AT&T Taking Action Against iPhone Unlocks?

[MacRumors]

Last week a number of iPhone unlocking claims were made by different individuals with one confirmed success. A second company (iPhoneUnlocking) also announced they had a software-only solution, but according to a press release, they claim to have been contacted by AT&T's law firm to prevent the release of their unlocking service.

The sale of unlocking codes is on hold after the company received a telephone call from a Menlo Park, California, law firm at approximately 2:54 a.m. this morning (GMT).

After saying they were phoning on behalf of AT&T, the law firm presented issues such as copyright infringement and illegal software dissemination. Uniquephones is taking legal advice to ascertain whether AT&T was sending a warning shot or directly threatening legal action. The logistics of different continents as well as it being a weekend factors into how the situation develops.

The original iPhone unlocking site (iPhoneSimFree.com) has not revealed if they have been similarly approached by AT&T.

Article Link

[thisonechance]

I have a feeling this will gather quite a few negatives. So many were excited about the unlocking.

[emotion]

Am I surprised?

Originally Posted by combatcolin

I supposed its been mentioned before, but all mobile phones in the UK are "unlocked" so you can bung in any SIM card of your choice.

Are you sure about that?

[PlaceofDis]

not surprising at all.
wonder what Apple's stance on this is?
i think AT&T is betting on and holding onto the iPhone quite a bit. they've done a lot to make it work, and obviously don't want to lose it.

[emotion]

Originally Posted by PlaceofDis

wonder what Apple's stance on this is?

Apart from the loss of visual voicemail, which I think Apple won't like (ie. reduced function damaging the user experience), this kind of plays into Apple's hands in some respects.

It dramatically increases the market for the device for one.

[juanm]

Originally Posted by emotion

Apart from the loss of visual voicemail, which I think Apple won't like (ie. reduced function damaging the user experience), this kind of plays into Apple's hands in some respects.

It dramatically increases the market for the device for one.

But on the other hand, it gives Apple much ground to get a deal with mobile carriers.

[mpw]

Originally Posted by emotion

Apart from the loss of visual voicemail, which I think Apple won't like (ie. reduced function damaging the user experience), this kind of plays into Apple's hands in some respects.

It dramatically increases the market for the device for one.

Depends how much they're making from their cut of the usage fees of AT&T customers I guess.

[roxnadz]

Originally Posted by emotion

Apart from the loss of visual voicemail, which I think Apple won't like (ie. reduced function damaging the user experience), this kind of plays into Apple's hands in some respects.

It dramatically increases the market for the device for one.

Yep. I'd be willing to plunk down some money for an iPhone if it worked under T-Mobile. There was no way otherwise.

I couldn't - still can't - believe how many actually did sign up for the AT&T iPhone under its current ridiculous contract terms.

[jersey]

AT&T has brought this on themselves. There is no one else to blame. We, as consumers, are allowed to unlock our mobiles hones as per the DMCA exception #6. Previously, AT&T has unlocked your phone after 90 days in contract or if you requested an unlock for overseas travel. However they are not maintaining this policy for the iphone.

The DMCA states that the consumers are allowed to unlock phones, but not using software to bypass security in place on the phones, which means we have to ask for the unlock codes from our carrier. However if the carrier is unwilling to provide said code, what is the consumer supposed to do?

Furthermore, a phone is locked to a network because it was purchased with subsidy from a specific carrier. The lock helps ensure the carrier profits from the sale of the subsidized phone with a calling contract. Our phones were bought without subsidy. We paid full retail value for the phone, and should be given unlock codes at the moment we ask.

In an ideal situation, the phones comes unlocked in the box, and you are warned that if you want to use all the features the phone has, you need to use XXX carrier, if you choose another carrier, functionality may be limited. But this isn't the case.

AT&T should be warned, a very winnable class action over this issue, will be coming. And soon.

Live by the DMCA, die by the DMCA.

[Rooskibar03]

Originally Posted by jersey

Furthermore, a phone is locked to a network because it was purchased with subsidy from a specific carrier. The lock helps ensure the carrier profits from the sale of the subsidized phone with a calling contract. Our phones were bought without subsidy. We paid full retail value for the phone, and should be given unlock codes at the moment we ask.


Live by the DMCA, die by the DMCA.

You bought the UNSUBSIDIZED phone knowing full well in order to use it you had to enter into a contract.

I'm baffled by the folks who assume that just because you enter into a two year contract you are entitled to something fee or discounted.

When you signed your first least, did you do so expecting cheaper rent or a fee month now and then? When you signed up for a 3 year car lease, did you get a lower price on the car?

NO, a contract and a subsidy do know go hand in hand, get over it.

[Rot'nApple]

Originally Posted by PlaceofDis

not surprising at all.
wonder what Apple's stance on this is?
i think AT&T is betting on and holding onto the iPhone quite a bit. they've done a lot to make it work, and obviously don't want to lose it.

