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

[jav6454]

There has never been a tiny print saying "You have to stay with AT&T for an entirely undetermined amount of time after your contract ends to use this phone even as an iPod." has there?

I don't really get how RUMOURS about the alleged five-year agreement between Apple and AT&T can play any role in this lawsuit. For all we know, the agreement could last another 10 years, and everyone with their iPhones would have to stay with AT&T as long as AT&T chooses.

The tiny print on all the ads all the copntracts! That tiny print. In is clearly shown that everything the iPhone does is inherent to itself and the AT&T network.

It's always been known that iPhone is exclusive to AT&T and if you don't like it, there are OTHER phones and OTHER carriers. Also, this lawsuit of monopoly is WAAYYYYY beyond stupid. For someone to make a monopoly claim, there has to be multiple iPhone makers, and that I know of, there is only one. As simple as that. Apple told you when they anounced it, AT&T only. That's already the entire argument for the plaintiff's gone. However, say the judge doesn't buy it.

If you bought it, you willingly accepted that fact and also that it would be AT&T only for as long as Apple wanted. That is easy to bring up in court and destroy half the plaintiff's arguments.

Also, there can't be an iPhone monopoly because the iPhone will not work at it's full potential with other carriers. There goes 1/4 of whatever arguments are left.

For the last 1/4 left, the iPhone is technologically bounded to one network in the US because of hardware issues. So, it doesn't matter that people want to unlock it, it won't work with anyone else (sans T-Mobile).

Ta-da!

Lastly, say this passes, and Apple is found guilty. All Apple has to do is unlock all iPhones (current ones) and make newer ones work only thru AT&T's GSM technology and AT&T's frequencies. Period, you can't make a GSM phone work on CDMA carrier, won't happen, and Apple isn't forced to make that happen.

 

[Bookmonke]

God I hate lawyers, and how many of your people finished your two years already or did you get the newest iPhone, so things start all over, this is a stupid lawsuit and don't expect a big payout to you, just the damn lawyers.

 

[GSX]

Using a cell is a privilege, not a right. Don't like the rules, don't use it.

I really don't understand people like you.

If people want to unlock their phones after their contracts are up why not let them? Are you against choice, and free market? Does it somehow hurt you if people can unlock their phones? Who cares if there are only a couple of networks that the iPhone can work with? Let people do what they want with their phones.

Here's a hypothetical situation: How would you feel if Apple starts making deals with ISPs for internet access? All Apple computers would be tied to the ISP of Apple's choosing, with the ISPs giving Apple a nice kickback just like AT&T. Unfortunately, since Apple is all about controlling the user experience these days I don't think this scenario is that far-fetched. Especially with Apple's push towards the cloud.

How would you feel about that?

 

[nebo1ss]

Some people just don't get it!

If you live and very limited world, it doesn't mean the others live in your tiny world. Some actually travel and work in different countries. (I don't mean going from New York to Texas or Arizona to a Tea Party or Gun Association meeting.) Some people go to another country and they just buy another Sim card.

+1

 

[iPadPublisher]

If this goes anywhere....

...I'll simply opt-out of the settlement or payment, which you can do as a member of the covered class. In my opinion, Apple has done nothing wrong. There's plenty of competition in the marketplace and if you wanted to leave AT&T you could pay your fee and leave. Yes, you'd also need to buy a new phone, but I find it very hard to believe that almost every iPhone purchaser, then and now, had any expectation that their iPhone was portable. Not only because a large number of iPhone customers are more tech savvy than most, but also because most people know that not all carriers are compatible with one another.

Said backwards, I left Sprint to move to AT&T because I knew it was the only place I could get an iPhone. I'm also completely fine with that. The market did its job... I made the conscious decision to pay a termination fee and leave an otherwise happy relationship for a better more functional product. I knew what I was doing, and I didn't feel forced, tricked, or somehow harmed because I wasn't able to get the iPhone anywhere else. All this, and it was AT&T (Cingular) that I left to go to Sprint many years ago.

