Can't wait to see what happens if the Judge isn't an ATT customer.
Uh oh, that could be bad news.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple, AT&T sued over iPhone restrictions
- Thread starter FJ218700
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Uh oh, that could be bad news.
I think that this is another advantageous lawsuit being filed here that's based upon the popularity of Apple right now as well as the potential monopolistic characteristics of AT&T as they continue to acquire (again) and grow.
It's just a matter of time before something like this happens.
People should sue the following cartel: US Government + HMO/Private Healthcare Providers + Drug Companies. That, if done right, would be a hell of an interesting case.
Peace out from your neighbour to the north... (And no, I didn't spell 'neighbour' wrong!)
It's just a matter of time before something like this happens.
People should sue the following cartel: US Government + HMO/Private Healthcare Providers + Drug Companies. That, if done right, would be a hell of an interesting case.
Peace out from your neighbour to the north... (And no, I didn't spell 'neighbour' wrong!)
Not even close. That's like someone turning around and suing Palm because the 755p and Centro are exclusive to Sprint. Or as someone above pointed out, like suing T-Mobile and Danger for making the sidekick exclusive to T-Mobile. The thing is, in the USA, cell phones and contracts are marketed together. This is legal under United States law. ATT has not ceased to carry other phones of comparable value, nor has Apple blocked ATT users from using other phones (ie, the SIM card is removable in an iphone, so you could use another ATT phone if you felt like it). The only measurable impact locking the iphone to ATT has at a consumer level is that you can't buy it without an ATT contract, unless you hack/unlock it. Just like buying a sidekick or an HTC Dash on t-mobile, a centro or a 755p or a mogul on Sprint. IF you want any of those phones you have to sign a contract with the service provider.
This lawsuit is so full of holes it makes swiss cheese look like a winter blanket.
True, and monopolies aren't illegal in the first place.
Neither AT&T nor Apple are cornering any markets here. You can use hundreds of other phones or dozens of other carriers.
Because it's Apple. I'm sure plenty of other complaints have been filed on these other products. They disappear just as quickly as these will. Of all the suits filed each year against big-name companies, how many are ever followed up on? Only the two or three that go anywhere. The media will have its week of pot-stirring, and then the story won't be sexy anymore--especially when it's tossed out before ever going to court.
Apple fans (and those hostile to them) are among the whiniest, most irrational, excitable people on the planet. It doesn't take much to get them riled up. You'll get plenty of outraged people posting here about how life isn't fair and Apple shouldn't have a right to do things they don't like, and how even though they love Apple, they're pissed off and are going to stop being customers or steal things. (Or that they hate Apple and this is just one more nail in the coffin.) Almost no one will stop to ask the question, "does this complaint have any objective merit?" People will espouse Wikipedia-inspired legal rants without finesse or material understanding and make foolish challenges.
It doesn't matter. It'll just give people a reason to make some value determination, and to get angry when anyone offers a concrete interpretation without regard to what "should" be.
I am sure you did. I read it, too. I think it raises some good points. Some points that at least we can agree are debatable. And that is the points of the courts, right- to settle disputes when parties are in disagreement.
I think some of the points are silly. Others, I think NEED a clarification, if nothing else. Apple has set this in motion with their locking out of unlocks and jailbreaking. Whatever your opinion of those processes, there is an obvious split in opinions ON the legality of those processes. Win or loose, I will be happier to have a firm awsnser to the legality of hacker and Appples actions.
Sort of the Cat Vs. Mouse meets the Lion.
That is only one of many issues in this complaint. And I think you are right, it is one of the more weak ones. I think some of the other points have much more merit, and will cause Apple and ATT more problems than the monopoly issue. But in a lawsuit, you throw everything you have, and hope something sticks.
Another point worth making is that the suit is brought in California. Ca judges (in many cases) are known for more liberal interpretations of laws, and are known to rule in favor of consumers over black letter law on occasion. If enough noise is made by consumers, we may see some "legislation from the bench" on this.
The thing is that making the iPhone unique to AT&T was a very good business decision. Also, with the lawsuits over the price drop, it makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Apple can charge whatever they want, and it is not discriminating to the consumer. Prices will go down, and it doesn't matter when they do. Some people are just pissed off that they can't do what they want when they want to. Whatever apple charges, or whatever carrier they choose to use is up to them, and it is down the the consumer to decide if they want to go with it. Too many people are complaining, and i personally haven't made the jump from verizon to att, but i will probably. So people stop getting all worked up over something that is a decent example of a smart business move. Almost a million iPhones were sold, and 50% came from other carriers.
That is one point of the courts but you still have to have done something wrong. Disagreeing only counts as a court appearance if it's over money and in front of Judge Judy. While I am not a lawyer, I do have a fairly decent grasp of the basics of the laws here, and Apple didn't do anything wrong. Therefore disagreeing with them isn't going to change the issue, and if your issue is with locking to a carrier and manufacturers exerting extreme control over software, well, then the plaintiffs need to be suing a lot more companies than just Apple.
Sometimes I think people just like to sue big companies to see what sticks, and that's just ****ed up.
This is the problem right here, a lawsuit should not be about throwing enough stuff to make some stick, thats how we have ended up with the litigious society we live in.
Such as?
There's a difference between fielding many potential issues and stretching a field of law to cover that which it is not designed to. You do not want to push your luck in front of a judge, especially when the result is the appearance of incompetence.
