iPhone Antitrust and Computer Fraud Claims Upheld

LawWatcher writes "On October 1, 2008, a federal judge in California upheld a class action claiming that Apple and AT&T Mobility's five-year exclusive voice and data service provider agreement for the iPhone violates the anti-monopoly provisions of the antitrust laws. The court also ruled that Apple may have violated federal and California criminal computer fraud and abuse statutes by releasing version 1.1.1 of its iPhone operating software when Apple knew that doing so would damage or destroy some iPhones that had been 'unlocked' to enable use of a carrier other than AT&T."

Comments

No one deserves this more than Apple

[linzeal]

They seriously need to be taken down a notch legally so they don't lawyer up at every opportunity.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[linhares]

Steve seems to have got the same power-grabbing fever that Baby Bush has.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[MacDork]

They would certainly deserve it for willfully bricking unlocked iPhones the way they did, but this is the US were talking about. The only people who will see any benefit are the lawyers. The rest of the world will get a voucher at the Apple store online or some other equally lame appeasement.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[houstonbofh]

They would certainly deserve it for willfully bricking unlocked iPhones the way they did, but this is the US were talking about. The only people who will see any benefit are the lawyers. The rest of the world will get a voucher at the Apple store online or some other equally lame appeasement.

$2.5 million in attorney fees, and everyone in the class gets a free iTunes download... Anybody willing to bet? Come on, anyone?

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[wealthychef]

Um, a voucher plus the ability to use another carrier if they want to!

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it's probable they didn't willfully brick them, just didn't try to find out what would happen.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[HTH NE1]

They seriously need to be taken down a notch legally so they don't lawyer up at every opportunity.

Everybody has a right to an attorney. Even a corporation.

(And even an unlawful enemy combatant, but that's another topic for another time.)

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[hellwig]

Communist.

No wait, that's not communism, but still, you're a communist.

I think his point was that Apple's main method of dealing with problems is to lawyer up, because they feel they are invincible in court. Maybe a couple losses will break that philosophy, and Apple might actually start to think before they act. Apple's main problem is that they think that until Microsoft dissapears, no one can touch them (i.e. see their response to Psystar's anti-competative lawsuit). Apple needs to realize that just cause they aren't the top player (except for the iPod and iTunes) doesn't mean they can get away with anything they want to.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[IdahoEv]

As a full-time Apple user with three macs and an iPhone ... I couldn't agree more.

I love their products, I hate their politics and Gestapo behavior with respect to consumers and the market.

The NDA gag-order on the iPhone SDK got dropped**, and in the same week their monopolistic practices got nailed by the courts. Happy Apple consumer.

**out of fear of developers going to Android, no doubt.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[colganc]

If you hate it so much, don't buy their product. They would get the message really quick then.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Kagura]

I think the iPhone/AT&T locking is terrible. However, how does releasing a phone that is only licensed to work with a single cell carrier who is subsidizing part of the cost have to do with being a monopoly? Even if they weren't subsidizing the cost, why is this against the law?

Note that I'm not saying it SHOULDN'T be against the law. Rather, I'm asking how it can be considered illegal under the laws we have today. I'm curious about the legal standpoint on this issue.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Graff]

They would certainly deserve it for willfully bricking unlocked iPhones the way they did, but this is the US were talking about.

The thing is that these phones were unlocked through exploits which placed the iPhones in a indeterminate state as far as updates went. It was a crapshoot whether or not an update would cause the phone to be unbootable. Everyone who unlocked their iPhone either understood this or didn't know enough about what they were doing and shouldn't have been doing it in the first place.

If you hack ANYTHING then you should have no expectations that it will continue to be stable across software updates. You've made the choice to modify your device, you live with the fact that you may have broken it irreversibly. Now in the case of the iPhones it turns out that almost all of them were NOT bricked, they just had to be coaxed back to the factory software and you were good to go. There's even NEW unlocking software that you can apply for the latest version of the operating system. Of course the same caveat still applies: hack your device and you might ruin it.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[IdahoEv]

If you hate it so much, don't buy their product.

