Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Lawsuit Over AT&T's iPhone Exclusivity Gains Class Action Status

Some people are pretty clueless.

They should look up Psystar vs. Apple.

Same argument has been used against Apple, and failed. Plus the problem is, if you are on Verizon, you can't even unlock your phone and drop in a sim card, because Verizon locks cell phones to their network by using the old CDMA technology.
 
Other Phones!

potaco said:
And when can I order a Big Mac at Burger King?!!?
Click to expand...

This is completely irrelevant, the Big Mac is owned by Mc Donald's. The iPhone is owned by Apple not AT&T. Yes you're going to tell me it's exclusive, how about the other phones exclusive in AT&T. Other than iPhone some of the phone sold by AT&T is unlockable with codes when your contract is over. I still don't understand why AT&T doens't support unlocking when your contract is expired. Other carriers in other countries does support unlocking iPhone http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1937. AT&T thinks they can always get away with this I hope their ass will get busted! Seriously!
 
thedoctor9 said:
Wow, class action lawsuit for the exclusivity of the iphone with AT&T. Well..... all I can say is, United States of America!!!
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Its more to do with unlocking your phone after your two year contract is up. And most likely this will be settled by doing just that, unlocking the first iphone.
 
There is no cure for cancer but there might be one someday. At least in the meantime you can get treatment as awful as it might be.

With stupidity, there is no cure, there never will be one, and there is no treatment.
 
Speedy2 said:
Isn't the whole of Europe communist, too? At least that's what I hear here very often. I haven't found any traces here yet, will keep looking. :D
Click to expand...

Don't forget that juggernaut of Left Wing Extremism to the north of the US. Canada.

Up here we have several carriers for the iPhone. Too bad they all seem to fall into step when it comes to data and voice packages for the iPhone.

s.
 
JonboyDC said:
I agree that mobile phone service providers (like AT&T and Verizon) should have to unlock phones after the contract is up, but it would be ridiculous to require phone manufacturers to make phones that will work on any network you choose. Apple was well within their rights to design a phone that would work best with AT&T's network, and to agree to work exclusively with AT&T in selling and providing service to new phones.
Click to expand...


No one said that Apple or AT&T or anyone else has to design the phone in a way that it works on any network. Where did you get this from?

All they should have to do is remove the friggin simlock, so people can do whatever they want with their phones, within technical limitations of course (why does this have to be spelt out?). The simlock is an artificial, choice-limiting means after all and its presence has no justification after the contract ends.
 
I don't care about exclusive agreements, they don't bother me at all. If you want an iPhone get AT&T service. If you want Verizon service get a phone that's not an iPhone. Consumers know this before they make a purchase decision.

However, I do think Apple/AT&T should unlock the phone once you fulfill your contract terms and ask them to unlock it. I didn't know they were not unlocking them.


Another thing: I sure wish I could use an iPhone on AT&T without a required data plan. I would give it to my son for his cell phone and for texting for $10/month.
 
GooMan said:
I don't care about exclusive agreements, they don't bother me at all. If you want an iPhone get AT&T service. If you want Verizon service get a phone that's not an iPhone. Consumers know this before they make a purchase decision.

However, I do think Apple/AT&T should unlock the phone once you fulfill your contract terms and ask them to unlock it. I didn't know they were not unlocking them.
Click to expand...

ATT were not unlocking them, I asked ATT about my 2 year old iPhone 3G, they would not.

but i can take $15 data plan and keep using it with ATT with out contract.
 
potaco said:
And when can I order a Big Mac at Burger King?!!?
Click to expand...

I agree... this is the stupidest use of the legal system going. In the US, there are tons of handsets that are exclusive to one carrier or the other. Now all of a sudden this is considered a monopoly??? They can't have it both ways... One story says the iPhone is an out of date also ran, and the next claims that not having it available on another carrier is worthy of a class action suit. All the other carriers have similar products, to I don't get it.

Now all of that said, I'd love to see something move from a regulatory standpoint to make all the US cellphone market unlocked and carrier agnostic like most other parts of the world. Of course, there would still be the issue that Verizon and Sprint use different technology from AT&T and T-Mobile, but it would break up this whole contract concept. I loath contracts and avoid them at all costs.

But back to this lawsuit, given the current regulations in the US market, there is nothing wrong with a carrier and handset maker partnering on a product.
 
Go get em' boys!

When I was buying my iPhone 4 at AT&T I asked if I could use my old iPhone, that I purchased free and clear, on another network...three years after purchasing it.

The worker laughed at me slightly as they shook their head and said no.

This is not a junk lawsuit; all that is being asked for is what every other phone gets - an unlock after the two year contract is up and the device has been paid for. I guess some of the fanboys think that makes for a "spurious lawsuit"

Consultant said:
Some people are pretty clueless.

They should look up Psystar vs. Apple.

Same argument has been used against Apple, and failed. Plus the problem is, if you are on Verizon, you can't even unlock your phone and drop in a sim card, because Verizon locks cell phones to their network by using the old CDMA technology.
Click to expand...

