Apple, AT&T sued over iPhone restrictions

[carfac]

I seem to remember Jobs saying that AT&T spent a lot of time and resources helping them develop the phone services. Shouldn't they be allowed some exclusivity for defvelopment just like any other company or person owning a patent on a product.

I do not think they are arguing that point. No one is saying that the phone needs to be unlocked and ATT should not get a dime. What my position is is that AFTER one has fulfilled their obligation to ATT- that is, either run their contract for 2 full years, or paid the ETF- they should THEN be allowed a path to unlock (note I do not say a free unlock, it is reasonable to pay a reasonable unlock fee).

Under the current system, in 2 years, when your contract is up, Apple and ATT are under NO obligation to unlock your phone. What part of this suit is saying is that this is not in the consumers interest.

 

[Limeyness]

It's about corporations abusing their power (and not just Apple of course) by forcing consumers to lock themselves into long contracts that can't be broken without heavy penalties.

Yeah that dude that came round my house and stuck a gun to my head and made me buy the iPhone scared the crap outta me.

no one forced you to do anything, you WANT it, you buy it and take the consequences of a contract, or you don't, force does not enter the picture.

 

[uNext]

All this lawsuits apple is facing lately are signs of the growth the company has made since 2001.

With both their lawsuits and the decrease in their customer support dropping 20 points and decrease in hardware quality and all the numerous negative feedback regarding their products... i fear the apple we love will just be another corporate conglomerate
in a couple of years.

 

[nicoboss]

I think they are just mistaking "monopoly" with "exclusivity" - nothing wrong.

Stupid lawsuit that already takes 5 pages of comments on macrumors.
At least the day goes by faster, reading and writing about this crap-suit.

 

[pmade]

I think it's rather silly when people say things such as "don't buy an iPhone if you don't agree to its restrictions". I'm about 90% happy with my iPhone. I don't think that Apple is doing anything illegal whatsoever, but I do think that Apple is being too restrictive.

As far as restrictions, I think the iPhone is probably in the same boat as most other mobile phones in the US. The problem that a vast majority of us are having is treating the iPhone in this context. It's really a mobile computing device, much closer to the Newton than a Blackberry (and the Newton had a great SDK).

I can dream that one day we won't have locked phones in the US, or ridiculous contracts with several hundred dollar cancelation fees (especially when the the company didn't subsidize a phone). And I'm guessing that the only way we'll get to that point is through law suites (I don't expect the phone companies to decide that they are ripping customers off and stop all by themselves).

I've been a zealous Apple fan for a few decades. I'm holding out that they are going to relax a bit on these silly restrictions. Meanwhile that bad taste in my mouth seems to be getting worse.

 

[nicoboss]

oh - and what about the disregard about the fact that without at&t's technology developed specifically for the iphone (visual VM for example) - the iphone loses some of its functions.

I see it coming: Apple complies, opens its iphones to other carriers - next is a lawsuit against apple and other carriers for having un-usable functions (visual VM for example).

yes, very stupid lawsuit indeed....

 

[IJ Reilly]

It amazes me that these kind of stupid lawsuits are allowed to waste the courts time. And that no-one seems to want to even try and do something about it. This one is as ridiculous as the other iPhone one claiming $1M damages for a sub $200 loss (presumably there was alot of mental anguish involved).
And that old chestnut about the woman who burned herself on McDonalds coffee and got $50M. Here's how that one should have gone:

Jugdge (to plaintiff): "Have you ever had a cup of coffee before going to McDonalds on the date in question?"
Plaintiff: "Yes."
Judge: "Case dismissed."

Maybe some sort of comittee could be setup for when these cases are thrown out, to charge those that bring them with wasting the courts time or something similar.

Steady now. The antitrust laws in Europe are stronger and far more vigorously enforced than in the US. This is why Microsoft was slapped on the hand here and nicked in Europe.

The "committee" in question is called a judge. I don't think much of the merits of the case, but then I haven't heard the details of the filing either.

 

[nicoboss]

yeah here is a new one: i am going to sue apple for mental anguich about having to switch to at&t in order to get the iphone - nobody should have to go thru that - $50M would definitely cure me....

who's with me on that ?

 

[naco]

Wow...some people. It's called selective choice. Apple wanted certain things, and ATT was willing to provide that.

I guess this is what capitalism is all about then huh?

 

[IJ Reilly]

yeah here is a new one: i am going to sue apple for mental anguich about having to switch to at&t in order to get the iphone - nobody should have to go thru that - $50M would definitely cure me....

who's with me on that ?

Nobody I assume, because the suits in question have nothing to do with mental "anguich."

 

[wordmunger]

Apple has a patent on the iPhone (actually many many patents). What's a patent? It's a government-granted monopoly. So it's rather bizarre to be suing Apple over this.

That said, I don't like what Apple's doing with their monopoly. Unfortunately, that's their business, not mine.

 

[czeluff]

might as well..

I might as well go sue Microsoft for not being able to play XBOX 360 games on anything OTHER THAN an xbox 360 (like Halo 3).

If I had to name my biggest hatred that exists in this country: sue-happy people.

cz

 

[firsttube]

Sometimes I think people just like to sue big companies to see what sticks, and that's just ****ed up.

Same goes with f****ed up legislation, except they keep throwing until it sticks.

To get back on topic, I'm curious to see how this pans out.

Hello from T-Mobile iPhone.

 

[carfac]

I might as well go sue Microsoft for not being able to play XBOX 360 games on anything OTHER THAN an xbox 360 (like Halo 3).

Now THAT is a great analogy. NOT.

 

[jofish]

I'd like to play Gears of War on my Playstation 3. I think I will sue Microsoft and Epic Games. I believe they conspired from the beginning to exclusively allow Gears of War to be played on the XBOX 360 and not on the Nintendo Wii, Playstation 3 or the Sega Dreamcast. Asswipes.