I wonder if there are terms in the at&t / apple exclusivity contract aggreement that will cause apple to revamp it's software and or possibly future hardware in order to not breach their contract agreement with at&t? Afterall, at&t never saw the phone when in development and agreed upon it on blind faith. Apple, in return, says at&t will be exclusive USA carrier. Can't be exclusive with all these hacks, both physical changes and software hacks.

Apple will need to step up to the plate, afterall it is their hardware and software that has been cracked, nothing doing from at&t standpoint (other than possibly locking the phone to be exclusive carrier as contractually agreed upon by at&t and apple).

Again, I wonder if Apple could be held in breach of exclusivity contract if they don't come up with a fix or "fined" by at&t for lost revenue by taking out that fine through monies paid from iPhone purchasesers who use at&t or if such a clause was written into the apple/at&t deal?

[jsnyd05]

Good ole att throwing that legal muscle around

[macses]

well, I'm just about to order an iPhone. I hope this software will come out soon.

a Belgian iPhone fan

[88Keys]

AT&T has already lost this battle. Just a matter of time before the software is released in the wild for free.

[iShak]

AT&T spent a lot of time and money in negotiations with Apple to obtain this exclusivity, they even changed their network setup to cater for the visual voicemail, so in a way they have every right to defend themselves against any software that would damage their profits, it is a business after all!

The law does provide iPhones owners the right to unlock their phones for 'personal use only' but lets face it, the people outside USA will be the first ones to take advantage of such unlocks before any existing iPhone owners within USA, but like many have said already, I doubt if AT&T would be able to maintain iPhone exclusivity for long now, its just a matter of time before crack is released in the wild for free.

Now the only way to keep the existing customers locked to their network is to to provide them with incentives that other networks can't, price cuts, freebies, better support etc. hope they realize this soon and stop this frenzied/crazy use of legal paper against small time companies ...

[eastcoastsurfer]

Originally Posted by iShak

AT&T spent a lot of time and money in negotiations with Apple to obtain this exclusivity, they even changed their network setup to cater for the visual voicemail, so in a way they have every right to defend themselves against any software that would damage their profits, it is a business after all!

The problem is that if I purchases a piece of hardware I should be able to do anything I want with it. If I want to throw my iPhone out of the window, hit it with hammer, or frame it and hang it on my wall no one should be able to stop me. If I want to change the software on a piece of hardware that I *own* then I should be able to.

If ATT/Apple wants to keep the iPhone locked down then they should lease them like the cable companies do with their cable boxes. I purchase an ATT phone plan and get an iPhone lease for another $5/month or something. When my contract expires I have to turn the phone back in or get charged. The way it currently works is that ATT/Apple wants to eat their cake and have it to by selling you ownership of the hardware with none of the rights that ownership implies.

[wnurse]

Originally Posted by eastcoastsurfer

The problem is that if I purchases a piece of hardware I should be able to do anything I want with it. If I want to throw my iPhone out of the window, hit it with hammer, or frame it and hang it on my wall no one should be able to stop me. If I want to change the software on a piece of hardware that I *own* then I should be able to.

If ATT/Apple wants to keep the iPhone locked down then they should lease them like the cable companies do with their cable boxes. I purchase an ATT phone plan and get an iPhone lease for another $5/month or something. When my contract expires I have to turn the phone back in or get charged. The way it currently works is that ATT/Apple wants to eat their cake and have it to by selling you ownership of the hardware with none of the rights that ownership implies.

Why do people always make the same old tired argument that you make?. No, you do not have the right to do whatever you want with the product you buy... you only have the right that the owner of the product confers upon you. Sigh.. hasn't this been debated in other forums?. I bet you made this argument before. An example of where you cannot do whatever you want is with music.. you cannot just sell unlimited copies of your music electronically just cause you paid for it.. You cannot drive your car through a red light cause you paid for the car. You cannot demand the captain of a cruise ship going to greece take you to alaska cause you paid for the cruise, you cannot demand extra legroom on a plane cause you bought a ticket. You cannot reverse engineer an ipod and mass produce it cause you bought one. You cannot install mac osX on any computer other than a mac cause you paid for it..
Get it?... ok... jeesh!!!. The owner of a product can introduce any limitation on product use that they want to and that is legal. You can choose not to buy that product but once you do, you agree to limitations set by the owner of the product. Stop making these 4th grade observations that you can do anything with a product you bought.

[PNW]

Originally Posted by wnurse

you cannot just sell unlimited copies of your music electronically just cause you paid for it..

No but I can rearrange it however I want to for my own listening enjoyment.

Originally Posted by wnurse

You cannot drive your car through a red light cause you paid for the car.