I'm a little entrenched and short on options for that approach. I have about 15 years of time, experience and thousands in software invested in working with their platform(s).

Products I love from a company with some policies I hate is still a better than my other option: products I hate from a company I also hate.

If I spent a few thousand to get new copies of all my Adobe stuff, I could in principle switch my business over to Windows. Hooray. Then I'd detest my own job, too. I work with Windows daily (at clients' offices) and by the end of an hour I'm ready to pull my own fingernails out. An ineffectual political statement ain't worth that.

They would get the message really quick then.

I highly doubt that the departure of one geek would change anything. The fact that I already use Linux for servers instead of OS X server doesn't seem to have influenced Apple a hell of a lot. Why should I expect that switching desktops would have any more effect? I'm just one guy.

I suppose I could become a lumberjack and avoid computers altogether, but I don't own enough lingerie for that.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[chromatic]

If you hate it so much, don't buy their product.

Macholm Syndrome?

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Lally Singh]

Yeah... but have you seen how shitty the other stuff is?

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[xouumalperxe]

From reading at least part of the "article", what I gathered was the whole "oh look, you only have to sign for 2 years" while in fact there was a standing agreement between Apple and AT&T that Apple wouldn't provide access to other carriers for at least five years was a big no-no.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[HTH NE1]

Communist.

No wait, that's not communism, but still, you're a communist.

I am not a communist. I may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but I am not a porn star!

Now my father, he's an Elk, a Mason, a communist, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance for some reason, and a Stonecutter.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Egdiroh]

I am not a lawyer and I am not in this case. But I suspect there are two things coming into play here.

1.) These phones CAN work on all those networks. So this restriction is completely artificial.

2.) People already complain about the locking of iTunes to Apple Portable Players (iPod, iPhone). People complain about locking phones to networks. So the expansion to Itunes locked to apple players locked to AT&Ts network, probably just takes it a step to far, especially in light of reason 1.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[mabhatter654]

Apple also has patents on their side. Many of the features ATT has are actually Apple server products, other companies aren't authorized to use those features.

I think iPhone is just fine and the wrong target.. the real target should be all the other horribly disabled phones being sold for full price and crippled not to work with other carriers.

Apple was MOST straightforward about the process from Day One. Prior to this they had sold ZERO cell phones. They chose one company that would give them the IP protection they needed and their customers "Apple's version" of good service. It's not Apple's fault the rest of the market is so awful. AT&T sells lots of other phones, it's only this one Apple phone that is exclusive.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Kagura]

These phones CAN work on all those networks. So this restriction is completely artificial.

There are SO many things in the cell phone industry that are arbitrary restrictions (like $0.50 text messages after you max your limit). Many other industries have this as well, like purposefully underclocked processors, and so forth. None of these are illegal, so I don't see why artificially tying the iPhone to AT&T would be considered illegal under current legal definitions.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[ArbitraryConstant]

Meh. It's still worthwhile if it creates a disincentive for Apple to do this.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Kagura]

That's a very interesting response. Thanks for the insight.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[pgillan]

I remember reading, back when this was all a thing, that the failure rates for locked iPhones during an update was right about even with the failure rates for unlocked iPhones, implying that the update process itself was responsible for the failures, and whether or not you unlocked or jailbroke your phone was immaterial to whether or not it was bricked. Unfortunately, I can't find that information, so I don't know if that was some sort of urban legend or not.

Personally, I jailbroke my iPhone once, then ultimately decided it wasn't worth the hassle of keeping up with the break/update cycle. And once they released apps, I sort of forgot about it all together.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[SanityInAnarchy]

I have about 15 years of time, experience and thousands in software invested in working with their platform(s).

First of all, I imagine at least a few hundred of those thousands are from things which simply aren't needed on other platforms. I'm talking about things like AppZapper here -- Apple has this community of shareware that just looks weird, coming from Windows and Linux.

Second, OS X hasn't been out 15 years. Since OS X, if your experience is more than skin deep, you know Unix. And I'm really not sure how much OS9 has in common with OS X, in terms of your skillset.