 

[settingsgeneral]

Poor Analogy

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.

Your argument presumes Toyota is the only automobile in the market and Exxon the only supplier of fuel.

 

[GoodWatch]

For the sake of argument AND to play the devil’s advocate: so if Microsoft teamed up with AT&T and HP, marketing an iPaq that only runs Microsoft’s Smartphone technology and can only be used on AT&T’s network, ya’ll would be defending MS to the death? Even if MS released an update that renders one's iPaq useless if someone had dared to circumvent the network issue and only HP were allowed to use that particular mobile OS? Yes?

 

[GoodWatch]

Your argument presumes Toyota is the only automobile in the market and Exxon the only supplier of fuel.

Yes, there are dozens of network operators, competing on price and quality and if you want to use an iPhone you can choose from any of them. As long if the company's name is AT&T..... To coin a phrase: "you may have any colour car you want as long as it's black".

 

[matticus008]

Yes, and I agree, taken by themselves, some of the points have little or no merit. But when taken as a whole, the points support each other pointing to an overall supporting of the claim.

What? Either a claim has merit or it doesn't. A bunch of shaky claims rarely makes a compelling one.

Come on matticus, you can't really expect me to believe a WORD of this, can you? No, I do NOT live in CA, but I can see what is going on there.

Apparently you can't. You quoted sections about politics, not about judicial power. Again, do not mistake the state's liberalism for a liberal view of discretionary power.

Hardly conservative. I would go so far as to say it is generally accepted that the 9th circuit is the most liberal of all circuit courts in the US.

Certainly. Ideology is separate from jurisdiction, though, and therefore irrelevant.

Who said anything about overturning settled law? We are talking here about settling points that are ambiguous or not covered by settled law at all.

Which are ambiguous?

And California has an interest in protecting the rights of their consumers.

That does not a state interest make.

Thus, California has an interest in this action.

No, California consumers have an interest. The state has none at this level.

 

[G4DP]

Why?

It's about time people grew up. You can't have everything in life you want. It's the way of the world. Now just grow a pair.

Christ I want a Mac Pro at Dells prices but i'm not going to sue Apple for Price Fixing. I'll just pay Apple.

As many people have said there are hundreds of handsets and tens of providers. you either like it or lump it.

 

[IJ Reilly]

That does not a state interest make.

No, California consumers have an interest. The state has none at this level.

I don't understand what you mean by this. If the state has laws, then the state has an interest.

 

[Phutchi]

I'm sorry there is no lawsuit here.

I make a device, that device is specifically made for lets say a ford car. This device is for a Ford car, because when I designed it, ford and I worked together and came to an agreement that only Ford would have access to this device for 5 years. Now this device will work on other cars, but it is intended for Ford cars for the time being and no others.

Now enter Chevy owners... Wow! That device for the Ford is cool! I want one but they are ford only I know, I'll buy one anyway and stick it in my Chevy because I read/know it will work (with modifications) and ford/device maker be damed... Also if I do this and this, I can do even more stuff with it!

Device maker... Here is and update for widget1.

Chevy owner... What?! I updated now I can't use it in my Chevy! (broken/bricked/won't work on my network) Device maker Fix for me!!!!!!!!

Device maker.... Putting that in a Chevy is not intended or recommended. the update was for ford cars not Chevy. Besides you should not have put it in a Chevy. Voided warranty, Sorry.

Chevy owner... Dam it I want it to work in my Chevy! You do it or I'll sue you!! Wa wa wa! I want it now! Wa wa wa!


Now not allowing/having 3rd party native apps sucks. I refuse to trust web apps for anything truly personal or important. But I'm not about to sue apple for not making it easy for me to put them on there. And if I brake my phone in the process or after it was my own fault.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'm sorry there is no lawsuit here.

Actually there are two lawsuits here. Whether they have any merit, time will tell.

 

[carfac]

What? Either a claim has merit or it doesn't. A bunch of shaky claims rarely makes a compelling one.

They point to a company's intentions by its actions, when one cannot discern their motivations directly. That is, you cannot prove directly that Apples intent with 1.1.1 was to break unlocking; they even claim it was not. However, by showing the various steps (which bv themselves are weak points), when taken as a whole, they go to prove the overall case.

You quoted sections about politics, not about judicial power. Again, do not mistake the state's liberalism for a liberal view of discretionary power.

I quoted nothing of the sort. I quoted specific areas of judgment that the Ninth circuit is extremely liberal in their rulings.

Ninth Circuit had long been instrumental in striking new legal ground, particularly in the areas of immigration law and prisoner rights

Where do I mention AT ALL the state and its citizens? This is all about the Ninth Circuit.

Certainly. Ideology is separate from jurisdiction, though, and therefore irrelevant.

So you are saying the Ninth is liberal in viewpoint, but conservative in its rulings? Show me some examples?

Or are you saying their ideology is immaterial because it is kept apart from their judgments? Again, I do not think so... rather, I see just the opposite- judgments made in California seem to stretch existing laws to their liberal edge to make judgments that conform to the justices ideology.

You provide no examples; I will. The death penalty, and the banning of lethal injection is a perfect example. The interpretation of "cruel and unusual" is stretched to its very limit in that ruling to make a liberal interpretation based on ideology.

Which are ambiguous?

The legality of locking phones after the term of the contract.

That does not a state interest make. No, California consumers have an interest. The state has none at this level.

Let's see- Apple and ATT are alleged to violate California State law (I quoted the codes above), and CA has no state interest? Huh? California consumers have an interest, but California does not have an interest in protecting their citizens? You make no sense at all.

 

[GoodWatch]

And the beat goes on, la-di-da-di-da......