# Apple & AT&T Lawsuit



## HDJulie (Aug 10, 2008)

The lawsuit against Apple & AT&T due to the exclusivity of the iPhone to AT&T has been granted class action status.

http://msn-cnet.com.com/8301-13579_3-20010212-37.html?part=msn-cnet&subj=ns&tag=feed

The gist seems to be did people realize when they signed the two-year contract that it was actually a five-year contract since no other provider would get the phone until the exclusivity contract was up.

I don't understand this -- aren't all model phones exclusive to the carrier? For instance, only Verizon had the Blackberry Storm. And how does signing the two-year contact make it really five years? You can leave after two years & get another phone with someone else.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

HDJulie said:


> The lawsuit against Apple & AT&T due to the exclusivity of the iPhone to AT&T has been granted class action status.
> 
> http://msn-cnet.com.com/8301-13579_3-20010212-37.html?part=msn-cnet&subj=ns&tag=feed
> 
> ...


The Storm isn't a good comparison. First, it sucked (and I'm a Blackberry fan), and two there are other Blackberries, it and the Storm 2 are the only touchscreens, but doesn't give a lot of extra features that say the Bold doesn't have. It would be a closer comparison if only Verizon had Blackberry, or only T-Mobile had Android.

It is very unusual for something to be this exclusive and for this long. But nothing is stopping a user generally from moving their iPhone over to T-Mobile after the contract is up. But you have to fight against Apple constantly and be careful about updating the OS.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Seems stupid to me.

It is just another phone, there are other phone exclusives as well.

Heck, Android was T-Mobile exclusive in the USA for quite awhile.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Someone bought an iPhone in 2007 and still has a problem with AT&T and Apple over that phone????


----------



## ctk (Oct 25, 2009)

some people think that this issue is all about trying to forcibly get the iphone off at&t. it's not about that. i think the thing people don't understand is that what is happening is that people who buy their iphone out of contract or from other people and aren't necessarily going to use them on at&t. and that the carriers and/or the manufacturers are supposed to provide unlock codes for your phones should you request one. neither at&t or apple are doing that. and the only legal way to unlock your phone (in apple's eyes) is to get the code which they will not provide. the only way to unlock it now is to jailbreak it which apple believes is illegal.

so what is happening here is that apple is forcing a monopoly on american iphone users pushing them to at&t if you wish to use the devices to its fullest extent. by not providing a way in their terms of service to "legally" unlock your phone users can't go anywhere else. so if your contract with at&t is up and you don't like their service but don't want to have to buy another phone guess what, you are stuck and have no recourse. and i'm not talking about strictly for domestic usage here. if you have an iphone and move out of the country, you can pay your etf but you still will not recieve an unlock code for your phone. go to the uk and want orange, o2, or t-mobile with an american iphone and you can't use it with their sim cards.

i have seen some readers on other tech sites say that its stupid for people to take their iphone to t-mobile (the only other gsm carrier in this country) because the 3g bands are incompatible. well, there are more than 1 million iphones on t-mobile's network right now. and there is a dedicated iphone tech support division for tmousa. i think that all things considered, people are so fed up with at&t or so satisfied with t-mobile that 3g compatibility is a non-factor.

i have also seen people think that complain that they can't get an iphone on sprint or verizon so this lawsuit is frivolous which is silly. both sprint and verizon chose to put their networks on technology not used widely by any other carrier in the world. sure apple could make a cdma iphone but they chose not to for whatever reason. it's not apple's fault sprint or verizon don't use gsm technology.

notice i'm using american iphone users. everyplace else the iphone is sold, it's sold unlocked. you can use whatever carrier you wish. apple could solve this particular problem of theirs by selling an unlocked iphone but they don't want to. they do sell an out of contract phone, but its still tied to at&t service. because at&t unlocks every other one of the phones they carry but this one, i don't see how they win.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> It is very unusual for something to be this exclusive and for this long.


While in a different market, think NFL Sunday Ticket.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

ctk said:


> some people think that this issue is all about trying to forcibly get the iphone off at&t. it's not about that. i think the thing people don't understand is that what is happening is that people who buy their iphone out of contract or from other people and aren't necessarily going to use them on at&t. and that the carriers and/or the manufacturers are supposed to provide unlock codes for your phones should you request one. neither at&t or apple are doing that. and the only legal way to unlock your phone (in apple's eyes) is to get the code which they will not provide. the only way to unlock it now is to jailbreak it which apple believes is illegal.


OK, this make sense to me .. I can agree with this.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

ctk said:


> notice i'm using american iphone users. everyplace else the iphone is sold, it's sold unlocked. you can use whatever carrier you wish. apple could solve this particular problem of theirs by selling an unlocked iphone but they don't want to.