Finally, the stuff you have doesn't magically stop working, just because your next computer/gadget doesn't come from Apple.

Products I love from a company with some policies I hate is still a better than my other option: products I hate from a company I also hate.

This assumes you've completely abandoned a third option: products from no company at all.

It does look like Adobe has you by the balls, though, which isn't a good place to be.

I highly doubt that the departure of one geek would change anything.

Are you sure you're the only one thinking this?

A major cellphone provider in my area didn't support shortcodes for text messages. That's a serious feature, but they claimed they had never heard anyone ask for it before he called -- they didn't really know it existed.

So I would say, even if it is just one person, one person is better than none.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[samkass]

1.) These phones CAN work on all those networks. So this restriction is completely artificial.

I'm no expert, but I don't think this is true. Isn't AT&T the only major GSM-based provider in the US? The iPhone certainly doesn't do CDMA, PCS, or whatnot. Besides, I still don't see why it should be illegal for two non-monopolies to tie products together. Apple has less than 1% of the cellphone market and AT&T exists in a competitive environment as well.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[SenseiLeNoir]

Because it breaks the idea of subsidies.I am not sure how these things are like in the USA, but here in the UK, when you buy a phone it is likely to be SIM Locked to the network as the cost of the phone is subsidised to the monthly contract.

I am on T-Mobile (UK) myself.

T-Mobile, Vodafone, Orange and 3, typically do that. They also typically customise the phone in such a way, to usually make it easier to use on their network. The customisations can be subtle in the case of T-Mobile (excluding the N95/VOIP fiasco), where the phone is not vastly modified, to outright butchery in Vodaphone/Orange, and 3.

Nevertheless, once a phone is out of the subsidy period, it is YOUR phone, and legally you should be able to unlock it to all networks. In the case of T-Mobile (and I suspect the others) they will on request (and possibly for a small admin fee) provide you with the sim unlock code, to unlock the phone. I have heard that in many cases, they even gave the code, even before the subsidy term was over.

T-Mobile promised the same deal for the upcoming G1 Android phone, in that it CAN be unlocked once the sub period is over.

I personally buy my upgrades via Carphone Warehouse, as they source it idependantly, so phones are unlocked, and unbranded to T-Mobile, so I get the best of both worlds, a subsidised UNLOCKED phone.

O2, intrestingly do NOT usually simlock their phones, unless its a specific O2 made phone. O2 is the UK's Exclusive network for the iPhone, and the iPhone is the first GENERAL phone O2 provides which IS simlocked.

The point being is that, after the 2 year contract period with AT&T (or O2 in the UK) you STILL will not be able to unlock the iPhone, and use it with other networks, so in effect you still ARE locked into AT&T/O2. It is YOUR GSM phone, that has no TECHINCAL reason why it should not work on any other network, other than plain nastyness by Apple/AT&T/O2.

This may not be totally legal in the UK (and same in the USA), especially as it is sold as a GSM phone. If Apple/O2/AT&T allows to unlock after 2 years, then they are ok, but something tells me that will not be the case.

Note: this may be also why the Pay As You Go version was pulled from O2, as technically you own the phone straight away.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[ReedYoung]

I do not want my pursuit of happiness impeded by any package-dealing of goods with services. Ever. Even for something as cool as AT&T, because when such is allowed, next thing you know, the only way to obtain something as cool as AT&T will be to also accept something as uncool as an iPhone. Er, strike that; reverse it.

Note that I'm not saying it SHOULDN'T be against the law. Rather, I'm asking how it can be considered illegal under the laws we have today. I'm curious about the legal standpoint on this issue.

