Slashdot Mirror
German Court Rules iPhone Locking Legal
l-ascorbic writes "A German court has overturned Vodafone's temporary injunction against T-Mobile. Two weeks ago, the British mobile network won an injunction forcing T-Mobile to sell iPhones that were not locked to its network. Vodafone argued that locking is an anti-competitive practice, and sought to force the German network to permanently allow the use of the phones on other networks. After the injunction was granted, T-Mobile offered the unlocked phones for €999 ($1473), and these will now be withdrawn from sale."
in the German press. Still a bummer...
nothing to see here...technical competence will trump DRM every time. Something about information wanting to be free. The US phones are unlocked, the German phones will be too. Just this way, the carriers won't make any money off the unlocking. Remove nose, face, spite. Amazing companies still don't get it.
Will the already-sold phones remain unlocked? Or is another bricking patch on the way?
brick in the wall.
What about the stupid German anti-hacking laws? Or is it okay for corporations to circumvent this kind of restriction? I'm guessing it probably is... But I wonder what would have happened if it was just individuals doing this, would it have been allowed then?
Free software, free thought, free society.
LOL!!!!
:)
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Your comment looks too much like ascii art.
The masses will snap up "cheap" phones with evil contracts that can't be comprehended by non-lawyers.
Other phones become a niche product with rising costs. Eventually nobody offers them, because they are less profitable.
You're getting the US cellphone industry. Enjoy!
"Apple still faces two lawsuits in the US from people alleging that preventing users unlocking their iPhones is an unreasonable restriction of consumer choice."
:)
I'm sorry, but it's a friggin' cell phone. If you don't like the terms of service then don't buy one. I don't like AT&T so I'm not getting one.
Verizon, on the other hand, is opening up their network and embracing Android, which will hopefully start up the unlocked cell phone market in earnest. Shrewd move on Verizon's part, this will turn up the heat on the exclusivity contract between Apple and AT&T.
I don't use either service, so I don't particularly care
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
That's the first thing I had noticed. Is that the true cost for an unlocked iPhone? I had thought selling a phone for $500 is insane, I might have yet to see everything...
What this (and the requirement by French law) proves is that there is an official means of unlocking the iPhone. I don't think anybody really doubted this, but there's the proof. I wonder how long it will take those smart hackers out there to figure out what changes when an iPhone is legitimately unlocked, and duplicate the result.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
and $1000 for a PHONE?!?!?!? wtf... it better come with a blowjob attachment for that price.
Flash iPhone in bar, and the rest as they say is history.
It's literally the gift that keeps on giving.
Holy scheize, 999! There's nobody in the world I want to talk to that badly.
Brett
Orange promises to sell unlocked iPhones in France, as per black letter law. Unlocked Orange iPhones come with all sorts of restrictions - provided that you remain on their network. In other words, they want the power users to go chew up somebody else's bandwidth.
I wonder, though. How unlocked is unlocked? Will I be able to use this in the US? (I'm glad I kept all my surplus Euros from my trip to Germany in '05. Yay for currency speculation! Thanks, Bernanke, and thanks Ali Greenspan for setting this shittrain in motion!)
You're actually quite wrong here. I am an American who lived in the UK for more than a year. Mobile phones from the big companies are locked in many cases and its not seen as wrong. A trip down to any High Street will yield a few cell phone unlocking shops.
The more expensive handsets, such as my Nokia E61 or my housemate's Nokia N95, were unlocked. Why? Vodafone's contracts are written differently than any US carriers. When I sign up for a cell phone I agree to pay a lump-sum amount of cash in 12, 18, or 24 monthly payments depending on the length of the contract. Incentives increase with the length of the contract. If I cancel the contract at any time, then I must pay the remainder of the sum and forfeit the monthly payment schedule. In this way, Vodafone is already promised a certain amount of cash in exchange for the handset. They don't care if you leave at that point since they've already made the money.
I really find it disturbing that Slashdot heralds Europe as some panacea in the cell world. It's really not as bright and wonderful as you people try to make it out to be. Ultimately these corporate entities are out to make money within a certain set of rules. Cell phone locking, unfortunately, is a fact of life in the UK. When it isn't, its because of the way the contract is written.
First it was WWI. Then it was WWII. Now I can't buy a freaking nazi iphone for E1000. Bloody war crime !!
If most of the customers don't buy it (and they can choose not too, since markets are, for the most part, democratic), the product will be forced to disappear or change according to the needs of the market.
So stop whining! If you don't like the terms relating to the product, just don't buy it! It's as simple as that.
I mean, it's not like Germany isn't devoid of really good phones already. Hell, I can't imagine them waiting much longer than the Finns for a new Nokia, or the Swedes waiting for a new Sony-Ericsson. What does the US have? That's right, Motorola. And I believe that's why the iPhone is so huge in the 'States.
in this case is T-Mobile GmbH the German company and not the British Company. Like most Network it is a multi-national corporation. I know this because they are my network and cost only 18 euros per month. From the television coverage of the iphone launch in Germany there were neither massed hordes waiting outside the shops nor people with an excess of brain cells buying the phones. Most looked as if they were unable to rationally distinguish between an overpriced phone and a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
In American phone market, carrier owns YOU! ...and Germany gets invaded by us this time.
This really isn't that much of a blow from a practical standpoint. Anyone in Germany who wants an unlocked iPhone can just nip over to France and grab one for a FAR more reasonable rate than EU999.
It's more of a problem from an ethical / political standpoint.
Shouldn't they rather regulate the way how companies interact with their own subsidiaries, rather than forbidding to give out "freebies" in general?
