Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MagnusVonMagnum has a point its the property of Apple and ATT if people don't like it awell don't buy the product or find one that fits your needs. I know people will say but theres a demand for this outside of ATT, yeah I bet Apple spent millions in reasearch that my prove otherwise, we dont really know what goes on in Apple, as far as I know they are planning world domination.
 
But he has a point its the property of Apple and ATT if people don't like it awell don't buy the product ...

At what point in the buying procedure does the iPhone become mine? I'd guess after I hand over $599? Am I wrong?

If they're giving them away with 2 year high-end phone contracts then I might buy into your point a little more.
 
At what point in the buying procedure does the iPhone become mine? I'd guess after I hand over $599? Am I wrong?

If they're giving them away with 2 year high-end phone contracts then I might buy into your point a little more.

not to mention some people flat out cannot use AT&T. the coverage at my home is abysmal, it doesnt work around here unless i drive a few miles up the road. whats the point then?
 
Much ado about nothing...

All this is a little premature. It's not entirely clear what Apple/ATT's legal options are, but this may be a little like the record companies worried about people file sharing HD movies. Sure there will be some small percentages of the population that steals products on the open market. But if the price is right most people will purchase things through the proper channels.

Apple can counteract this by leaving the price of the iPhone high, and in the future offering price drops by way of an activation rebate. Maybe even make people pay a fee if a purchased iPhone isn't activated on the ATT network. There are a lot of options. Not to mention that Apple and ATT's legal departments are a lot bigger than any startup software pirates out there.

This is a story that has been blown totally out of proportion. Both Apple and ATT are 800 lb. Gorillas waiting to pounce on the these little guys that are looking to steal from them.
 
Cell phone unlocking is legal.

AT&T/Apple are breaking the law if they try to prevent it from happening, and if they want to keep others from making money off commercial software that does it, they'll just have to give up the info themselves! :cool:

LAWL at the people giving pity to AT&T. This is ***** Ma Bell people, they've weaseled their way into the #1 place in the US market by buying exclusivity contracts like this many times before, as I recall the razr and the itunes phone both had exclusivity contracts to Cingular long before anyone else could get them.

I'm sick and tired of Ma Bell's uncompetetive whiney brat behavior. They don't deserve anyone's business no matter what the circumstances.
 
LMAO -iPhoneUnlocking a bunch of CROOKS?

Quote:
The sale of unlocking codes is on hold after the company received a telephone call from a Menlo Park, California, law firm at approximately 2:54 a.m. this morning (GMT).

After saying they were phoning on behalf of AT&T, the law firm presented issues such as copyright infringe...blah.......blah.....blah​

---

A 2:54am "call". How'd they get your number.? You belived them?? Where's the legal documentation????? A Cease and desist order ???????????

OR (perhaps) did iPhoneUnlocking just PRETEND to have a software unlocking solution and then create a general clamor for it, take the money and RUN???

Time will tell, but there's a sucker born every minute.
 
Just wondering why is it Apple being discussed I thought it was only ATT whose sending the lawyers. I dont see any news about Apple taking part, either way let see what will happen, be nice if someone creates Linux based iPhone.
 
Cell phone unlocking is legal.
AT&T/Apple are breaking the law if they try to prevent it from happening, and if they want to keep others from making money off commercial software that does it, they'll just have to give up the info themselves! :cool:

Oh? OK. You're right. Call Apple and AT&T and give them the bad news.
 
not to mention some people flat out cannot use AT&T. the coverage at my home is abysmal, it doesnt work around here unless i drive a few miles up the road. whats the point then?

Every single carrier has areas where there are drop outs. NO EXCEPTION. Yes maybe ATT is bad near you and Verizon my be perfect. Six blocks away it could be the opposite.
 
Both Apple and ATT are 800 lb. Gorillas waiting to pounce on the these little guys that are looking to steal from them.

Huh? Spin like this is part of the problem. It is not stealing at all, unless calling someone who hands over $600 and wants to actually use the product they bought is somehow "stealing". People who think that way steal freedom from society.
 
I believe ATT has nothing to do there unless they pay big $$$ to keep those softwares locked. I mean, is reverse ingeneering and you can not do anything about that. It sucks (for them) but it is not ilegal.