You can Google the judge's opinion if you want, but my opinion is that restriction to any one service provider, or even (hypothetically) to a limited set of service providers, violates the property rights I obtain when I purchase an iPhone. Rights are absolute, as Apple learned when they tried to engage in "strings attached sales" (usage privileges in the guise of outright sales) for a couple extra ducats from AT&T, at the expense of the almighty "user experience." You either have property rights to a thing, or you sell that thing for money, never both. You may not sell it, but then also wield any decision-making power over its use any more than you can eat a cake, then 10 minutes later have that same cake ... in cake form. Ahem. Had they termed the transaction a "lease" or "rental" ... but they did not.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile also uses GSM.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I always found the subsidy argument specious because generally the carrier requires that you sign up for a two year contract which in order to get out of you have to pay a penalty, so I would imagine that would cover the cost of the subsidy.

And, obviously it IS illegal because the antitrust claim was upheld.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[DragonWriter]

They seriously need to be taken down a notch legally so they don't lawyer up at every opportunity.

Uh. Being taken down a notch legally makes a company (or person) generally more prone to "lawyering up", in any reasonable sense of the phrase, early and pre-emptively in any future circumstances where legal action might potentially occur. So I don't follow the logic, here.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[aliquis]

Yeah, just don't buy it if you don't want to accept how it's sold. I for sure wouldn't.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Aighearach]

Look up "exploit," moron.

Customization of your own personal property is never an "exploit."

An "exploit" involves some kind of access or damage to somebody *else's* resources.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[pizzach]

He is using the phrasing that everyone else uses. They're exploits because the could be used by viruses/trojans too. http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/29/confirmed-jailbreak-appsnapp-fixes-tiff-exploit-hole-in-iphone/

For everyone worried about malicious TIFF exploits, you might want to take a few seconds and re-read those jailbreak features listed on the AppSnapp page. See number 6? Not only does the team jailbreak your phone, add Installer.app and fix YouTube, but they also repair patch Safari's TIFF exploit hole. Yes, you read that right. These amazing hackers have done Apple a huge favor and fixed the very same exploit they used to jailbreak.

http://lifehacker.com/software/how-to/jailbreak-your-iphone-or-ipod-touch-with-one-click-316287.php

Jailbreaking the iPod touch/iPhone is now an utterly simple, one-click affair--which means if you've been waiting to jailbreak your iPod touch or iPhone (since the 1.1.1 firmware upgrade), the time is now. Just point your Safari browser to http://jailbreakme.com/ and click the Install AppSnapp link. It may sound scary, but the web site takes advantage of a mobile Safari exploit to install Installer.app (the gateway application for installing more applications) to your device. If you give it a try, here's what you can expect.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[ssintercept]

...but this is the US were talking about.

that is the beauty of the USA: you never know what you can get away with til you try!

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Jason Pollock]

The Bricking was caused by a bug in the unlock code. The unlock code resulted in a bad security zone. When the baseband was later upgraded, the security zone would fail verification and the phone was locked up.

However, it wasn't "bricked", there were methods to recover from the bad upgrade, and later unlocks fixed the problem from the first one.

There were other problems with various unlocks. One jailbreak resulted in every iPhone using that tool having the same MAC address.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[rlk]

A lot of the problem is that people weren't told how it was sold -- like the fact that it's really permanently (er, at least 5 years) locked, not just for the life of the contract.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[randomc0de]

so I don't see why artificially tying the iPhone to AT&T would be considered illegal under current legal definitions

Seriously? Are you serious? Because there's an f'ing law against artificially tying products to services. It's illegal under current legal definitions because there's a law against it. Jesus.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[defile39]

It's an exclusive dealing contract - not necessarily a bad thing, but looking at the effect on competition, seemingly competition is hindered more than efficiencies are created. I don't think that the bricking of the iPhone is a big deal (but I haven't read the binding EULA, so I don't know if that kind of action is contractually authorized in the agreement). The big story here is, if this is affirmed, you will likely be able to get an iPhone on any number of carriers. This is actually GREAT for Apple as well (more sales). This is horrible for ATT, however.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Graff]

You should take a breath or two before you resort to ad hominems, they never help to make your point.

They are exploits because they took advantage of bugs in the iPhone in order to change the operating system. The operating system is normally locked down against customization in this manner.

