Every single carrier in the U.S. locks their phones to work on their network only. And they get exclusive phones...like Verizon got the LG Chocolate and it only works on Verizon. The iPhone is just another example of a company exclusive. It's Apple's product...they can do what they want to do with it. People are just upset because it's not on their network...
You simply pointed out that the entire industry does this. Does it make it right? I beg to differ. Consumers ought to have a choice in their phone and carrier decisions. Being forced to choose a bad plan because you like a particular phone, or vice versa isn't too appealing. However, the way to do this isn't a lawsuit. The right way to do this is by voting with one's wallet. However, considering the fact that mobile phones are nearly a necessity, it would be rather hard to go without one for a while. In this case, we can look to government for help. Now if only more of us would go out and vote
Once again, and for the last time, I am not claiming nor have I ever claimed that the state has a "legal interest" in this case. These are your words, not mine, and they are not going to become mine by you repeatedly attempting to force them into my mouth. What I did say, clearly and simply, is that a state consumer protection law is being used as a cause of action. The "state interest" was expressed in passing that law. Maybe you should look up "state interest" or "compelling state interest" or "strict scrutiny." I think you will find that failing a compelling state interest, that the State of California could not have adopted the law which is being used to support the lawsuit in question.
Anyway, at this point, I have no idea what you are arguing. For the sake of it, I expect.
He's just trying to tell you that passing a law is not related to a state interest.
If someone killed your dog while being drunk and behind the wheel, they would face criminal charges, which are an expression of state interest (protecting our lives), and could face a civil suit brought by you for loss of property and emotional damages. The civil case would not represent a state interest, even though the laws used to bring the suit were at some point passed by the state.
Right. I think possibly the strangest thing about this lawsuit is that it was filed against Apple, when the real beneficiary of iPhone locking is AT&T. Clearly Apple would be better off if a customer could use their iPhone on any provider's network, but they weren't going to get a network with the upgraded functionality they wanted without allowing the provider to see some payback for their investment. I just don't see where an anticompetitive tying argument can be made here, not least of all against Apple.
Doesn't Apple get a cut from the plan? I thought it was on the order of $9 per month per plan activated. That seems like some good incentives to me.
I don't understand what you mean by this. If the state has laws, then the state has an interest.
Ahhh....that's why you're confused. See, a state can pass laws, but it doesn't mean that it has an interest in every case which arises under those laws.
For example, a civil code might say that you have the right to sue for property damages if your neighbor breaks your fence. You can sue that neighbor in a civil court, and you would be doing so under the state's laws, but that doesn't mean the state cares about your fence. You are using the legal code to achieve the results you desire; the state doesn't care what happens between you and your neighbor. That's why there's no state interest. In some cases, the state has an interest, but those cases involve the state pursuing some form of legal action. These suits are two private suits, and thus far, no state or government entity has expressed any intention of getting involved (as far as I know so far), which means there's no state interest.