I take it you don't live here. California courts are highly deferential to established process, and the California Supreme Court is one of the most conservative in its discretionary power. California courts are bound to follow directives from the bench and will almost never stray from precedent. Don't confuse the state's liberalism with a willingness to overturn settled law--to do so would be an egregious error. The courts are often generous in application and finding minimum standards to be met, but they are not prone to create wholly new standards at will.
Not from a California court in a case of no state interest, no health or safety issue, and no deprivation of liberty and never from anything short of a Supreme Court decision.
On the contrary, it is an attorney's duty to submit any arguments which support your client's cause. Failure to do so not only opens you to suits for malpractice, but also diminishes your chances of victory.
It is not, however, desirable for people to cook up strange theories in the hopes of fabricating a cause of action that will hold water. But there again, if the client comes with money and chooses to sue after being told of a slim chance of victory, that's on them. Lawyers are advocates and everyone in this country has a right to file lawsuits, even bogus ones. If people didn't try to sue for everything, then all we'd have to worry about are ambulance chasers, and the number of frivolous lawsuits would be manageable.
It's a far cry from a monopoly. Maybe I will sue the coffee shop I am at because I can not get Starbuck's coffee here.
I wish would people would ****, money hungry bastards the whole lot of hem.
I wish would people would ****, money hungry bastards the whole lot of hem.
Apple Says Thank You
Apple will once again receive the benefit of more free press over the iPhone. The money they'll spend getting this thrown out of court will be minimal compared to all the media buzz it will receive. Apple should open a website to help more disenfranchised potential customers schedule lawsuits around future product releases.
Apple will once again receive the benefit of more free press over the iPhone. The money they'll spend getting this thrown out of court will be minimal compared to all the media buzz it will receive. Apple should open a website to help more disenfranchised potential customers schedule lawsuits around future product releases.
I'm curious to know what arguments the plaintiffs are going to try to use. It's pretty obvious any sane court ( pls no 9th district jokes ) isn't going to allow a case to proceed based on the argument that exclusivity is unfair. Exclusivity is a common business practice and not uncommon to cellphone service providers at all.
I guess what I'm saying is I haven't heard a convincing argument explained on the plaintiffs behalf on the boards yet.
I guess what I'm saying is I haven't heard a convincing argument explained on the plaintiffs behalf on the boards yet.
That is such a crazy lawsuit. Clearly somebody is just trying to get money out of a large company.
Next thing you know somebody will be suing over the fact that you can only install Mac OS X on a Mac.
Next thing you know somebody will be suing over the fact that you can only install Mac OS X on a Mac
.
Of course the lawyers will take the cases, they feed off the idiots that want to file this crap.
I know I'm being a jackass, but I'm really tired of all those people who say "If you're not happy with it, don't buy it." I know there are necessary evils, but why can't people change how things are? Why can't you change it? Too apathetic? I know I'm not. I'm actually trying to change Apple's & ATT's attitudes on locked iPhones by starting a petition.
ummm noooo... Bellsouth was one of the baby bells from AT&Ts 1984 breakup. Bellsouth owned shares in Cingular....most areas have a single carrier for land phone service, for example here where Bellsouth was is now all AT&T (only taking over what Bellsouth did) and up north east it is Verizon (from purchase of Bell Atlantic...another AT&T baby bell that the New AT&T was not able to snatch up quick enough)
But you see, the way you would change things is to convince lots of people NOT TO BUY IT. It's called the free market system. It is not inherently evil, it means the way you "vote" for goods and services to support is either by buying them or not buying them! Simple as that! Paying them money for an iPhone but then starting a petition will accomplish very little, as you already voted for the status quo with your money! Very little else matters.
It's too bad "basic consumerism 101" isn't taught in high school...
This is the dumbest thing ever. I'm with the people that think Verizon, T-Mobile, and Window and Dell should have the same lawsuit. People are just jealous that they can't have the iPhone because they don't want to switch to AT&T. Get a life. Jeebuusss!
I agree, Apple has a total monopoly on the iPhone! Just like Monopoly has a monopoly on Monopoly and Sears has a monopoly on Sears' Lawn Mowers. I plan on suing all three.
OR monopolies aren't defined by one product. The reason AT&T was broken up years ago was because people didn't have a real choice between service providers. No one has to use AT&T or buy an iPhone to get cell service, there are a multitude of options that compete well with the iPhone.
I don't like that Apple chose to lock the iPhone into AT&T, but it certainly isn't illegal. In fact I don't like AT&T so much that I am not buying an iPhone. Wonder of wonders, I still have a cell phone and a service provider without any help from Apple or AT&T. And somehow, even without the iPhone, my little tiny local service provider (Verizon) is able to compete with AT&T.
This will get thrown out of court. I promise. (Unless the lawsuit is in California, there's a curve ball there)
OR monopolies aren't defined by one product. The reason AT&T was broken up years ago was because people didn't have a real choice between service providers. No one has to use AT&T or buy an iPhone to get cell service, there are a multitude of options that compete well with the iPhone.
I don't like that Apple chose to lock the iPhone into AT&T, but it certainly isn't illegal. In fact I don't like AT&T so much that I am not buying an iPhone. Wonder of wonders, I still have a cell phone and a service provider without any help from Apple or AT&T. And somehow, even without the iPhone, my little tiny local service provider (Verizon) is able to compete with AT&T.
This will get thrown out of court. I promise. (Unless the lawsuit is in California, there's a curve ball there)