Yes, you are changing the device you own. I never said I thought it was wrong to do so. All I am saying is that it is an exploitation of a bug, nothing more.

You do know that words can have several different meanings, right? Maybe you should try to pick the meaning which best matches the context of my post:
exploit - Jargon File

n. [originally cracker slang]
1. A vulnerability in software that can be used for breaking security or otherwise attacking an Internet host over the network.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

The point being is that, after the 2 year contract period with AT&T (or O2 in the UK) you STILL will not be able to unlock the iPhone, and use it with other networks, so in effect you still ARE locked into AT&T/O2.

How do you know that? The iPhone hasn't been out for 2 years yet.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[c0p0n]

Because Apple doesn't allow it.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[milkmage]

"willfully bricking unlocked iPhones the way they did" - they did? funny, mine was hacked to use another SIM (just to see if it worked).. and subsequent patches worked just fine. had to hack it again to continue using a TMo SIM - but it was never bricked. show me the source for your comment.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[repvik]

Like iTunes music to iPhones and iPods? I don't see Apple getting hit by that (Except possibly in Norway very soon)

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

So why isn't anyone sueing Sony and T-mobile for their exclusive Sony Ericsson TM506 deal? Or the G1? Same 2 year contract.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[tsa]

The EU is also looking into that. And also into the fact that as a denizen of one EU country Apple doesn't allow you to buy anything at an online Apple store in another EU country. This is illegal since we have free travelling of people and goods within the EU. It's strange that Aplle has been able to get away with this practice for so long.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[ozphx]

Yeah that bit confused me too. Its not like Apple has a monopoly on phones, or smart phones, or even smart phones with touch (unless you count their bastardisation of fingerworks tech). So how can they be abusing a monopoly position if they don't have one?

Exclusives might piss me off as a consumer*, but they generally aren't illegal / anti-trust material.

* I wanted that cheap motorola slim phone with OLED, but it was "exclusive" on the wrong network in australia :(

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[jagdish]

I think the Stockholm syndrome would be much more appropriate here. Apple imposes such strong restrictions on you and your software for so long, you end up liking them.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[DurendalMac]

Willfully bricking? Prove that. Go ahead. Try. You can't. Why? Because there's zero evidence that it was willful. Why in the hell should Apple test out every unsupported hack with firmware updates? Why should people who hack their hardware in warranty-voiding ways complain when bad things happen in updates? Yes, it does suck that Apple is locked to AT&T, but people knew that going in.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Wyvern2005]

Do you "drink all night and sleep all day"?

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[chromatic]

Either the battery in your iPun or the motherboard in my MetaPun Pro has gone out!

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[electrictroy]

>>>being a monopoly? Even if they weren't subsidizing the cost, why is this against the law?

Because the Apple/AT&T monopoly didn't bribe politicians. If they had followed the procedure of Comcast, Time-Warner, Cox, et al, then Apple/AT&T would have greased the palms of local politicians, and be granted a government-regulated monopoly. That would make it okay.

But since they didn't grease any politicians palms, the politicians are annoyed to be left out of the pie, and this is how they get their revenge. "This'll teach them not to setup a monopoly without asking our permission first!"

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Darundal]

Yeah, but most phones don't require you to void the damn warranty and introduce the possibility of a bricking when the latest official update comes out just to be able to unlock their phone.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

All you retards (especially you Kagura jk lol) need to understand: monopoly != antitrust. Don't get me wrong extorting your position in a monopoly (go Rockefellers!) is a kind of antitrust.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[lachlan76]

There's a difference between legally barring someone from seeking legal assistance and having them voluntarily act more reasonably than responding to everything with lawsuits.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

If you modify the files on the iPhone by jailbreaking it, it's your fault if apple's update screws with your phone. Apple can't possibly go knock on everyone's door and personally go through the installation, updating it.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[MrMickS]

I'm not sure that Apple willfully bricked unlocked iPhones. Couldn't it be that Apple found that the update that they developed had a chance of bricking phones, told people, then released it. What were they supposed to do, cope with every hack that people has done on the phone?

