iPhone lawsuit seeks over $1 billion in damages

col3man

New Member
Aug 6, 2007
25
0
0
Ogunquit Maine
#1
Okay, I can see that that Paul and Lucy want to use their iPhones with other network providers and want 3rd party apps and all.. but 1 billion in damages seems a bit steep.. jeez Lucy, just buy a friggin T-Mobil Blackberry Pearl and STFU. ;)


"Lawyers filed a class action lawsuit against Apple and AT&T seeking $1.2 billion in damages because the iPhone is locked to AT&T’s wireless network. The suit also notes that Apple will not allow unauthorized applications on the iPhone.

Filed on behalf of Paul Holman in the State of Washington and Lucy Rivello in California, the lawsuit explains that in the United States the SIM chip is locked to the wireless carrier, not the hardware device.

When Apple released the iPhone it tied the device to AT&T. Switching out the SIM with one from another carrier simply caused an error when the phone was rebooted. However, the cellular community quickly tackled the iPhone and found several ways to unlock the phone, allowing users to activate it using another carrier.

On September 24 Apple warned customers that unlocking the phone could render it inoperable when future software updates were applied. Three days later, an iPhone update was released that effectively bricked unlocked iPhones.

“Apple expressly designed its software release 1.1.1 expressly to disable Third Party Apps and to disable any unlocked SIM cards, and to create technical barriers to install new Third Party Apps or to unlock the SIM cards,” the lawsuit reads.

The lawsuit also contends that Apple didn’t discover that unlocking applications would harm the iPhone as it stated on September 24. Rather, the suit says that Apple engineered the software update to disable the phones on purpose.

“Version 1.1.1 was an upgrade with limited specific changes and improvements,” the lawsuit reads.

According to the lawsuit Paul Holman purchased two iPhones and used third-party applications, as well as traveling abroad. Lucy Rivello said she wants to be able to use third-party apps and unlock her phone to switch to T-Mobile is she wants to."
 

wildonrio

New Member
Gold
Jul 4, 2007
2,002
6
0
Provo, UT
#4
I know a lot of people here will think less of me for saying this, but I almost completely agree with this lawsuit. I really have no idea how Apple is getting away with not allowing people to unlock the iPhone - it is against the law to not allow it, and just because they are Apple, they think they are above the law. It was bad enough for Apple not provide a way to unlock the iPhone, but then when we figure out a way, Apple designs a software update that purposely bricks any phones that are unlocked. And on top of that, Apple tries to lie and say "Oh, it was just a coincidence that it bricks unlocked phones." Do they think we're really that stupid to believe that? And THEN they say that it voids the warranty on the hardware when you mess with the software!

I am actually amazed that Apple is continuing to act the way they do, and I strongly believe that they are losing hundreds of thousands of their fans very quickly, and rising.
 

Scottshotz

New Member
Bronze
Sep 25, 2007
318
0
0
#5
Are you guys retarded? I knew there was a reason I didn't mess with my phone. Look you knew the rules when you bought the phone. As if this phone doesn't do enough you tech nerds need to mess with crap. If I made a product that people bought then messed with I do the same thing. I think its hilarious they bricked em. You guys changed your last phones by hacking em? Take responsibility for what you did. On yeah and haha. Just leave crap the way it comes, follow the rules and youll be fine. You do know what rules are right?
 

TLP31

New Member
Bronze
Jun 27, 2007
33
0
0
#6
Are you guys retarded? I knew there was a reason I didn't mess with my phone. Look you knew the rules when you bought the phone. As if this phone doesn't do enough you tech nerds need to mess with crap. If I made a product that people bought then messed with I do the same thing. I think its hilarious they bricked em. You guys changed your last phones by hacking em? Take responsibility for what you did. On yeah and haha. Just leave crap the way it comes, follow the rules and youll be fine. You do know what rules are right?
AMEN! I wish I had written this post!
 

col3man

New Member
Aug 6, 2007
25
0
0
Ogunquit Maine
#7
I really have no idea how Apple is getting away with not allowing people to unlock the iPhone - it is against the law to not allow it, and just because they are Apple, they think they are above the law
um.. last time I checked, about 100% of all (US) domestic phones sold through a service provider come locked.. If you buy a phone through, say the Sony Ericsson site, well, then it will be unlocked, but seeing that this is co-developed with AT&T, using network-specific features, it's locked.. Your argument would have to acknowledge that all locked T-Mobil, Verizon, ATT, etc. phones which are locked to a provider are "above" the law as well.. Why just pick on Apple, why not say that Every cell provider who locks a phone when they sell it to you with a plan is "above the law" ... And how is this "against the law" to have them all locked? I'm sure if you rolled into a Verizon store with an unlocked Vezizon phone, you would have broken some aspect of the contract by unlocking the phone. You have entered an agreement with them to provide you the phone and or service. They give you a discount on the hardware, they only want you to use it with them.. this is not some conspiracy.. it's kinda simple businesss..

