Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What countries?
If I were to buy an iPhone in another country, could I use it in the US with a wireless company of my choice?

Italy and Belgium for example... also France I think... of course they also sell the provider-locked versions there so you have to explicitly request a unlocked phone. AFAIK the officially-apple-unlocked 8GB iPhone 3G costs 499€ in Italy...

and yes, you can buy it there and use it on EVERY GSM/3G carrier on this planet.
 
It will end up in the courts if Apple and AT&T are not careful. And don't say it won't. There are millions of iPhone users not happy with AT&T. That is one huge class-action suit. Most Americans enjoy freedom, including myself. And I do not like to be held to an agreement that has already been fulfilled. They will unlock it, they don't want this to go to court. If it goes to court, they risk a ruling that could entirely do away with locking a phone to a specific carrier.
 
It will end up in the courts if Apple and AT&T are not careful. And don't say it won't. There are millions of iPhone users not happy with AT&T. That is one huge class-action suit. Most Americans enjoy freedom, including myself. And I do not like to be held to an agreement that has already been fulfilled. They will unlock it, they don't want this to go to court. If it goes to court, they risk a ruling that could entirely do away with locking a phone to a specific carrier.

The first iPhone NEVER HAD A CONTRACT. What is so hard to understand about that?

They don't have to unlock it.
 
The first iPhone NEVER HAD A CONTRACT. What is so hard to understand about that?

They don't have to unlock it.
Where in my post did I say they have to unlock the phone? I stated what will happen if they don't unlock it.
 
LOLs! And what law says this? What law is Apple breaking?
You might want to read up on how court rulings and the US judiciary system work. A ruling is not law, but it sets a precedent.

Also, I don't think the previous poster said anything about a law.
 
LOLs! And what law says this? What law is Apple breaking?

Read this, its comming, only a matter of time.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday dashed a bid by T-Mobile and AT&T to stave off a class-action lawsuit challenging the carriers’ policies against unlocking mobile phones.

The justices declined to review an October decision by the California Supreme Court that cleared the way for a lawsuit that attorneys claimed could represent "millions" of California customers.

In response to similar lawsuits, Verizon and Sprint, both CDMA carriers, have agreed to provide the software code to unlock cellphones after customers nationwide have completed their original contract, attorneys said. "That was the compromise we ended up with to get the cases settled," said California attorney Robert Bramson, one of the lawyers suing carriers T-Mobile and AT&T.

T-Mobile and AT&T fought the lawsuit all the way to the nation’s high court. The two carriers, on the GSM network, are accused of unfair business practices by locking down their phones to their service plans. Last year, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington listed cell phone unlocking as one of six new exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA.

That change, however, left unclear whether carriers were responsible for unlocking the handsets.


The high court’s decision sets aside language in the terms-of-service agreement requiring aggrieved AT&T and T-Mobile customers to submit to binding arbitration instead of going to court. The phone carriers urged the justices to require that their customers honor the contracts they had signed. The lower courts had declared those contracts "unconscionable."

The case the U.S. Supreme Court rejected on Tuesday, if successful, could force AT&T to unlock the coveted iPhone. AT&T is Apple’s exclusive phone provider. "They may be more unwilling than otherwise because the iPhone is such a big seller," Bramson said.

The suits also prompted all four of the phone providers to reduce the fees charged to costumers who terminate a mobile phone contract before it expires.

Still, all four carriers face litigation to reduce those new, pro-rated fees even further. AT&T’s plan, implemented Monday, is similar to the other carriers’ opt-out schedule. Each month, an account holder’s normal $175 charge to back out of the two-year contract is reduced by $5.

"Pro-rated is a step in the right direction," said California attorney David Franklin, one of the lawyers suing the carriers.

Passed in 1998 as an anti-piracy measure, the DMCA makes it illegal to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access" to copyrighted material – in this case the firmware that locks a phone to a provider’s network. The law tasks the U.S. Register of Copyrights and the Librarian of Congress with investigating how the anti-circumvention provision could hurt legitimate users, and then carving out appropriate exemptions every three years.

The cell phone unlocking exemption covers cases where cell phone software locks are circumvented "for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."
 
What countries?
Here's the official list of the countries/carriers that Apple partners with, if the iPhone on that carrier is locked to the carrier (most are), and if the carrier offers an official way to unlock the iPhone (most do). I was surprised to see the Japanese carrier of the iPhone treats it like AT&T (where it's locked to the carrier and the carrier will not unlock it). I thought Japan was way more progressive with phone policies than the US!

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1937
 
Read this, its comming, only a matter of time.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday dashed a bid by T-Mobile and AT&T to stave off a class-action lawsuit challenging the carriers’ policies against unlocking mobile phones.

The justices declined to review an October decision by the California Supreme Court that cleared the way for a lawsuit that attorneys claimed could represent "millions" of California customers.

In response to similar lawsuits, Verizon and Sprint, both CDMA carriers, have agreed to provide the software code to unlock cellphones after customers nationwide have completed their original contract, attorneys said. "That was the compromise we ended up with to get the cases settled," said California attorney Robert Bramson, one of the lawyers suing carriers T-Mobile and AT&T.

T-Mobile and AT&T fought the lawsuit all the way to the nation’s high court. The two carriers, on the GSM network, are accused of unfair business practices by locking down their phones to their service plans. Last year, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington listed cell phone unlocking as one of six new exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA.

That change, however, left unclear whether carriers were responsible for unlocking the handsets.


The high court’s decision sets aside language in the terms-of-service agreement requiring aggrieved AT&T and T-Mobile customers to submit to binding arbitration instead of going to court. The phone carriers urged the justices to require that their customers honor the contracts they had signed. The lower courts had declared those contracts "unconscionable."

The case the U.S. Supreme Court rejected on Tuesday, if successful, could force AT&T to unlock the coveted iPhone. AT&T is Apple’s exclusive phone provider. "They may be more unwilling than otherwise because the iPhone is such a big seller," Bramson said.

The suits also prompted all four of the phone providers to reduce the fees charged to costumers who terminate a mobile phone contract before it expires.

Still, all four carriers face litigation to reduce those new, pro-rated fees even further. AT&T’s plan, implemented Monday, is similar to the other carriers’ opt-out schedule. Each month, an account holder’s normal $175 charge to back out of the two-year contract is reduced by $5.

"Pro-rated is a step in the right direction," said California attorney David Franklin, one of the lawyers suing the carriers.

Passed in 1998 as an anti-piracy measure, the DMCA makes it illegal to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access" to copyrighted material – in this case the firmware that locks a phone to a provider’s network. The law tasks the U.S. Register of Copyrights and the Librarian of Congress with investigating how the anti-circumvention provision could hurt legitimate users, and then carving out appropriate exemptions every three years.

The cell phone unlocking exemption covers cases where cell phone software locks are circumvented "for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."

Very interesting, and very good for consumers.
 
The case the U.S. Supreme Court rejected on Tuesday, if successful, could force AT&T to unlock the coveted iPhone.
Hmmm, it's been almost a year since that Supreme Court ruling. Wonder if "the case" has had any success since then?
 
I'm more than aware of what precedents are, however it has to be deemed unconstitutional, or unlawful, for the precedent to be set. If that weren't the case courts could rule arbitrarily.

The fact is Apple isn't "digging a hole" since they could easily unlock the iPhone.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.