That part of this ruling will collapse.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[houghi]

That way not only will they lure people to the store, they know people will spend more then that one song. Turning a loss, they can taxt deduct, into a profit.

The problem is, how would you do it otherwise? Send everybody a dollar? Perhaps in this case, the best thing would be to deduct 1 dollar of the phonebill.

But seriously, how do you expect companies to solve this? Say they have 5.000.000 customers they have handled wrongly and they get conviceted to pay back 5.000.000 USD if it is a one-off purchase? I know there are poeple who say that each of those customers should get the 1USD brought to them individually in a limo. However if you want to try to be reasonable, you will see that a voucher is the only option as it is illegal to send money by postal service.

Any other solutions?

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[shmlco]

"Apple wouldn't provide access to other carriers ..."

Which, since since it's US law we're talking about, and since it's a GSM-based phone, I suspect the use of "carriers" (plural) is mistaken, as only one other mobile carrier in the US is GSM-based. (Leaves out Verizon and Sprint.) Further, in the case of the iPhone 3G, even unlocking the phone to use T-Mobile isn't much help, as T-Mobile's 3G network isn't frequency-compatible with AT&T's.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[shmlco]

"Customization of your own personal property is never an "exploit.""

No, but there's plenty of precedent for voiding the warranty when a device is "customized". Personal property or not. Especially when the customization involves opening things up and digging around under the hood in places never designed or intended to be user-accessible.

In short: You muck with it, and you're responsible when it breaks.

If you want to customize your iPhone, I think you should paint it pink and put a Hello Kitty decal on the back...

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[shmlco]

"If I spent a few thousand to get new copies of all my Adobe stuff, I could in principle switch my business over to Windows. "

Go right ahead. Adobe allows sidegrades.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

If you hack ANYTHING then you should have no expectations that it will continue to be stable across software updates.

Have you ever seen an instructor instruct computer neophytes? Once upon a time, people were instructed it is OK to press ANY button. There was an encouragement to explore, try anything, "you can't break it just pressing buttons". Now, I realize why that is not the case with the predatory malscape in which we live. However, we don't need corporate asshats making the situation worse. And automatic updates? A sure sign that security is not built into the device. If anything ought to be automatic is that only deliberate, user-initiated changes negatively affect the product.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[B47h0ry'5 CuR53]

This is actually GREAT for Apple as well (more sales). This is horrible for ATT, however.

Apple is making much more from the cut they receive from AT&T for each iPhone customer's monthly charges than they do from selling an individual iPhone. So Apple definitely does have monetary interest in keeping the iPhone locked to AT&T.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[aliquis]

Yeah, I missed that part and hadn't read about it before I posted.

But the 24 months subscription and single provider seems like something one just have to accept or not.

Over here it's very usual with a lock to a network but you always know when you get it and in most cases it's easy to remove so..

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[GaryPatterson]

Brick? These devices could not be used in any way afterwards, and could never be restored? Are you sure of that?

And is your position that anyone who modifies their operating system in whatever way they want to should be able to install OS updates without any harm?

I'm pretty sure that I can mod Linux so that updates will screw the OS totally. I'm certain I can do it to Windows and OS X. Should my frustration at having to reinstall the OS be aimed at myself, or the OS vendor?

The one case to make in this regards is the argument that Apple could check that the OS being updated is correct in every particular (compared to a reference install). But why should they, and *could* they?

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[xouumalperxe]

Part of the agreement involves not making a CDMA version.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[shmlco]

"Part of the agreement involves not making a CDMA version."

Ah. So now Apple is expected to spend a bunch of R&D dollars designing and building and certifying new hardware, just so Joe Verizon can have an iPhone?

Where's the AT&T GSM Android G1, BTW? Or the AT&T Instinct? I'm on AT&T, and it's not fair at all that I'm FORCED to sign a contract with T-Mobile or Sprint just to get one of those phones.

In fact, it's so unfair I should SUE!

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[nevali]

Ofcom's rules state that once the subsidy period is up, the operator has to allow the device to be unlocked.