 

[chris975d]

You are COMPLETELY missing the point (but in your defense, so are plenty of other posters). This is about the right to use the phone THAT YOU PAID FOR through a 2-year contract however you see fit after you have completed your contractually obliged service period. If I want to sell my phone, take it abroad, or use it on T-mobile, I AM UNABLE to even though I may no longer be a customer of AT&T and my phone is fully paid for. So, in effect, if you want to continue to use the phone THAT YOU PAID FOR, you MUST use AT&T!

And don't say, "oh it's Apple's product, they can do whatever they want, if you don't like it go somewhere else"... there are consumer protection laws in place in this country that almighty Apple has to follow just like anyone else. And I say this as a long-time Apple shareholder.

I understand what you are saying, but how is this any different than any other exclusive phone on any other carrier these days? If I fulfill a contract for an Evo, where else can I take that phone and use it once I'm done with it? Same for the Droid X, Droid Incredible, etc? I can't take those Verizon Droids to Sprint, even though they are on the same network technology. It's been a few years since I've had a CDMA contract (that has run out and I'm no longer using the phone), but when I did, if a CDMA smartphone wasn't provisioned on the network at boot-up, it wouldn't even function as a PDA. It wouldn't let you do anything until it was authenticated on the network. Has this changed? AT least with the iPhone, once you are done with it as a phone, you can pop the SIM out and it functions just like an iPod Touch (as long as you don't do any software upgrades, then I believe it bricks it again until it's connected to iTunes and is authorized again).

 

[madmax_2069]

To be honest, I couldn't care less regarding the exclusivity part - but not unlocking the phone after your contract is up is pretty ridiculous. AT&T will unlock other phones they offer but won't budge on the iphone.

When your contract obligations are up, you should be able to do what you want with your phone.

+1

I thought that is what they stated when the iPhone was first launched. My friends first gen is now a iPod because of this BS and he is pissed about it when he found out that he could not get it unlocked.

AT&T needs to burn for this.

Using a cell is a privilege, not a right. Don't like the rules, don't use it.

Maybe your mommy and daddy make it a privilege for you, but to a grown up it is not. now having a drivers license is a privilege, not a right.

 

[nebo1ss]

The tiny print on all the ads all the copntracts! That tiny print. In is clearly shown that everything the iPhone does is inherent to itself and the AT&T network.

It's always been known that iPhone is exclusive to AT&T and if you don't like it, there are OTHER phones and OTHER carriers. Also, this lawsuit of monopoly is WAAYYYYY beyond stupid. For someone to make a monopoly claim, there has to be multiple iPhone makers, and that I know of, there is only one. As simple as that. Apple told you when they anounced it, AT&T only. That's already the entire argument for the plaintiff's gone. However, say the judge doesn't buy it.

If you bought it, you willingly accepted that fact and also that it would be AT&T only for as long as Apple wanted. That is easy to bring up in court and destroy half the plaintiff's arguments.

Also, there can't be an iPhone monopoly because the iPhone will not work at it's full potential with other carriers. There goes 1/4 of whatever arguments are left.

For the last 1/4 left, the iPhone is technologically bounded to one network in the US because of hardware issues. So, it doesn't matter that people want to unlock it, it won't work with anyone else (sans T-Mobile).

Ta-da!

Lastly, say this passes, and Apple is found guilty. All Apple has to do is unlock all iPhones (current ones) and make newer ones work only thru AT&T's GSM technology and AT&T's frequencies. Period, you can't make a GSM phone work on CDMA carrier, won't happen, and Apple isn't forced to make that happen.

I don't think the lawsuit is about monopoly. I thinks it is more about the phone does not fulfill the purpose for which it was sold. "Making Telephone Calls". With regard to unlocking, why do you think unlockers are all about moving to T-Mobile. I happen to use T-Mobile but I bought my Iphone 3GS 32G on Ebay, never had an ATT contract and wanted it because it provided the things I wanted from a single device. My phone is unlocked and I travel extensively and have a box of Sim cards at home from multiple countries. I get to use a single device when I travel with all my contacts in the phone, all my music in the phone and all the APPs that i use including financial apps and news in the single device. If you use +country code with all your contact phone numbers when you set them up you never have to worry about which country you are in. I know my profile does not fit the average user but try and take a larger view of the world.

