Apple Antitrust and Computer Fraud Claims Upheld!

[bbplayer5]

http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/08/10/03/212241.shtml

"On October 1, 2008, a federal judge in California upheld a class action claiming that Apple and AT&T Mobility's five-year exclusive voice and data service provider agreement for the iPhone violates the anti-monopoly provisions of the antitrust laws. The court also ruled that Apple may have violated federal and California criminal computer fraud and abuse statutes by releasing version 1.1.1 of its iPhone operating software when Apple knew that doing so would damage or destroy some iPhones that had been 'unlocked' to enable use of a carrier other than AT&T."

 

[bradl]

http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/08/10/03/212241.shtml

"On October 1, 2008, a federal judge in California upheld a class action claiming that Apple and AT&T Mobility's five-year exclusive voice and data service provider agreement for the iPhone violates the anti-monopoly provisions of the antitrust laws. The court also ruled that Apple may have violated federal and California criminal computer fraud and abuse statutes by releasing version 1.1.1 of its iPhone operating software when Apple knew that doing so would damage or destroy some iPhones that had been 'unlocked' to enable use of a carrier other than AT&T."

I started to think about this as well, but read a comment further down the page:

Nothing has been "Upheld", all that has happened is that the court denied Apple's 12b6 motions for dismissal. (Failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.)

This case is still pre-trial. Discovery has not happened yet. Apple can still file for summary Judgment.

If the complaint survives Apple's inevitable motion for summary judgment, then the case will go to trial. Then there will be appeals.

So there's nothing to worry about yet. So let's nip FUD in the bud before it starts to spread.

BL.

 

[rjohnstone]

Re-read it... nothing was upheld.
The judge simply denied Apples request for dismissal.
There has been no ruling on the actual claim.

Edit: Bradl beat me too it.
Seriously folks... read past the headlines next time.

 

[deimos256]

lawyers are americas cancer, why dont they do something useful with their time like getting numerous people out of jail who were outright screwed by overzealous law enforcement agencies and court systems.

Back on track im happy with AT&T so this affects me how????

 

[bradl]

Back on track im happy with AT&T so this affects me how????

Right now, it doesn't. If this goes to trial and judgment is against Apple/ATT, it would mean that phone manufacturers and phone companies can't sign agreements to only have that particular phone on that particular network. In short, this could affect Android/T-Mobile, and Instinct/Sprint.

BL.

 

[IJ Reilly]

So there's nothing to worry about yet. So let's nip FUD in the bud before it starts to spread.

It's called the slashdot effect. As long as it has geek cred, it doesn't matter if it's true.