We know the iPhone can be unlocked, because it's sold unlocked (or unlockable for a fee) in other countries.

We'll find out in about 9 months when the very earliest contracts are up.

I don't know if the PAYG iPhone is network-locked (not sure what you mean about it being pulled: http://www.o2.co.uk/iphone/paygo ), but as it's unsubsidised, O2 are legally required to provide you with an unlocking code if it is.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[KGIII]

Are you sure it is illegal to send money via postal mail? I have done so a bunch of times. I just wrap it in the middle of a couple of pieces of paper and off it goes. Or it goes into a birthday card and into the mail. I know I could write a check or get a money order but I actually don't have any checks (I just use a debit card) and I'm never very good at remembering to get to the post office or the likes.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Darby]

I think the iPhone/AT&T locking is terrible. However, how does releasing a phone that is only licensed to work with a single cell carrier who is subsidizing part of the cost have to do with being a monopoly?

Well, they're not subsidizing the cost. They are offering kickbacks to Apple for people who sign up for AT&T. That's a huge difference.
I never signed up for AT&T, so apple didn't receive one penny from AT&T from my company's purchase of my iPhone.

That doesn't do anything to answer your question, but it does do something to make sure you're even asking the right question.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the iPhone/AT&T locking is terrible. However, how does releasing a phone that is only licensed to work with a single cell carrier who is subsidizing part of the cost have to do with being a monopoly? Even if they weren't subsidizing the cost, why is this against the law?

Note that I'm not saying it SHOULDN'T be against the law. Rather, I'm asking how it can be considered illegal under the laws we have today. I'm curious about the legal standpoint on this issue.

i'm a canadian but i've worked for companies like sprint/nextel and... locking a phone to a company is monopolistic --the lack of a freedom of choice is non-democratic and less cost effective for someone should they choose to switch companies........ and locking phones to companies also give you a bad range of technology to choose from. what if the company you've been with for 1 year of a 3 year contact has a bad hardware lineup when it comes time to replace the phone you spilled your jolt cola all over? the governments here in canada, and in the usa (first) fought hard for the rights of the people to have phones unlocked and apple is pissing on that. the software/bricking is something out of a third world dictators handbook. it's archaic, and too much cowbell for this hombre. apple has lost it's vision.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[squiggleslash]

Verizon's announced plans to move to LTE (the 4G version of GSM.) It's quite conceivable that within two years both AT&T and Verizon will be rolling out their 4G LTE networks, and Apple will have released an iPhone 4G to go with it. So don't count out the possibility yet!

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Graff]

And automatic updates? A sure sign that security is not built into the device. If anything ought to be automatic is that only deliberate, user-initiated changes negatively affect the product.

The updates are definitely not automatic. In order to update you need to run iTunes and plug your iPhone into your computer. If there is an update then iTunes will then tell you there's an update and give you the option of ignoring it, downloading it, or downloading and installing it. The user is informed of what is going on at every step and if anything is going to be changed the user has an opportunity to cancel.

Basically it's exactly like you said, only deliberate, user-initiated changes affect the product. If there are negative effects they are either accidental (glitch in the transfer, software bug, etc) or they are a result of the user modifying the system in a way not anticipated by the Apple developers. Accidents happen and we all try to avoid them but when the user makes a serious, deliberate change in their device and an update hoses it then it's user's fault and they should understand enough not to blame the device manufacturer.

Hopefully there is a way to resurrect the device (which is what happened with most of the hacked iPhones) but it's possible the hacks permanently damaged the device. In that case that's the risk the user took in hacking their device.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[His Shadow]

Thanks. You are an idiot. That is all.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[MJMullinII]

They would certainly deserve it for willfully bricking unlocked iPhones the way they did, but this is the US were talking about. The only people who will see any benefit are the lawyers. The rest of the world will get a voucher at the Apple store online or some other equally lame appeasement.

Willfully bricking my ASS.

They told EVERYONE days before the update was released it would brick unlocked phones and the morons who screwed around with them installed it anyway.

