them to do so in the Wireless Phone Markets?
In what way do you think there will be relief? Do you think a court is going to say that iPhone should be unlocked while no other phone in the US is required to do so? The only thing BS lawsuits do is jack up the prices the consumer has to pay.
I think you're looking at this as a personal assault on Apple. I'm not, this effects or will effect the whole industry. Its a cause celeb, or at least I hope it becomes one. The iPhone has a lot of eyes on it and that makes it a prime candidate for this type of suit. It could just have easily been some other "brand" and I'd feel the same way. My personal issues are with the Telco industry, not Apple. Apple wanted certain controls and other stipulations, AT&T conceded, that still doesn't give AT&T the right to hold my phone hostage after the contract has ended.
You don't sign a contract with Apple, the contract is with AT&T and therefore my beef is with AT&T. If this story was about RIM everybody would be happy about these developments. But because it's Apple, suddenly its bad or questionable, that's what's frustrating to me.
Comments
A US federal judge has shut down some attempts by Apple and AT&T to dismiss a class action lawsuit that accuses the two of violating antitrust law with their iPhone exclusivity agreement, pushing the complaint closer to a possible trial.
Northern California District Judge James Ware said in his 31-page decision that both Apple and AT&T are still potentially liable for violating state rules meant to preserve fair competition as well as claims that Apple alone was responsible for violating federal and California laws for abuse, computer trespass, and fraud.
However, it also grants dismissals to some claims of "unfair and deceptive" practices in jurisdictions outside of the states of California, New York and Washington, where Apple and the two original plaintiffs reside.
I second the judge's ruling. All matters must be examined in open Court, after a full discovery process to reveal the terms of the exclusive agreement between Apple and ATT.
As the judge doesn't recognize jurisdiction outside the State of residence of the two plaintiffs, either new plaintiffs are added in every U.S. jurisdiction where the original iPhone was sold and the new 3G iPhone is sold, or new plaintiffs file a complaint in their State of residence.
At issue is the question of whether Apple and ATT are above the law, which I believe they are not, especially the Sherman Act which prohibits tied sales of an object, the iPhone, and a service, ATT cell phone service, and various provisions of the law preventing fraud on consumers for undisclosed terms in contracts and, more generally, the provisions of various State consumer protection laws.
Monopolies and monopolistic behaviors such as exclusivity agreements will be broken by Courts because they serve only the interests of parties to monopolistic agreements, not members of the general public, and have the effect of raising and maintaining high prices for consumers.
Competition is good for consumers because it lowers the prices and increases the quality of goods and services.
Competition is good for Apple in the long term. Should the present course of anti-competitive behaviour initiated by Steve Jobs be maintained by Courts, and backdated illegal stock options of more than a billion dollars not be challenged by Courts, Apple will go out of business within 10 years.
Android phones, Linux and Windows computers are competing for consumer and business dollars. If Steve Jobs can be deluded in believing that he is above the law and that Apple can survive with high prices to pay for unreasonable executive compensation as if Apple was Steve Jobs' personal piggy bank, it is the Courts role to challenge monopolies and enforce laws that benefit consumers in the long run through innovation and lower prices.
I've read the complaint in this case. It says that the US government has issued a ruling that says consumers have an absolute right to switch their cell phone carriers at any time. There is a statute called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the carriers were trying legally to use this statute to lock ther phones for several years. But in December 2006 the Register of Copyrights ruled that the carriers could not do so. It ruled that people have the right to unlocked phones and that unlocking phones does not violate the carriers (or in this case Apple's) copyright in the operating software. Apple and AT&T entered their exclusive contract for the iPhone one month later. According to the complaint they were deliberately trying to prevent iPhone users from unlocking their phones even though the government had just ruled they could.
Accepting what you have said above, I wonder what is the normal, legal route to getting a phone unlocked. A imagine a consumer would contact AT&T and request that their phone be unlocked.
The procedure would not normally be that users would exploit security flaws to hack their phone systems. I am not disagreeing with what you have said at all - that all makes sense - I am speculating that Apple's continuous attempts to secure their system from system hacking does not interfere with US citizen's rights to an unlocked phone.
I've read the complaint in this case. It says that the US government has issued a ruling that says consumers have an absolute right to switch their cell phone carriers at any time. There is a statute called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the carriers were trying legally to use this statute to lock ther phones for several years. But in December 2006 the Register of Copyrights ruled that the carriers could not do so. It ruled that people have the right to unlocked phones and that unlocking phones does not violate the carriers (or in this case Apple's) copyright in the operating software. Apple and AT&T entered their exclusive contract for the iPhone one month later. According to the complaint they were deliberately trying to prevent iPhone users from unlocking their phones even though the government had just ruled they could.