Despite, what if I want to use a phone in a country where ATT has no offices? I can call that discriminatory if the case.

Couldn't ATT or Apple include in the user agreement that there shall be no other network but ATT be used on the iPhone or something like that?
 
Quote:
The sale of unlocking codes is on hold after the company received a telephone call from a Menlo Park, California, law firm at approximately 2:54 a.m. this morning (GMT).

After saying they were phoning on behalf of AT&T, the law firm presented issues such as copyright infringe...blah.......blah.....blah​

---

A 2:54am "call". How'd they get your number.? You belived them?? Where's the legal documentation????? A Cease and desist order ???????????

OR (perhaps) did iPhoneUnlocking just PRETEND to have a software unlocking solution and then create a general clamor for it, take the money and RUN???

Time will tell, but there's a sucker born every minute.

That's an interesting take. I honestly do not believe it was ATT or any law firm representing the company. What firm would call someone at almost 3 in the morning on a weekend without sending an official "Cease and Desist" order? Sounds bogus, either someone is having fun or the individual claiming to have unlocked the phone for a price is pulling a fast one. I smell b.s.
 
If Apple gets a kickback, then isn't the $599 price essentially discounted with contract? They just aren't selling non-discounted iPhones.
 
Huh? Spin like this is part of the problem. It is not stealing at all, unless calling someone who hands over $600 and wants to actually use the product they bought is somehow "stealing". People who think that way steal freedom from society.

But.. but.. YER STEALING FROM AT&T $1400!
 
Let's look at this from a business standpoint.

Let's say you are Apple. You are going to O2 or Vodaphone or Rodgers or . . . How are you going to get them to essentially relinquish control over the UI and accept Apple's demands for profit sharing if the phone is not exclusive? Are you going to say, "You are guaranteed to have 100.00% of iPhone users until they start tinkering with their phone, and then go somewhere else."

Let's say you are AT&T. You have spent a huge amount of money to upgrade your network, changing the way your system works in a multitude of ways. In return, you are guaranteed to have two years of revenue. Yes, you probably have to share a small amount of revenue, but you will acquire a million plus customers--customers who agree to a two year contract with you just by buying the phone. Are they going to tell their shareholders, "Hey we just spent millions on upgrading our network, nearly a million phones already, but some people are jumping ship. It's ok. They want to circumvent our system to go over to T-Mobile. Yes we gave up a lot of concessions to Apple, and now those customers are getting Apple's perks on another network."

People have complained that the exclusive contract is not like any other contract. Keep in mind that Apple is not like any other phone manufacturer.

1) They have a huge success record with the iPod, and they will have their own customers to build off of. Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, etc. can't make this claim.

2) Apple agrees to exclusivity in order to have complete control of the user interface, continuing the intuitive UI reputation began by the Mac, the iPod, and most recently :apple:TV. The other makers cannot make the claim of exclusivity in exchange for creative control.

3) Apple reportedly gets a portion of revenue from each customer.

4) Apple only has two models.

5) Apple will supply software updates, promising new features. I don't know of other Carriers / Makers that will update and include new features without requiring a new piece of equipment.

6) Apple takes on all tech support.

7) Apple created a relatively easy activation process, not requiring an hour or so in the store or on the phone.

I can't imagine Apple allowing hackers to upset the balance between provider and carrier. I can see Apple not allowing unlocked phones from being eligible for any updates/upgrades.

I don't like exclusivity at all. But like the poor EDGE speeds, I knew that going into the contract.
 
That's an interesting take. I honestly do not believe it was ATT or any law firm representing the company. What firm would call someone at almost 3 in the morning on a weekend without sending an official "Cease and Desist" order? Sounds bogus, either someone is having fun or the individual claiming to have unlocked the phone for a price is pulling a fast one. I smell b.s.

Businesses often try to strong arm competition, whether it is legal or not (Look at Microsoft for a prime example.) We already know that the DMCA allows for cell phone unlocking. If AT&T were to send a cease and desist letter they would be held accountable for what it said. Threatening telephone calls at 3am might be enough to scare a small developer out of releasing a project while still leaving plausible deniability.

Sounds exactly like how a business who stands to lose lots of money and has no actual legal recourse would play the game.
 