But how loud would these same people complaining howl if we went to the European model? You want an iPhone? That will be $600+ please. We have become so accustomed to subsidized phones from all carriers, I don't think we (as a nation) could handle it if they weren't.

Plus, if someone wants an unlocked iPhone, there are a number of websites that sell them.


----------



## ctk (Oct 25, 2009)

Herdfan said:


> But how loud would these same people complaining howl if we went to the European model? You want an iPhone? That will be $600+ please. We have become so accustomed to subsidized phones from all carriers, I don't think we (as a nation) could handle it if they weren't.
> 
> Plus, if someone wants an unlocked iPhone, there are a number of websites that sell them.


i have no problem with this. if i had the money i would do it. i'm looking at that situation now. the samsung vibrant is coming out this week and i already have a contract with t-mo that i'm happy with. in order to get the cheaper price i have to sign a new deal and i don't want to do that, so i'm going to have to pay retail for the phone and i'm okay with that. the best situation i believe would be you could either buy your phone at the higher retail unsubsidized price but you have the ability to go to any carrier you wish or you could go to a carrier and get a phone from them subsidized but after the 2 year contract period the carriers must provide an unlock code should the customer request one for any reason.

if making all phones unsubsidized helps americans not buy stuff they couldn't afford otherwise i'm all for it. for simple uses like communication purposes, prepaid phones are all over the big box stores for not a whole lot. people aren't entitled to phones they can't pay for.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

This case will be interesting to keep the eyes on...it has potential ramifications on the way these providers do business at the root level.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> But how loud would these same people complaining howl if we went to the European model? You want an iPhone? That will be $600+ please. We have become so accustomed to subsidized phones from all carriers, I don't think we (as a nation) could handle it if they weren't.
> 
> Plus, if someone wants an unlocked iPhone, there are a number of websites that sell them.


I don't have a problem with paying full retail price for my phones, I payed full price for my BB Bold 9700 and my Nexus1, before my upgrade time.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Herdfan said:


> But how loud would these same people complaining howl if we went to the European model? You want an iPhone? That will be $600+ please. We have become so accustomed to subsidized phones from all carriers, I don't think we (as a nation) could handle it if they weren't.
> 
> Plus, if someone wants an unlocked iPhone, there are a number of websites that sell them.


IF included lower mothly pricing and the ability to seamlessly move when you wanted, I would be all for that.

The issue here is the cell companies subsidize and charge you more and set ETFs so if you leave early they are compensated, but when you get to month 25 with the same phone and are done paying the subsidy back, your bill stays the same. You could keep the phone for 10 years and still pay the same as someone who gets a new phone every 2 years.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

A lead story on CNN about Consumer Reports NOT recommending the new iPhone on top of this lawsuit certainly takes alot of wind of it's sails (and maybe sales).


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Lee L said:


> IF included lower mothly pricing and the ability to seamlessly move when you wanted, I would be all for that.


Most of Europe uses the pay-as-you-go model just like our prepaid phones. So you want a new carrier, just buy a new sim card.

The UK has monthly pricing which works similar to the US system but you have the option of getting a subsidized phone or using your own. Orange charges 32 pounds for 600 minutes, unlimited texts and 500MB internet.


----------



## ctk (Oct 25, 2009)

i know its a couple weeks later since the last post, but i think that this deserves mention here. jailbreaking and unlocking have been deemed legal by the official librarian of the library of congress.

i think this makes the lawsuit stronger. if apple or at&t claimed that the reason they didn't unlock phones was because of supposed illegal activity (jailbreaking) that defense just went out the window.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

ctk said:


> i know its a couple weeks later since the last post, but i think that this deserves mention here. jailbreaking and unlocking have been deemed legal by the official librarian of the library of congress.
> 
> i think this makes the lawsuit stronger. if apple or at&t claimed that the reason they didn't unlock phones was because of supposed illegal activity (jailbreaking) that defense just went out the window.


I must have been sleeping... because I never thought unlocking or jailbreaking was against the law. Just against the terms & conditions and perhaps the warranty of the phone.

I neither unlock or jailbreak, so no effect on me... but I think there was some confusion about "legality" vs "supported"... and I gather Apple has already stated that they will not support iPhone that are unlocked/jailbroken...


----------



## jadebox (Dec 14, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I must have been sleeping... because I never thought unlocking or jailbreaking was against the law. Just against the terms & conditions and perhaps the warranty of the phone.


There was a question about whether "jailbreaking" was illegal because of the DMCA's provision against circumventing copyright protections. But, the Library of Congress recently clarified this by granting a specific exemption making jailbreaking legal.

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26

-- Roger


----------