 

[Rot'nApple]

If this Classless Action is successful and the iPhone now fully belongs to the person who bought it and contracts hold no legitimacy anymore in the USA, what will the "winners" do?

I know people jail break the phone. Does that mean that the transmitter, radio receiver etc, what ever it uses to make itself receive and place calls, can it now operate on T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, nTelos, and others found on this list, will they now be available to that consumer? (List here)

Or does Jail Breaking an iPhone only allow you to install apps not approved by Apple?

What will the courts do if they find in favor of the consumer over Apple and AT&T? Will they FORCE Apple to manufacture multiple models to comply with the consumers wishes to have their iPhone operate on various cell phone formats? If not and if Jail Breaking doesn't have anything to do with receiving and making calls, where do you go to be able to use your GSM iPhone in the USA? Sprint? Verizon?

I'm really interested in knowing. Will this be the "USFL" verdict and award all over again? Will the court find against Apple and AT&T and "award" the iPhone user a $5.00 gift card and leave them baffled and confused and saying 'Now what?'?

 

[Krizoitz]

There's a great big world outside of the United States.

Oh, riiiight, i must have missed the part where it said the suit had been brought by a bunch of Europeans who've been paying AT&T for two years for a phone they couldn't use in the hopes that in year three they could unlock their phones and finally use them in their home countries.

If you are going to be a smart-a** you should at least pay attention to the article. This is an AMERICAN lawsuit talking about what the company should and shouldn't be allowed to do in AMERICA. If it were a British lawsuit or a Japanese lawsuit or even a Canadian lawsuit then the other carriers might matter, but its not. What practical expectation can they have of the American courts? To unlock my iPhone 3G so I can use the Edge network on T-Mobile? Gimme a break!

 

[nebo1ss]

Oh, riiiight, i must have missed the part where it said the suit had been brought by a bunch of Europeans who've been paying AT&T for two years for a phone they couldn't use in the hopes that in year three they could unlock their phones and finally use them in their home countries.

If you are going to be a smart-a** you should at least pay attention to the article. This is an AMERICAN lawsuit talking about what the company should and shouldn't be allowed to do in AMERICA. If it were a British lawsuit or a Japanese lawsuit or even a Canadian lawsuit then the other carriers might matter, but its not. What practical expectation can they have of the American courts? To unlock my iPhone 3G so I can use the Edge network on T-Mobile? Gimme a break!

You are the one that is not getting it. There are many people that travel on business for weeks or months at a time and use other SIMS while abroad. Unlocking is not just about using T-Mobile. These individuals may be quite happy to use ATT while at home in the US but do not wish to pay roaming charges for local calls while in London or Paris and chose to buy a SIM from a local carrier. It saves a lot of money.

 

[trip1ex]

Isn't is just wonderful that all iPhone customers may eventually, after five years of litigation get a $5 coupon to buy AT&T accessories for their iPhones, while the class action lawyers pocket millions?

Ain't that the truth.

 

[LagunaSol]

I'm suing Verizon and Microsoft for 1) an unfair, exclusive partnership on the Kin, and 2) killing the Kin before we had sufficient time to mock it publicly.

I'm also suing Sprint for using a CDMA network, which doesn't allow me to unlock my iPhone and subscribe to one of Sprint's cheaper plans.

I'm suing AT&T for being overall screw-ups.

And I'm suing T-Mobile for having too wimpy a data network to tempt me to unlock my iPhone and run it as a T-Mobile phone.

I demand justice. Or something.

 

[andiwm2003]

............................
Lastly, say this passes, and Apple is found guilty. All Apple has to do is unlock all iPhones (current ones) ....................

You write a whole pointless page saying that the lawsuit is stupid and then with the above sentence you say the lawsuit is great because it might fullfill its only meaningful goal: unlocking the paid for current iphones.

The only point about this lawsuit is to get enough pressure on apple to unlock our paid for iphones.