Sure they have the right, as long as they are subsidizing the phone for you they have every right to protect their investment, but your also right, the first iphone was not subsidy by AT&T and users did pay full price and it was still Locked down to only AT&T, am pretty sure they broke some laws when they did that
It ruled that people have the right to unlocked phones and that unlocking phones does not violate the carriers (or in this case Apple's) copyright in the operating software.
YOU have a right to unlock your own equipment for personal and private use. YOU do not have a right to unlock phones and then resell them, nor does is Apple or AT&T required to supply the unlock for you.
While I would love for the laws in the US to require carriers to unlock phones once the device is out of contract, it is not the law. This requires lobbying, not the suing of a specific company when the issue lays among the entire industry and requires a much more intelligent, non-greedy act to get to the root of the problem.
Sure they have the right, as long as they are subsidizing the phone for you they have every right to protect their investment, but your also right, the first iphone was not subsidy by AT&T and users did pay full price and it was still Locked down to only AT&T, am pretty sure they broke some laws when they did that
Thank you for making that point! I'm tired of everyone thinking Apple and AT&T are guiltless (read business as usual here). My first gen iPhone was bought at full price, and the contract ended legally (paid the early termination fee), my iPhone is my phone not AT&T's or even Apples. Why then can't my phone be unlocked by Apple or AT&T? I hate using the pwnage tool every time an update comes out. I'm wasting a lot of time chasing these updates or worse concerned what they might break in the form of functionality. It's just one more thing to blame when troubleshooting things that just don't work quite right.
The point is that this argument that we all signed a contract is moot once that contract has been terminated (by duration or penalty, it makes no difference).
And for the record the iPhone works just fine on other Carriers besides AT&T and T-Mobile (small regional providers like I found in Alaska for instance).
I'm tired of everyone thinking Apple and AT&T are guiltless (read business as usual here).
I'm not sure what you mean by 'guilt' here. Do you mean some ethical application should make a for profit companies unlock their phones despite the rules in the US not stipulating that it's required post-contract? The rules should be changed, IMO, but pointing a finger at Apple and AT&T is attacking the situation back-asswards.
YOU have a right to unlock your own equipment for personal and private use. YOU do not have a right to unlock phones and then resell them, nor does is Apple or AT&T required to supply the unlock for you.
While I would love for the laws in the US to require carriers to unlock phones once the device is out of contract, it is not the law. This requires lobbying, not the suing of a specific company when the issue lays among the entire industry and requires a much more intelligent, non-greedy act to get to the root of the problem.
Things are about to change http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...e-court-o.html
I'm not sure what you mean by 'guilt' here. Do you mean some ethical application should make a for profit companies unlock their phones despite the rules in the US not stipulating that it's required post-contract? The rules should be changed, IMO, but pointing a finger at Apple and AT&T is attacking the situation back-asswards.
No, I didn't mean that ethically, nor did I imply it. I meant it in the same sense that the current suit against them does.
Things are about to change http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...e-court-o.html
That would be very cool indeed, but the quoted text below I don't understand. Are the lower courts actually stating that the carriers paying $200 for the cost of the handset for the consumer, in no way grants them the right to provide a contractual obligation?
No, I didn't mean that ethically, nor did I imply it. I meant it in the same sense that the current suit against them does.
So you are saying that it is illegal for a carrier to lock a phone to their network. How is it that you have mentioned no other carrier or manufacturer as also breaking such a law? Exactly what law has been broken?
So all you people in the previous messages find it perfectly normal that after two years once the subsidy had been paid back to AT&T through the subscription fee, the owner should continue to have a locked phone that he can use nowhere else.
Let's say I move to another country, I am going to have to buy a new iphone because I wont be able to connect my iphone to any other network. Even if I stay in the United States, how can you be sure that in two years there won't be other GSM networks apart from T-Mobile that could potentially work with my iphone.
After two years, my iphone has been fully paid, everybody made a well deserved profit (Apple, AT@T), that should be enough... In other countries there is a limit of 6 months after which the operator has to give you an unlocking code, it does not mean that after that time all users rush to the store to get it unlocked, so why is Apple and/or AT&T not doing this after 2 years !
Don't like it? Don't buy an iPhone. I didn't.
So you are saying that it is illegal for a carrier to lock a phone to their network. How is it that you have mentioned no other carrier or manufacturer as also breaking such a law? Exactly what law has been broken?
Like most things in the court system once "president" has been established the rest must conform or meet similar penalties.
Like most things in the court system once "president" has been established the rest must conform or meet similar penalties.
Which is why going after the companies to do something they are not required to do by law is pointless. Especially when all that money spent on lawyers could be spent on obbying for the much needed change in the laws governing unlocking of phones in the US.
Which is why going after the companies to do something they are not required to do by law is pointless. Especially when all that money spent on lawyers could be spent on obbying for the much needed change in the laws governing unlocking of phones in the US.
