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 After the injunction was granted, T-Mobile offered the unlocked phones for €999 ($1473), and these will now be withdrawn from sale."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