Apple, AT&T sued over iPhone restrictions

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by FJ218700, Oct 10, 2007.

  1. FJ218700 macrumors 68000

    FJ218700

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Location:
    Blue Dot, Red State
    #1
    SAN JOSE, Calif. - Complaints over Apple Inc.’s use restrictions and recent software update for the iPhone have erupted in two lawsuits alleging Apple and its carrier partner, AT&T Inc., engaged in illegal monopolistic behavior.

    Two separate lawsuits were filed in San Jose on Oct. 5 — one in federal court and the other in state court and both seeking class-action status. . . .

    link
     
  2. D1G1T4L macrumors 68000

    D1G1T4L

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #2
    Wonder why there has never been a lawsuit against Sprint or Verizon and how they lock devices to their networks :D
     
  3. FJ218700 thread starter macrumors 68000

    FJ218700

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Location:
    Blue Dot, Red State
    #3
    or that OS X is locked to Apple hardware
     
  4. Multimedia macrumors 603

    Multimedia

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz CA, Silicon Beach
    #4
    This Looks Interesting

    Can't wait to see what happens if the Judge isn't an ATT customer. :rolleyes:
     
  5. marksman macrumors 603

    marksman

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
  6. FJ218700 thread starter macrumors 68000

    FJ218700

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Location:
    Blue Dot, Red State
    #6
    How's EDGE in San Jose?
     
  7. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #7
    A monopoly on iPhones, which just happen to have sold a small fraction of a percent of the cellphones over the last 20 years.

    Likely they don't like the web-based SDK nor the price of entry to actually getting an app certified for the iPhones under some of the models being kicked around.

    Personally I don't see anything wrong with Apple charging an arm and leg to certify an app before letting it run on the phone.

    ---

    As far as limiting the phone to one network, happens all the time when new companies enter markets.

    Big money in selling exclusive franchises and forcing customers to deal with only one company in an area.

    So the state case may get booted in 4 years.

    Though if there was a problem under the telecommunications acts, you'd think AT&T lawyers would have said something sooner.

    But that doesn't mean the federal case will get booted, it is 9th Circuit after all. :rolleyes:
     
  8. MarceePauff macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    #8
    Monopoly regarding the iPhone? Stupid.

    But monopoly regarding AT&T...no so much.
    In fact, AT&T was forced to split itself up in Florida not too long ago, if I remember correctly. And we ended up with Bellsouth and Cingular...but now they're merged again - and we pretty much have no choice for phone service.

    I hate them.
     
  9. Sobe macrumors 68000

    Sobe

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Location:
    Wash DC suburbs
    #9
    I'd love to see these people pay every penny of Apple's legal fees when their silly suits get tossed out.
     
  10. chr1s60 macrumors 68000

    chr1s60

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #10
    This isn't illegal. It is like trying to sue Target or Wal-Mart for being an exclusive carrier of a certain brand of clothing or electronics. Businesses do these things all the time, for some reason there is just tons more attention on iPhone. I see no monopoly here.
     
  11. QuarterSwede macrumors G3

    QuarterSwede

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    #11
    That's because neither are an illegal monopoly nor is the iPhone.

    If people don't like what these businesses are doing they ought to stop buying their products and services!
     
  12. ratpH1nk macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    #12
    Definition of monopoly

    I think they need to look it up.." the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service"

    So by their argument...
    mcdonalds has a monopoly for the big mac
    burger king, the whopper
    toyota has a monopoly of the camry

    etc...
    etc...
    etc...

    Now, let's talk about letting people buy a phone, use it on any network, and have the ability to switch service anytime you like..
     
  13. QuarterSwede macrumors G3

    QuarterSwede

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    #13
    I'd love to see contracts put a stop to but unfortunately they're legal in the U.S.
     
  14. Sobe macrumors 68000

    Sobe

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Location:
    Wash DC suburbs
    #14

    Veruca Salt: I want an Oompa Loompa now!
     
  15. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #15
    mmm, how I have such a taste for sour grapes! :rolleyes:
     
  16. StuPidQPid macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    #16
    Sorry, that's wrong in this case as TWO companies are involved.
    I think the case would define Apple and AT&T as more like a 'cartel' rather than 'monopoly'. Look it up on Wikipedia.
    To use similar analogies, this would be like driving your Toyota Camry and being forced to only fill up with Exxon gas.
     
  17. alljunks macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    #17
    i think... End-user have a ground. there shouldnt be any limitation on which services we should go with..
     
  18. carfac macrumors 65816

    carfac

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    #19
    Maybe... just maybe some of you should tale a moment and read the lawsuit before you make posts based on assumptions. Your ignorance of the issues involved is showing.
     
  19. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #20
    You have no limitations, simply buy another company's phone.

    Right now the limitation on the iPhone is there through the initial stages of release, which for a new company entering the market. Makes debugging the phone a lot easier.
     
  20. yzp macrumors regular

    yzp

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Location:
    Quebec
    #21
    if they got FCC's approval, tewll me whats wrong??
     
  21. mrowl macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    #22
    I just read it...

    And guess what. Its stupid. A waste of time and money. The Apple, at&t legal fees will end up being paid for by these idiots who filed the suits.
     
  22. elppa macrumors 68040

    elppa

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    #23
    This is too stupid for words.

    Don't these Lawyers have anything better to do with their time?
     
  23. D4F Guest

    D4F

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    #24
    Any other phone you buy you can legally have the simlock removed.
    This might be the case imo.
     
  24. momzluv macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    #25
    My first macrumors post...please be gentle with me...

    I have visited this site daily for the past 2 years...ever since I bought by first mac. You all have really provided some great insight and direction in my subsequent mac purchases...including the aforementioned iPhone. But I am finally compelled to join the discussion on this topic.

    All of these discussions about exclusivity of provider and sim locking are very confusing to me. it appears that both Apple and ATT have the right to enter into a venture like this and there is nothing illegal about it.

    My son has a sidekick 3 (danger) and it is an exclusive product of Tmobile and has been since its launch several years ago. Why would this not be cause for such scandal and outrage as this current partnership with Apple and Att? I honestly do not understand...educate me (painlessly...)
     

Share This Page