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 After the injunction was granted, T-Mobile offered the unlocked phones for €999 ($1473), and these will now be withdrawn from sale."

32 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. Ich bin ein unlocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Ich bin ein unlocker by Radres · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whoa, whoa, whoa... last time I checked, iPhone was still locked to Cingular here in the United States. Yes, you can go through all the trouble of unlocking your phone, which the average person cannot be bothered with. 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, and here in the United States it is accepted as a common business practice. Why is Europe always so far ahead of us in this regard?

    2. Re:Ich bin ein unlocker by freedom_india · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Why is Europe always so far ahead of us in this regard?

      Because they are actually funded directly by the people. And not by corporates.

      Take for instance BBC: It is a public funded news organisation and is the exact opposite of FOX. So BBC has no incentive to like corporate-sponsored candidates and they can actually be true reporters.

      Take France: They always hate monopolies, hate corporatocracy, hate anything US-mass made. So for them to rule against Apple is understandable.

      Germany: Tricky case. The judiciary is fiercely anti-monopolistic but yet corporate friendly. The parliment is neutral and they are bound by EU laws. And secondly German-made products are faaar superior in quality than chinese-products.

      Poland: Fiercely anti-monopolistic and strongly pro-consumer. Alarms corporates a lot.

      Finland/Norway/Sweden: All these 3 have totally different but radically same policy: As long as its made in EU they support it. If not in EU, they have a NIH syndrome.

      Italy: Let them first get their postal service to work.

      Belgium: They can't decide if they want to remain an independent country.

      To conclude: EU is mostly pro-consumer and is not awed by corporate money power primarily because EU member presidents and parliments are funded by taxes and public funds, and not by corporates directly.
      So they can afford to be altruistic !

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    3. Re:Ich bin ein unlocker by Teun · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pff, yeah and that government has it's own money.
      It's a licence every owner of a TV or radio has to pay, i.e. The People.

      Sure the BBC has it's own biases, show me a truly neutral person.
      But at least the BBC can't be bought by corporate greed.

      But then your mentioning of Fox on the same line as the BBC makes me fear I've overheard a Whoosh!

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    4. Re:Ich bin ein unlocker by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only in theory. If that happened, it would be a political scandal and BBC would cover it happening. Several governments have tried pressuring the BBC, but all they have gotten so far is bad press.

    5. Re:Ich bin ein unlocker by Real_Reddox · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funded, not controlled. we have the same system in Norway, and it really works. NRK (our equivalent of BBC) is no less critical towards the gov't than the independent channels. However, it has no commercial breaks :D

      --
      I spent five minutes stealing cool sigs and all I got was this.
    6. Re:Ich bin ein unlocker by veso_peso · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Take France: They always hate monopolies, hate corporatocracy, hate anything US-mass made. So for them to rule against Apple is understandable. Heh, it's quite the opposite. France insisted that competition to be removed from the major EU "goals" from the Lisbon treaty. There are lot of state-run and private quasi monopolies and laws restricting competition, for example in retail and transportation.
    7. Re:Ich bin ein unlocker by hughk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some BBC reporters are very good, but typically the best stuff is either on domestic radio (say John Humphrys on Radio 4) or BBC World. Listening to Humphrys doing an interview is really like hearing a maestro at work, dissecting politicians of all sides for breakfast but sympathetically talking with a disaster victim. Domestic BBC TV seemed not so good on my last visit there (even Jeremy Paxton who handles the late-night news), and actually there seemed to be better coverage of issues in drama than on the news proper.

      As for Al Jazeera, they received a lot of assistance from the BBC in the early days and some staff moved across. Al Jazeerah, may be broadly pro-Arab, but it prides itself on not being too close to any particular regime.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    8. Re:Ich bin ein unlocker by Kiku888 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not all US iPhones are unlocked fully yet. If you were lucky to buy one with version 1.0.0/1.0.2/1.1.1 of the firmware, then you are good to go. But if you have the newest iPhones (including ones sold in the UK), then you got version 1.1.2 with newest bootloader, then you are out of luck so far. See more details here about the iPhone unlocking status.

  2. About the unlocked phones... by calebt3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Will the already-sold phones remain unlocked? Or is another bricking patch on the way?

    1. Re:About the unlocked phones... by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 4, Interesting
      From the article:

      In the two weeks since the temporary injunction was granted, T-Mobile sold the handsets without a network contract for 999 euros ($1,477; £719). That price was a significant premium to the 399 euro cost for a phone with a two year T-Mobile contract.

      A significant premium indeed, 600 Euro extra NOT to be locked into a T-Mobile contract. For that reason alone, you can be pretty sure that phones sold as unlocked, will stay that way (and functional). Consumer protections are pretty strong in Germany. If a firmware update would re-lock or brick those phones, Apple or T-Mobile would face a class-action lawsuit, and surely lose it.