A couple of things...

Generally speaking (keep that in mind), Apple is not violating the law if they take any steps (hardware or software) to prevent unlocking. You MAY be allowed to attempt to unlock your iPhone on your own, ONLY FOR USE ON ANOTHER NETWORK, but they don't have to help you do it and they can take all efforts to prevent it. They can also void your warranty on the spot. If I'm not mistaken, it states on the iPhone box, and was well publicized prior to release, that the product is to be used under a contract with at&t. This constitutes legal notice, and if you purchased the phone, you accepted those terms of use. That's one area Apple/at&t could get you. You can use the phone as a doorstop if you want to, but if you try to use it as a phone, you are using the *licensed* property of Apple/at&t. You own the phone, you license the software that makes it work. Same with your computer.

The EULA is another--and unlike a response posted a while back, EULAs have been enforced in many cases, especially in software piracy instances, and the fines are hefty. That's why you must click "ACCEPT" or "AGREE" before you install protected software--that's legal requirement that you read and accepted the terms and you can be held to them. Enforcement may be spotty and they might not try for PR reasons, but they could. Ask your IT guy about whether you can use a single license of MS Word over a network--the legal obligation$$$ are real.

Commercial sale of code to unlock the iPhone is probably illegal. AT&T could sue the hackers for lost sales, everyone who signs up an iPhone with another carrier. Yes, you Brits, I'm talking about the USA, but it will apply to Apple's partners in Europe as well.

As a general matter, Apple holds the copyright to the code in the iPhone (not talking about specific BSD code in OS X). If the Apple code is used (in whole or in part) in the software unlocking code, it could easily be claimed to be in violation of Apple's copyright on the code. This is NOT covered by the DMCA exemption--you can't use Apple's code to unlock the phone.

The point is...this is serious. Courtrooms, huge fines, all that stuff. Voided warranties are the least of it.
 
The point is...this is serious. Courtrooms, huge fines, all that stuff. Voided warranties are the least of it.

but lets face it, the people outside USA will be the first ones to take advantage of such unlocks before any existing iPhone owners within USA,

Anyone who thinks that they could make a buck on this type of venture, even if it's 100% legal, is kidding themselves.

Luckily, if you live outside the U.S., you may not have to abide to the EULA. Most terms of standard Microsoft EULAs, for example, are null and void in Europe, because under our laws it is illegal for a company to restrict the end user in such a way. And for the next couple of weeks, foreign geeks are THE target market for iPhone unlocking software. I could name 30 people who would pay $50 on the spot for such a haxie.
 
So when (if...?) Apple releases the iPhone in Europe, it sounds like there will have to be an option to either sell an unlocked phone or offer an unlock for a price (it seems that's what the UK posters are saying is required by law of current cell phone manufacturers, anyway).

If that's the case, what's to stop another can of worms from opening and seeing all the European iPhones for sale on eBay to be used in the US (and Asia, South America, Australia, etc) on any network?

It seems like that would be an equally bad, if not worse, problem for AT&T...
 
If Apple gets a kickback, then isn't the $599 price essentially discounted with contract? They just aren't selling non-discounted iPhones.


Correct. I am surprised at the number of posts claiming that Apple is selling an 'unsubsidised' phone and that therefore it is 'in Apple's interest' that the hacks spread to increase demand for the phone. If the amount that AT&T hands over to Apple represents the bulk of the profits on each phone sold then I cannot see how either Apple or AT&T benefits from this.

It's Apple's fault entirely. It should have sold the iPhone at the full price and on the open market. Phones are not the same as computers and Apple cannot hope to control 'the user experience' in the way it is accustomed to. Mobile phone customers are better informed and more discerning than Jobs et al give credit for.
 
WHat does the DMCA say about that situation?

DMCA is about breaking encryption in order to copy things that you shouldn't copy. This doesn't happen here. If someone wrote a hack that makes it possible to extract iTMS songs from an iPhone with the encryption removed, then DMCA would stop them. Or if someone wrote a hack to run the iPhone software on a different phone. But in this case, there is no copying involved, so no DMCA. Same if someone wrote software that allows you to copy your own voice as a ringtone to the iPhone.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.