C/
 

iPhone8801

New Member
Bronze
Sep 22, 2007
82
0
0
#8
Are you guys retarded? I knew there was a reason I didn't mess with my phone. Look you knew the rules when you bought the phone. As if this phone doesn't do enough you tech nerds need to mess with crap. If I made a product that people bought then messed with I do the same thing. I think its hilarious they bricked em. You guys changed your last phones by hacking em? Take responsibility for what you did. On yeah and haha. Just leave crap the way it comes, follow the rules and youll be fine. You do know what rules are right?
Agreed.
I believe most if us knew what we were getting into as far as the contract, and lack of sim swapping ability on this phone. However, the fact is when a company such as Apple voilates certain statutes under federal law they are to be subject to litigation accordingly.

That is the point of this particular law suit.
 

iPhone8801

New Member
Bronze
Sep 22, 2007
82
0
0
#10
um.. last time I checked, about 100% of all (US) domestic phones sold through a service provider come locked.. If you buy a phone through, say the Sony Ericsson site, well, then it will be unlocked, but seeing that this is co-developed with AT&T, using network-specific features, it's locked.. Your argument would have to acknowledge that all locked T-Mobil, Verizon, ATT, etc. phones which are locked to a provider are "above" the law as well.. Why just pick on Apple, why not say that Every cell provider who locks a phone when they sell it to you with a plan is "above the law" ... And how is this "against the law" to have them all locked? I'm sure if you rolled into a Verizon store with an unlocked Vezizon phone, you would have broken some aspect of the contract by unlocking the phone. You have entered an agreement with them to provide you the phone and or service. They give you a discount on the hardware, they only want you to use it with them.. this is not some conspiracy.. it's kinda simple businesss..

C/
LOL ? What? None of these companies purposely disable your phone for unlocking their precious product.
 

col3man

New Member
Aug 6, 2007
25
0
0
Ogunquit Maine
#12
Agreed.
I believe most if us knew what we were getting into as far as the contract, and lack of sim swapping ability on this phone. However, the fact is when a company such as Apple voilates certain statutes under federal law they are to be subject to litigation accordingly.

That is the point of this particular law suit.
this may have been covered in a previous thread.. but.. which federal law did Apple voilate exactly.. I actually want to read it, I don't doubt that they did voilate a law, but give me the goods!

Coleman-
 

iPhone8801

New Member
Bronze
Sep 22, 2007
82
0
0
#13
I would gladly help you, but I'm sure you would easily find the filed lawsuit if you looked around the forum. It was posted last week.
 

iPhone8801

New Member
Bronze
Sep 22, 2007
82
0
0
#14
c'mon.. like they wouldn't if given the chance? the phone bricks on an update, not when it's unlocked.. most other phones are seldom or never updated, at least not when you sync them..
And have they? The point is that none of them have. This litigation could very well dictate what happens in the future to companies that decide to follow the same path.
 

hoits2000

Member
Bronze
Mar 15, 2007
360
1
18
#15
Dang I have been looking for it, we just talked about it in class last week. I think that this case or another case soon will force Apple to give out the codes. Tmobile and Att both have policies that allow you to get your unlock code if you have been in a contract for at least 90 days. For the iPhone they don't have it, so theycant give it to you anyway. So, its just a matter of time, before its unlocked, and I bet A LOT of people were going with the idea that ATT would give the code out eventually after the a period of time.
 
Aug 28, 2007
23
0
1
Los Angeles
www.myspace.com
#16
I know a lot of people here will think less of me for saying this, but I almost completely agree with this lawsuit. I really have no idea how Apple is getting away with not allowing people to unlock the iPhone - it is against the law to not allow it, and just because they are Apple, they think they are above the law. It was bad enough for Apple not provide a way to unlock the iPhone, but then when we figure out a way, Apple designs a software update that purposely bricks any phones that are unlocked. And on top of that, Apple tries to lie and say "Oh, it was just a coincidence that it bricks unlocked phones." Do they think we're really that stupid to believe that? And THEN they say that it voids the warranty on the hardware when you mess with the software!

I am actually amazed that Apple is continuing to act the way they do, and I strongly believe that they are losing hundreds of thousands of their fans very quickly, and rising.
idiot.........
 