Yes, getting good laws passed that advocate for the consumer is admirable. However, and I don't want the following to be taken as an attack on Apple (just view it as macro statement). The enemy of your enemy, is your friend. These lawyers and this suit will provide a little relief till what you propose is established. Until then, I'm just happy that something is happening.
These lawyers and this suit will provide a little relief till what you propose is established.
In what way do you think there will be relief? Do you think a court is going to say that iPhone should be unlocked while no other phone in the US is required to do so? The only thing BS lawsuits do is jack up the prices the consumer has to pay.
So all you people in the previous messages find it perfectly normal that after two years once the subsidy had been paid back to AT&T through the subscription fee, the owner should continue to have a locked phone that he can use nowhere else.
Let's say I move to another country, I am going to have to buy a new iphone because I wont be able to connect my iphone to any other network. Even if I stay in the United States, how can you be sure that in two years there won't be other GSM networks apart from T-Mobile that could potentially work with my iphone.
After two years, my iphone has been fully paid, everybody made a well deserved profit (Apple, AT@T), that should be enough... In other countries there is a limit of 6 months after which the operator has to give you an unlocking code, it does not mean that after that time all users rush to the store to get it unlocked, so why is Apple and/or AT&T not doing this after 2 years !
I've been with Verizon since 2002. It's not because I have the smartphone of my dreams and am forced to be there or love the service. The smartphones offered don't impress me. I want to develop and leverage the iPhone and OS X across networks. I could f'n careless about Windows Mobile or Hemorrhoid, especially developing on them.
It's a f'n phone I use. I'm not under contract restrictions, but I'm not interested in switching because I am not impressed with the entire Telco plans. The Apple plan from AT&T doesn't impress me, either. I'll wait and focus my talents elsewhere.
I'm willing to wait and later use the iPhone.
What I will not do is re-commit to Verizon. They've bugged the crap out of me for 4 f'n years and the most they've been willing to offer is 50 minutes more for more money.
F'em. I use the phone as little as possible.
Would the iPhone being offered by Verizon or T-Mobile [I'd rather die in a spike than use their service] or Sprint/Nextel change my mind?
Not if they don't make their minutes, bandwidth/month and more better.
We used to mock people as little girls when they gabbed on the phone for hours growing up in the 70s and 80s. Now every little prick is a b**** and makes those girls seem reasonable.
Keep pissin' your money down the drain to chat as my stock thanks you for it, but get a life. Give me back my causeways with drivers who don't ramble on the phone to suzy while changing lanes without signaling.
This restriction blame on Apple is a load of crap. Apple would love to sell it's phone, as-is, on other networks. Verizon, Sprint, US T-Mobile want to determine what as-is is and they lost out to AT&T.
Someone explain to me how my non-iPhone continues to be useful without my Verizon SIM card? It's tied to the Telco and that is how the Higher Courts will rule--in favor of Apple.
The judge also heads off a motion by Apple to dismiss the case based on the company's recent addition of support for third-party apps in iPhone firmware 2.0. The real issue is an allegation that Apple knowingly limiting access to certain functions where it has a "financial interest," the ruling explains.
Other sections of the document also note that the claims fraud and trespass, both of which would have occurred by ruining modified iPhones, aren't necessarily invalidated by Apple's advance warning of possible damage to hacked phones by applying 1.1.1 or even the need to willfully download and install the update. Customers were reportedly never told at the beginning that potentially damaging updates could come in the future.
This is an absolute joke! Every f'n Telco cripples their phones developed by third parties. Come on Judge. Go after the entire Telecommunications Industry. Apple will walk out of this smiling and possibly holding the Telcos accountable for being unable to cripple systems as part of the rights to use their backbone.
Telcos can't cripple servers and home computer systems while running on their backbones. What the hell allows them to do so in the Wireless Phone Markets?
Like most things in the court system once "president" has been established the rest must conform or meet similar penalties.
The word you want is "precedent", not "president". It refers to a similar case that precedes the current one.
In what way do you think there will be relief? Do you think a court is going to say that iPhone should be unlocked while no other phone in the US is required to do so? The only thing BS lawsuits do is jack up the prices the consumer has to pay.
I think you're looking at this as a personal assault on Apple. I'm not, this effects or will effect the whole industry. Its a cause celeb, or at least I hope it becomes one. The iPhone has a lot of eyes on it and that makes it a prime candidate for this type of suit. It could just have easily been some other "brand" and I'd feel the same way. My personal issues are with the Telco industry, not Apple. Apple wanted certain controls and other stipulations, AT&T conceded, that still doesn't give AT&T the right to hold my phone hostage after the contract has ended.
You don't sign a contract with Apple, the contract is with AT&T and therefore my beef is with AT&T. If this story was about RIM everybody would be happy about these developments. But because it's Apple, suddenly its bad or questionable, that's what's frustrating to me.