But do they prevent you from using the phone on another CDMA network after two years like ATT (on another GSM network)?
 
txr0ckabilly said:
there is, but the lawsuit is in the united states and the exclusivity agreement is in the united states.
Click to expand...

You do realise that demand from abroad would strongly increase the value of any unlocked US-iPhone? So, no, the US is not an island, and the world outside does have an influence on you.
 
So....

Full of Win said:
Go get em' boys!

When I was buying my iPhone 4 at AT&T I asked if I could use my old iPhone, that I purchased free and clear, on another network...three years after purchasing it.

The worker laughed at me slightly as they shook their head and said no.

This is not a junk lawsuit; all that is being asked for is what every other phone gets - an unlock after the two year contract is up when the device has been paid for. I guess some of the fanboys think that makes for a "spurious lawsuit"
Click to expand...

So you are against "Socialism," yet you support the Feds getting their grimy hands all up in two private companies dealings? :rolleyes:

I doubt that AT%T or Apple are breaking contracts, and I am confident that all of these stipulations were stated somewhere during the purchase and activations...

So yes, it is a spurious, frivolous, vapid, and petty lawsuit from a bunch of whiners. Go make your own phone and offer it unlocked to everyone if it's that big a thorn in your side!
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)

Full of Win said:
Go get em' boys!

When I was buying my iPhone 4 at AT&T I asked if I could use my old iPhone, that I purchased free and clear, on another network...three years after purchasing it.

The worker laughed at me slightly as they shook their head and said no.

This is not a junk lawsuit; all that is being asked for is what every other phone gets - an unlock after the two year contract is up and the device has been paid for. I guess some of the fanboys think that makes for a "spurious lawsuit"

Consultant said:
Some people are pretty clueless.

They should look up Psystar vs. Apple.

Same argument has been used against Apple, and failed. Plus the problem is, if you are on Verizon, you can't even unlock your phone and drop in a sim card, because Verizon locks cell phones to their network by using the old CDMA technology.
Click to expand...

But do they prevent you from using the phone on another CDMA network after two years like ATT (on another GSM network)?
Click to expand...

The problem is that they AT&T is not breaking any laws by not doing so.
 
Speedy2 said:
They should be obliged to unlock the phones after the contract is over. That's how it is here in Europe.
Click to expand...

The thing is, a majority of the iPhone customers in the US end up buying a new iPhone before their contract is officially up, increasing the length of their contract by another two years or they opt out of the contract (by paying a fee), hence never completing the terms of the contract.
 
razor anyone

does anyone remember the razor?

that had an exclusive agreement. So do may other phones, including the droid.

so i don't really get the lawsuit. All the manufactures and providers should be apart of this then.
 
Krizoitz said:
This is asinine. The phone can't even WORK on other carriers because they all use different technologies and frequencies. What, are you gonna take your GSM iPhone to Verizon's CDMA network and expect it to work? Neither ATT or Apple promised you your iPhone would work on another network after two years. If you don't like it, buy a phone on someone elses network.
Click to expand...
Exactly. As if some judge's ruling is going to force Apple to make a CDMA iPhone for Verizon...
 
iRobertM said:
Nothing tops "I burnt myself with hot coffee, you should of had a warning!"
Click to expand...

Pour McDonalds coffee on one leg and starbucks on the other. McDs still will burn the crap out of you. Im pretty sure it stops boiling right before they hand it to you. I used to think that suit was ridiculous til I realized just how hot it was.
 
The original announcement of exclusivity certainly "exceeded 2 years" and an iPhone buyer would know before buying one, any renewal would necessarily be on AT&T.

Furthermore virtually all handsets sold are tuned to particular carriers and those carriers use mutually exclusive frequencies and protocols specifically to make their customers sticky short of upgrading handsets.

With a traditional cell phone the handset change might cost $29-$299. It is only because the Apple handset is only incidentally a phone and over 90% of its uses are not phone, and thus the price is higher, that this becomes an issue.

Therefore you are buying a hand top COMPUTER that has a phone app on it. If you want access to other carriers, buy a $29 phone with no such additional features and get a pay as you go plan for minimal commitment and use it ONLY when your AT&T system has no access.

Or better yet. Shut up!

:D

Rocketman

Or be a lawyer and never shut up and never stop annoying people.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

After my two years and the contract is done they should unlock the phone for you...

Even though I don't live in the US, I hate AT&T actually I hate the way mobile carriers treat their customers in the US.

When I was visiting the US for a few years ago I decided to get a pay as you go sim, to save up on roaming charges. After a lot of research it turned out be a lot cheaper to stay with my local sim! Making calls to the US, making calls back home, even making international calls! All were cheaper using my sim with my roaming charges!

I was surprised that you pay to recieve calls! I was appalled that you pay international rates to recieve an international call! We used to have that when GSM service was first installed but that didn't last long and you paid nothing to recieve international calls!

We have a gov regulator in charge of telecom, now they are not perfect, but they are better than nothing.
 
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