You know, there are other kinds of owner/subsidiary abuse that don't involve fake sales. Such as for instance putting employees that are meant to be laid off into a subsidiary, and then just let the subsidiary go bust. Nice way to get around anti-layoff regulations, as the victims have nobody to sue (their employer, the subsidiary, just has gone bust, whereas the real culprit (the former owner of the subsidiary) has no business relationship with them...)
IMHO, Sarbanes-Oxley is a bunch of useless procedures which don't really solve the problem, but nicely scare the people from complaining: "If you bitch too much about corruption, we will pass regulations that are so heavyweight as to make it impossible to do business at all unless you have the administrative resources of a multinational"
Oh, and it ensures a nice revenue stream for the accounting consultants that can offer their services to get companies into compliance. Ironically, it was accounting consultants (Arthur Accenture et al.) who were the main culprit of the Enron mess to begin with. Somehow, I have a feeling that this is not accidental. SOX is not meant to punish the perps, but rather those who ratted on them.
Permanently locking a handset to a single provider is anti-competitive. Suppose I sign up on a contract with and get a handset from Provider A, but half way through my contract, I realise that Provider B has a far better deal for me. Now if the handset is able to be unlocked, I can pay out my contract with Provider A and switch to Provider B without having to pay for a new handset. However, if the handset can't be unlocked, there is a significant disincentive to switching providers: not only would I have to pay out my contract, but I would also have to pay for a new handset.
Now unlocking doesn't cause problems for most of the handset manufacturers, because they just sell the handset and that's the end of it. But Apple has negotiated a ridiculous arrangement where they get some of the monthly call/data/service revenue from the providers. If you could easily unlock the iPhone and move to a different provider (or even a different plan with the same provider), Apple would lose this revenue stream. That's why they're so opposed to unlocking. (Note that while I understand the reasons for preventing unlocking, I still think it's anti-competitive and the iPhone should be unlockable.)
I don't know how they get away with the current practice, though. The EU passed laws that were supposed to crack down on anti-competitive business practices in the telecommunications sector. I understood them to mean that providers had to allow customers to buy out of contracts for no more cost than the remaining minimum payments, and were required to unlock the customers' handsets when a contract was terminated (either by expiring or by the customer buying out). Apparently the laws are toothless.
I seriously doubt Apple would cave in even if told they must be sold without a SIM lock. They would simply redefine the terms of purchase to be a lease. As such they could do what they want. End of contract, phone goes back to AT&T or Apple. They won't care of the condition as the contract terms were just to avoid future lawsuits and keep their lock in.
Like others said, its a damn cell phone. It has convinced me that a touch only interface sucks for a phone and for typing. Sure you can do it but compared to phones with real keys it just doesn't cut it.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
TFS says:
You said:
So, unless the summary is wrong (would be no surprise), it is incorrect to say they unlocked normal €500-contract phones for free; they only SOLD contract-less on a higher price. This is quite normal in Germany: you (mostly) always have the option of buying cell phones without contract at a higher price (I thought it was required by law -- I was clearly wrong). The big problem is that, according to the summary, they will NOT sell the contract-less €999 anymore.
off-topic: can anyone enlighten me why /. does not accept the Euro symbol unless you type the entity €?
"Cellphone contract changed its terms" - Go elsewhere
"But my cellphone is locked" - Buy another phone
"But my music doesn't play on other phones" - Buy music somewhere else
"But my internet connection throttles other music stores' bandwidth" - Get another internet connection
"But all the ISPs do it" - Start your own
See the problem now? ONE of these restrictions is not a problem because you can "take your business elsewhere" , but when you have this bullshit EVERYWHERE then there's nothing you can do. Now before people start mentioning we have unlocked phones. Yes, we have them TODAY , and laws against this bullshit is sensible to ensure we have them in the future. Now if you think the magical "free market" will save the day then you are mistaken on two counts:
a) That we have a free market.
b) That if we had a free market, it would remain free without anybody stopping companies from doing bullshit like this.
LOL! Pretty funny - the true Nazi aspect of iPhone marketing in Germany is something else though. They won't hand you a phone once you paid your EUR 399. No, you *have* to sign a two-year contract on the spot. The activations is still done via iTunes, but unlike in the US and the UK it's largely a formality since you already took out a contract at the time of purchase.
And did I mention that there no such thing as "early termination" in Germany? You sing for 24 months, you pay for 24 months. Hardcore enough for you?
"The point of this story is that the idea of locking phones to plans in Europe is immediately recognized as something wrong by the courts,"
The story is about exactly the opposite. The German courts say there is nothing wrong with it.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
i dont understand why iphones are locked in the first place...in the indian grey market iphones started being available within a week of their launch in the US...right now the going price seems to be Rs 22k
"Do not confuse the unusual with the impossible" - Psmith
... which have the stronger economies?
Certain Samsung phones can be made to vibrate constantly by entering a certain code.
47*869#1235045
002 to reset the phone and stop it.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Those damn Nazis!!
Under the agreement, the price of making a call while abroad will be capped at 0.49 per minute, before VAT. While existing roaming charges vary widely, they are generally significantly higher.
from the same article:
A four-minute call home by a French customer in Italy costs 4.72 ($6.39, £3.19), while an Austrian phoning home from Malta would pay 9.51, according to EU data.
For your other reasoning (and that's a guess): A Verizon customer, residing in LA uses the Verizon network while visiting New York. While a Berlin resident may use the Vodafone network in Prague.
It is a bit creative to compare calls with the same company to actual roaming where a different network provides the service. The article can be found here
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk