Sidebar Sidebar
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

FJ218700

FJ218700

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Mar 8, 2007
1,740
0
Blue Dot, Red State
SAN JOSE, Calif. - Complaints over Apple Inc.’s use restrictions and recent software update for the iPhone have erupted in two lawsuits alleging Apple and its carrier partner, AT&T Inc., engaged in illegal monopolistic behavior.

Two separate lawsuits were filed in San Jose on Oct. 5 — one in federal court and the other in state court and both seeking class-action status. . . .

link
 
Wonder why there has never been a lawsuit against Sprint or Verizon and how they lock devices to their networks :D
 
marksman said:
What a weird concept of what a monopoly is.
Click to expand...

A monopoly on iPhones, which just happen to have sold a small fraction of a percent of the cellphones over the last 20 years.

Likely they don't like the web-based SDK nor the price of entry to actually getting an app certified for the iPhones under some of the models being kicked around.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with Apple charging an arm and leg to certify an app before letting it run on the phone.

---

As far as limiting the phone to one network, happens all the time when new companies enter markets.

Big money in selling exclusive franchises and forcing customers to deal with only one company in an area.

So the state case may get booted in 4 years.

Though if there was a problem under the telecommunications acts, you'd think AT&T lawyers would have said something sooner.

But that doesn't mean the federal case will get booted, it is 9th Circuit after all. :rolleyes:
 
Monopoly regarding the iPhone? Stupid.

But monopoly regarding AT&T...no so much.
In fact, AT&T was forced to split itself up in Florida not too long ago, if I remember correctly. And we ended up with Bellsouth and Cingular...but now they're merged again - and we pretty much have no choice for phone service.

I hate them.
 
This isn't illegal. It is like trying to sue Target or Wal-Mart for being an exclusive carrier of a certain brand of clothing or electronics. Businesses do these things all the time, for some reason there is just tons more attention on iPhone. I see no monopoly here.
 
Definition of monopoly

I think they need to look it up.." the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service"

So by their argument...
mcdonalds has a monopoly for the big mac
burger king, the whopper
toyota has a monopoly of the camry

etc...
etc...
etc...

Now, let's talk about letting people buy a phone, use it on any network, and have the ability to switch service anytime you like..
 
ratpH1nk said:
I think they need to look it up.." the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service"

So by their argument...
mcdonalds has a monopoly for the big mac
burger king, the whopper
toyota has a monopoly of the camry

etc...
etc...
etc...

Now, let's talk about letting people buy a phone, use it on any network, and have the ability to switch service anytime you like..
Click to expand...


Veruca Salt: I want an Oompa Loompa now!
 
ratpH1nk said:
I think they need to look it up.." the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service"

So by their argument...
mcdonalds has a monopoly for the big mac
burger king, the whopper
toyota has a monopoly of the camry

etc...
etc...
etc...

Now, let's talk about letting people buy a phone, use it on any network, and have the ability to switch service anytime you like..
Click to expand...

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.
 
i think... End-user have a ground. there shouldnt be any limitation on which services we should go with..
 
Maybe... just maybe some of you should tale a moment and read the lawsuit before you make posts based on assumptions. Your ignorance of the issues involved is showing.
 
alljunks said:
i think... End-user have a ground. there shouldnt be any limitation on which services we should go with..
Click to expand...

You have no limitations, simply buy another company's phone.

Right now the limitation on the iPhone is there through the initial stages of release, which for a new company entering the market. Makes debugging the phone a lot easier.
 
carfac said:
Maybe... just maybe some of you should tale a moment and read the lawsuit before you make posts based on assumptions. Your ignorance of the issues involved is showing.
Click to expand...

I just read it...

And guess what. Its stupid. A waste of time and money. The Apple, at&t legal fees will end up being paid for by these idiots who filed the suits.
 
This is too stupid for words.

Don't these Lawyers have anything better to do with their time?
 
My first macrumors post...please be gentle with me...

I have visited this site daily for the past 2 years...ever since I bought by first mac. You all have really provided some great insight and direction in my subsequent mac purchases...including the aforementioned iPhone. But I am finally compelled to join the discussion on this topic.

All of these discussions about exclusivity of provider and sim locking are very confusing to me. it appears that both Apple and ATT have the right to enter into a venture like this and there is nothing illegal about it.

My son has a sidekick 3 (danger) and it is an exclusive product of Tmobile and has been since its launch several years ago. Why would this not be cause for such scandal and outrage as this current partnership with Apple and Att? I honestly do not understand...educate me (painlessly...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back