The entire monopoly blah blah is indeed unjustified and pointless. But unlocking my 2G and 3GS phone would give me phones worth hundreds because I just have to pop my T-Mobile card (or whatever is good in other countries) into my iphone and I have reasonable voice and data prices around Europe.

People use your brains. This is not about justice or monopoly or whatever. This is about unlocking the iPhones after the contract ends and about making a few lawyers rich.

 

[nopple]

yet another spurious lawsuit!

The best lawsuit ever. Lets bring ATT down and their already ****** towers.

 

[John.B]

You are the one that is not getting it. There are many people that travel on business for weeks or months at a time and use other SIMS while abroad. Unlocking is not just about using T-Mobile. These individuals may be quite happy to use ATT while at home in the US but do not wish to pay roaming charges for local calls while in London or Paris and chose to buy a SIM from a local carrier. It saves a lot of money.

IANAL, but I don't get how an American court would have jurisdiction in that case...

 

[Thex1138]

Buy

From Apple in Australia?
They aren't locked here...

 

[kernkraft]

God I hate lawyers, and how many of your people finished your two years already or did you get the newest iPhone, so things start all over, this is a stupid lawsuit and don't expect a big payout to you, just the damn lawyers.

A Class Action case would set an important precedent to provide more competition in the industry. It is painfully obvious that the current situation doesn't serve consumers. AT&T is generating huge revenue on the back of the misery of masses of unhappy customers.

Also, lawyers are often genuine people with integrity and honest belief in serving the public and fighting for justice.

 

[andiwm2003]

Completely False.

can you back that up? I can.

 

[nopple]

Belongs to me

To all those ATT employees making $8 and hour and opposing the lawsuit,

Damn it. It my phone and I OWN it. And ATT should unlock after 2 years.

Great that we have dev team for developing jailbreaking tools.

 

[andiwm2003]

Cause t-mobile stupidly made their 3G network have different frequencies than everyone else so the iPhone wouldn't be able to use it.

??? I thought the us iphone works out of the box in germany with t-mobile.

 

[BigPrince]

even if these phones were unlocked...it wouldn't work on Verizon!

 

[nebo1ss]

??? I thought the us iphone works out of the box in germany with t-mobile.

He is referring to T-Mobile USA. Yes they do use a different frequency but they are not stupid they have to use the frequency allocated by the FCC.

 

[Rot'nApple]

You are COMPLETELY missing the point (but in your defense, so are plenty of other posters). This is about the right to use the phone THAT YOU PAID FOR through a 2-year contract however you see fit after you have completed your contractually obliged service period. If I want to sell my phone, take it abroad, or use it on T-mobile, I AM UNABLE to even though I may no longer be a customer of AT&T and my phone is fully paid for. So, in effect, if you want to continue to use the phone THAT YOU PAID FOR, you MUST use AT&T!

And don't say, "oh it's Apple's product, they can do whatever they want, if you don't like it go somewhere else"... there are consumer protection laws in place in this country that almighty Apple has to follow just like anyone else. And I say this as a long-time Apple shareholder.

If Apple and AT&T agreed to an exclusivity contract, in that Apple's iPhone and subsequent iPhones will be honed to AT&T and AT&T only, how does you as a third party purchaser of the iPhone allow for that exclusivity contract between Apple and AT&T to be broken when you were not a party to the exclusivity contract. It is not an agreement between Apple, AT&T and You. You can't amend, bend, break an agreement you had no voice in creating or benefit in adjoining.

My six year old Sony-Ericsson T-Mobile phone won't work on AT&T, Sprint or Verizon for that matter. Should I demand the courts make either Sony-Ericsson or the cellular networks comply with regards to making my phone not just mobile as defined but mobile to any carrier I choose? Or someone else with their phone?

 

[andiwm2003]

He is referring to T-Mobile USA. Yes they do use a different frequency but they are not stupid they have to use the frequency allocated by the FCC.

well there is not much point in switching the iphone from ATT to T-Mobile USA. Switching your old iPhone from an expensive to a cheaper no data plan with ATT makes sense or using it abroad to get local prices makes sense.

And this is what the whole fuss is about.