      Probably more interesting is how Apple will provide firmware updates for these unlocked phones, as compared to updating phones that are locked to a specific provider. If it works exactly the same for locked and unlocked phones, that should give clues for a reliable/safe hack (that doesn't risk bricking your phone with future updates). If the procedure is different, that should give good info as to what exactly makes the phone locked. Either way, the mere existence of legally unlocked phones should be a boon for hackers (thank Vodafone for this side-effect of the temporary injunction).

      Although it's a nice piece of hardware, I'd rather throw my money at one of these OpenMoko phones (when they're released as consumer-ready).

  3. German anti-hacking laws? by Mukunda_NZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  4. Screwed like US now! by r00t · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!

  5. 999 euros?! by RuBLed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    T-Mobile offered the unlocked phones for 999 ($1473)


    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...
    1. Re:999 euros?! by Descartes · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't really surprise me.

      If you read some of Apple's statments when they released the iPhone they mention that they're figuring the revenue differently. They said that the revenue from iPhones would be spread out over the term of the service contract. My impression was that AT&T was actually paying Apple a share of the monthly service charges.

      It does seem a little pricey anyway. Maybe T-Mobile was trying to discourage people from going for the unlocked phones.

    2. Re:999 euros?! by the_humeister · · Score: 2, Funny

      I had thought selling a phone for $500 is insane, I might have yet to see everything...

      Have you seen a dwarf do a fat chick? No? So indeed you haven't seen everything...
    3. Re:999 euros?! by Darth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you read some of Apple's statments when they released the iPhone they mention that they're figuring the revenue differently. They said that the revenue from iPhones would be spread out over the term of the service contract.

      When Apple said that, they were referring to realizing the revenue for accounting purposes. Apple is spreading the realization of the revenue for the sale of the phone to the customer over a 2 year period. The reason for this is Sarbanes-Oxley.

      Due to Sarbanes-Oxley, Apple cannot provide firmware updates to the phone that add features after they realize the full cost of the phone. To avoid a situation like with the 802.11n issue where they had to charge $1 for the update, they spread the revenue over 2 years and can then do firmware updates without running afoul of the law.

      The actual price of the phone has nothing to do with this issue and the revenue from the unlocked phones would still have to be realized over 2 years to avoid legal issues with updates.

      (basically, Sarbanes-Oxley says you cannot realize revenue for a sale until you have given the customer the entire product. I believe this was in response to Enron's practise of selling its own subsidiary oil, recording a profit from the sale, and never actually shipping the oil. Since they owned the subsidiary, it never complained, and they could turn around and sell the same oil again to someone else.)

      My impression was that AT&T was actually paying Apple a share of the monthly service charges.

      That is correct. This revenue is not part of the sale of the hardware, though, so it doesn't count with respect to Sarbanes-Oxley requirements.

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    4. Re:999 euros?! by hughk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not quite true, SarbOx may constrain write-down, but it does not prevent the addition of new features. Apple sees a revenue stream from the air-time reseller - this is the key item. If it doesn't, it needs to realise those costs up front. As far as ongoing firmware updates, these are generally a combination of ongoing support (needed for the lifetime of the warranty or contract) and new functionality. There is nothing to stop Apple from separating the firmware fixes from those that add functionality, but that would cost more. Warranties in Germany for electronic goods are two years as standard.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    5. Re:999 euros?! by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have that movie somewhere....

  6. Re:Oh please... by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "if you don't like it don't buy one" logic only works to an extent, every single time a vendor locks a phone it squeezes the market place a little more. The bottom line is I should be able to do what i want with something i pay for, and apple can fuck off and die if they think their control should extend past the sale (or any vendor for that matter)

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  7. It's a neat phone, but.. by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2, Funny

    Holy scheize, 999! There's nobody in the world I want to talk to that badly.

          Brett

  8. Re:Oh please... by adolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I had mod points, I'd use 'em. But I don't, so I'll just voice my agreement instead:

    If it's my stuff (ie, not leased, or rented, or otherwise owned by another party), then I'll be doing whatever the fuck I please with it, as long as it is legal, and nobody can stop me.

    The free market works in a lot of different ways. The same ideology that states "if you don't like the Terms of Service, don't buy it" also states "if Apple doesn't want people fucking with the hardware they sell, then they should stop selling it to people."

  9. Re:Proof of an authorized unlocking mechanism by jonwil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The official unlock involves a piece of data that is stored on the phone and likely also stored on a server at apple. When you unlock it, iTunes reads stuff from the iPhone, sends it to apples server which looks it up in the database. If the phone is marked "ok to unlock", apples server sends back further data (which is unique to the phone) and iTunes sends it to the iPhone to unlock it.