J-Sauce

New Member
Bronze
Jul 5, 2007
142
1
0
#17
um.. last time I checked, about 100% of all (US) domestic phones sold through a service provider come locked.. If you buy a phone through, say the Sony Ericsson site, well, then it will be unlocked, but seeing that this is co-developed with AT&T, using network-specific features, it's locked.. Your argument would have to acknowledge that all locked T-Mobil, Verizon, ATT, etc. phones which are locked to a provider are "above" the law as well.. Why just pick on Apple, why not say that Every cell provider who locks a phone when they sell it to you with a plan is "above the law" ... And how is this "against the law" to have them all locked? I'm sure if you rolled into a Verizon store with an unlocked Verizon phone, you would have broken some aspect of the contract by unlocking the phone. You have entered an agreement with them to provide you the phone and or service. They give you a discount on the hardware, they only want you to use it with them.. this is not some conspiracy.. it's kinda simple businesss..

C/
The thing is, we didn't get a discount on our phones. Almost no one did. So why should they go through such extremes just to keep our devices locked? It doesn't even make sense as "simple businesss". Between the money theyre spending on Software Engineer teams, and the customers they are losing due to their power-trip, I don't see how they could be making money. Very few people that want the iPhone on a different network are going to be scared into using ATT, just because they know unlocks are no longer possible. So Apple is losing money there on product sales.

Even less people who got their phones unlocked are going to revert to ATT just to keep using the iPhone.

It seems like Apple just doesn't want any other company profiting off their product, without getting a piece of the cake. ATT pays Apple every month your contract continues on the iPhone.

don't get me wrong, I don't think the lawsuit is grounded. Apple did give fair warning that unlocked phones would be bricked via update. We all had the option to skip it. Those who were brave (or just plain stupid) paid the price.

As for the guy who briked 2 phones...come on dude. After the update ruined the first phone, why would you do the second? This guy was looking for someone to sue.




Just in case anyone was wondering, I did not update. Not because my phone is unlocked, but because I love my APPs!
 

theotherallen

New Member
Bronze
Jun 16, 2007
68
0
0
#19
illegality?

The deal with unlocking phones legally (as stated by the DMCA) is that you may unlock a cell phone for use with another carrier, for personal use. Apple designed a phone for AT&T. The iPhone uses specific functions that run on the AT&T network. If you want to unlock your phone, doing it through AT&T is the legal part of it. Hacking a phone to bits to put iPhoneSIMfree on it is the illegal part. An unlock code is the simple thing that allows a phone to be unlocked and Apple, who designed the hardware, not the wireless service is under no obligation to provide a way to unlock the phone. Your beef is with AT&T, the provider.

To me, the most ridiculous part of this lawsuit is that they're suing because of the lack of third party apps. How, in ANY univserse is is required that Apple allow people to add third part apps on the phone? Yeah, it'd be nice, but you bought a phone that had a detailed list of features. And ONLY those features. While we're all aware of the simplicity of adding new features and applications, Apple doesn't have to give us anything. Put your subpoenas down, and enjoy the phone, people.
 

Swagger

New Member
Gold
Jul 9, 2007
2,076
1
0
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
web.me.com
#20
um.. last time I checked, about 100% of all (US) domestic phones sold through a service provider come locked.. If you buy a phone through, say the Sony Ericsson site, well, then it will be unlocked, but seeing that this is co-developed with AT&T, using network-specific features, it's locked.. Your argument would have to acknowledge that all locked T-Mobil, Verizon, ATT, etc. phones which are locked to a provider are "above" the law as well.. Why just pick on Apple, why not say that Every cell provider who locks a phone when they sell it to you with a plan is "above the law" ... And how is this "against the law" to have them all locked? I'm sure if you rolled into a Verizon store with an unlocked Vezizon phone, you would have broken some aspect of the contract by unlocking the phone. You have entered an agreement with them to provide you the phone and or service. They give you a discount on the hardware, they only want you to use it with them.. this is not some conspiracy.. it's kinda simple businesss..

C/
You are correct, but the makers of the phones you mentioned, don't put out updates that intentionally brick phones. You also forget that not everyone watches every news story. Apple should have had AT&T issue a mass text message to all users informing them of the dangers of updating. I think the lawsuit is very large (and asking for to much money), I do agree with it though. All makers of technology need to wake up and realize. Sell me your device and let me decide what service I want to use it on. I have said from day one, whether it's Apple, Nokia, Sony, HTC, Blackberry or any other company. Exclusive Contracts are WRONG and BAD for CONSUMERS!
Sell me your product and I'll deal with it from there, period! M