I can if I own the light and the intersection

Originally Posted by wnurse

You cannot demand the captain of a cruise ship going to greece take you to alaska cause you paid for the cruise

I can If I bought the boat, though I'd have to settle a fair number of lawsuits from passengers expecting to go to Greece.

Originally Posted by wnurse

, you cannot demand extra legroom on a plane cause you bought a ticket.

Once again if I bought the plane I can have as much legroom as I want.

Originally Posted by wnurse

You cannot reverse engineer an ipod and mass produce it cause you bought one.

I can If I make enough changes so as not to violate the patent, and that's only necessary if I want to sell them. If I just want to make a better iPod for myself I'm well within my rights.

Originally Posted by wnurse

You cannot install mac osX on any computer other than a mac cause you paid for it..

I'd be interested to see that hold up in court of of course acquiring a legal full installation of OS X would be rather tricky since no one sells them, so I'll grant you a draw on that one, but the rest of your arguments are bunk

[CDphoto]

Originally Posted by wnurse

...You cannot drive your car through a red light cause you paid for the car. ...

I am sorry but please make arguments that are logical. Just because you buy a car doesn't mean you can drive it through a red light? What???? Lets first stop comparing apples to oranges. If you buy a car you can modify it how ever you want! Think about how many hot rods exist is the world. Could you imagine Ford telling the owners of mustangs that they can NOT add a new exhaust or boar out the engine for more horse power! We are debating the difference between ownership and renting/leasing. There is a huge difference. People please at least get the basic fundamentals of Consumer law right before entering this debate.

The slate can clearly be settled on these points:

1.We do not need to debate who owns the iPhone when it is purchased. It is undebatable. So stop doing it!!!!!!
2.There is enough information readily available to prove that the unlocking of cell phones is LEGAL. There are some fine points to this but otherwise it can be laid to rest too.
3.An iPhone can be purchased without an ATT Contract period. Same price as with one.
4. No one can prove or disprove it so drop this "it is subsidized" BS. Apple could be taking a cut of the cell service revenue not a phone subsidy. If you cant prove a point it is not a valid argument in a debate.
5. ATT has no right to determine what a user does with a device once it is purchased unless it is rented and under the rental contract it is clearly stated that no modifications can be performed.
6. If you signed an ATT contract well you made your bed. If you don't like it too bad. No one held a knife to your throat.

The reason this started: I believe a company got caught over promising and under delivering. Either that or iPhoneSimFree.com pulled one heck of a trick out of its bag to delay a competitor from releasing a competing product earlier then they. Finally maybe this did have to do with ATT. They could have used this bogus method to delay the release in order to attempt to find a legal means to prevent the softwares release.

Regardless, even if no company ever sells the unlocking software. We all know that the unlock will make it out to the web and people will use it. NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE LEGALITIES OF USING IT. As long as then get what they want.

[CDphoto]

sorry double post

[poe diddley]

Originally Posted by eastcoastsurfer

The way it currently works is that ATT/Apple wants to eat their cake and have it to by selling you ownership of the hardware with none of the rights that ownership implies.

yes, this is the point exactly. and i believe that is why apple seems to have taken a backseat to all these legal woes, as reports have only listed at&t as the harassment party. apple just wanted to get the iphone to the market, and it's a shame that verizon didn't get onboard this ship, if both at&t and verizon were interested enough, apple could have had their cake and eat it anyway.
then they would have truly been in the position they wanted to be in-the hardware suppliers.
the way it should have worked is you buy your iphone from an apple store, an at&t store, a verizon store, a sprint store, a tmobile store, best buy, wherever, and YOU pick your carrier. this is the way it should have worked, and it's a shame that america has to suffer while other countries enjoy this common practice of getting your hardware and picking your carrier. there is no good reason that providers in the USA can't do this, they just don't want to b/c not doing it allows them to charge inflated prices and exclusive packages when the new "cool" phone comes out every 6 months.
maybe one day we'll catch up to the rest of the world.

[Counter]

Originally Posted by 88Keys

AT&T has already lost this battle. Just a matter of time before the software is released in the wild for free.

Ditto.

They can throw all the laws about they want, however they want to word them.

[combatcolin]

I supposed its been mentioned before, but all mobile phones in the UK are "unlocked" so you can bung in any SIM card of your choice.

I wonder how well the iPhone will do in the UK if it has a straitjacket deal attached to it.

Early adoptors eh?, i used to be one of them.

[the vj]

I believe ATT has nothing to do there unless they pay big $$$ to keep those softwares locked. I mean, is reverse ingeneering and you can not do anything about that. It sucks (for them) but it is not ilegal.

Despite, what if I want to use a phone in a country where ATT has no offices? I can call that discriminatory if the case.

[DTphonehome]

Why can't Apple just cripple the unlock in one of their frequent software updates?