    So short of some kind of hack attack or raid on apples data center (both of which are 100% illegal and will probably get you thrown into federal pound me in the ass prison) you cant find a way to unlock the iPhone the same way as Apple does. You MIGHT be able to brute-force the unlock data for one specific iPhone but that wont help unlock other iPhones.

  10. Okay I'll bite... by Critical_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Okay I'll bite... by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My understanding is that a lot of American phones are "feature locked" as well, i.e. certain features are disabled in order to force (coerce) you into using the higher-priced Telco features. I've heard really crazy sounding things like Bluetooth being disabled so you can't copy songs to the phone for free, you have to download them from your Telco. Is this hogwash, or does it have some basis in reality?

      Also, the phone companies do care if you pay out the contract and leave; a lot of their market value is determined by the number of subscribers they have. While it's true they won't care about an individual subscriber leaving, they do care in the statistical sense.

      I'm in Australia and the UK contracts sound similar to what we have. My latest phone (N73) is with 3, and interestingly enough they appear to subsidise the cost of the phone. I'm paying $22 a month for the handset over 2 years, which works out to be a little bit cheaper (around $100 IIRC) than buying it outright would have been. I guess there might be some trick with depreciation, but I was expecting to end up paying more for the phone over the period in exchange for the convenience of lower upfront costs.

      I can't remember the exact terms of unlocking in my contract, nor even whether the phone is network locked at all (I think most consumers don't really care, if I didn't like the plan they offered I wouldn't have signed up for it). I think it's free after a certain period of time.

    2. Re:Okay I'll bite... by houghi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that some people in the USofA see Europe as one country. Well, it isn't. Each country has its own laws and political situation.
      E.g. In Belgium you can not sell a contract as part of a phone deal. Also the phone can never be locked. You can sell them at the same time, but you can not sell them as part of one contract.

      I believe it is the same in Portugal. In other countries the situation is different. The fun part is that because much of Europe is one economic entity, you can easily buy a phone in another country unlocked and no contract and use it where you live.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Okay I'll bite... by Builder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you're missing a major point here though... I rely on having unlocked phones and always will, but I still keep to my O2 12 month contract.

      I travel in Africa a lot and in many places out there, I cannot roam on my UK sim. So when I'm in-country, I simply remove my O2 sim, put it in my wallet, and load up a local sim.

      I couldn't do this with an unlocked phone.

      Both O2 and Vodaphone supply phones unlocked (except for the iPhone from O2) and this is a major reason I stick with these providers (depending on signal where I'm living at the time).

  11. What's wrong!? by GodOfCode · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I think one cannot really stop Apple(or any other company for that matter) from producing a phone, tying up with a cellular operator and selling it to consumers subject to a specific set of conditions. If the consumers don't like it, they are free not to buy it. I am sure most people can survive without iPhones. :-)

    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.

  12. Re:Oh please... by DustyShadow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The bottom line is I should be able to do what i want with something i pay for, and apple can fuck off and die if they think their control should extend past the sale (or any vendor for that matter) A little off topic here but the Supreme Court is taking up this issue right now in the LG v. Quanta case. It's a case that asks whether patent owners can impose restrictions on what you can do with a product after you buy it. The law right now says that they can restrict you however they want by using licenses. Many are saying that the Supreme Court only hears cases from the Federal Circuit when they want to reverse them so you just may get your wish.
  13. Re:Oh please... by adolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are an idiot, AC. And while I doubt that you'll ever read this, I believe that there are many other mistaken individuals out there who will.

    If I sell you something, you're free to do with it as you wish. Whether or not it is discounted (or even sold at a loss) is not a factor in your future use of that item. You own it. It is yours.

    For example, there is a grocery store around the corner from my house which has been there since long before I was born. They discount their milk to such an extent that it is sold at a loss, in the hope that they'll recover some of that loss through additional (or future) purchases.

    This is really a fairly common practice in retail, at all levels.

    Your mentality suggests that it would be OK for the grocer to dictate how one might use that gallon of milk, just because they sold it at a loss, or to punish someone for not buying more profitable items along with it. Both of which would be totally and obviously absurd.

    But it is no less absurd when it is electronics instead of dairy goods. They're still just goods being transacted with money.

    Your mentality is unhealthy. It defies logic, and goes against thousands of years of property ownership.

  14. No you can't just "not buy it" by BlueParrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  15. Re:Oh please... by adolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And if I buy an iPhone without a contract, what then? I guess it'd be mine, wouldn't it?

    But even if I buy it WITH a contract, it's just a contract for AT&T service. I still get to use the phone however they want, on whatever networks I want -- I'm just obligated to continue to pay AT&T for the duration of the contract term.