I'm a FIRM believer in personal responsibility.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[houghi]

I stand corrected; http://www.articleclick.com/Article/Is-it-Legal-to-Send-Cash-Overnight-/1007980

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[stewbacca]

You do realize that you can port your Adobe Mac licenses over to PC (or vice-versa) for practically nothing, right?

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha. Good The Simpsons reference.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Lars T.]

In fact, it's so unfair I should SUE!

This is America - if you had no reason to sue, you should sue because that gives you an unfair disadvantage.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[Lars T.]

A lot of the problem is that people weren't told how it was sold -- like the fact that it's really permanently (er, at least 5 years) locked, not just for the life of the contract.

Well, that's something the "plaintiffs allege". It has not been shown in any way to be a "fact" yet.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[xouumalperxe]

there's a difference between Apple saying "We can't justify the R&D costs" (I understand, seeing as the whole of Europe is GSM, and all), and Apple saying "ok, you're paying so we won't try to grab another slice of the market". From what I gathered from reading the court paper, it was the latter, not the former, that happened.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[KGIII]

I had hoped that the tradition wouldn't need to be changed. I never insure it though so if you're driving by my kid's place just before their birthday you could probably steal their birthday money. They will not be impressed and will inform me that I didn't send them a card. So far that hasn't happened and considering the remote area it is unlikely to ever happen I suppose.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[BountyX]

In the US, T-Mobile allows automated unlocking via their site. If it's not avialable on their site (i.e. a business account) just call in and say your travelling over seas.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[RMH101]

The PAYG iPhone's on direct sale from O2 in the UK. http://www.o2.co.uk/iphone/paygo

I would expect to be able to phone O2 after 2 years of ownership and say "unlock this, please" and have them do it. Mind you, I'd also expect within 12 months to be bored stupid of my handset and have changed it for something else, and I expect their 2 year contract (which is otherwise unheard of in the UK) takes this into account and expects most users to swap out for an iPhone gen 3 in a year, and further extend their contract.

Re:No one deserves this more than Apple

[LWATCDR]

What about Microsoft?
I would say they could use it a lot more than Apple.
I don't see what the problem is. Lots of phones are exclusive to a carrier. The Palm Centos was exclusive to Sprint for a while. Bricking phones that where on other carriers? Well my phone can not be updated if it isn't on the Sprint network at all.

People it is just a nice phone. If you don't like AT&T then buy a different phone that isn't so shinny.

Good

[Darkness404]

This is excellent news for consumers. About the only area that technology is seriously lacking in, is cell phones. And it isn't because we don't have the capability, the iPhone and Android platforms proves that it isn't the case, but rather it is the cell phone companies.

Re:Good

[houstonbofh]

People forget that when it comes to phones, "we" are not the customer. Verizon is the customer, and we are the product.

Re:Good

[Shadowlore]

Sure, because the telcos have been the epitome of advancing the technology, and implementing technology. Their extremely honest willingness to let you use your bandwidth as you see fit, to let you use VOIP w/o extra pain and cost, to bill you such a very low rate for basic text messages that pager companies were letting you send a decade or more ago prove that it isn't the telcos putting down the rules on their networks, but the dastardly cell phone makers refusing to implement such cool technology.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you buy into the idiotic US business model. If we had things working the way they do in some countries, the consumer would be empowered to run any device on any network they want.

Re:Good

[IdahoEv]

Their extremely honest willingness to let you use your bandwidth as you see fit, [etc.]

...and their ability to keep up with the industry in other countries. A couple years ago I was shocked to hear that Korean, Scandinavian, and Japanese homes were regularly getting inexpensive > 100 Mb/s data lines. Last week, /. reported that Japanese telcos are rolling out Gigabit fiber for $55/mo.

And yet this week one of my clients is still struggling to get a reliable 1 Mb/s connection to their office, right here in the middle of Los Angeles. They are currently paying $150/mo for a DSL line that ain't working. Even if it worked, that's almost a factor of 3000 increase in the cost per Mb/s relative to the new stuff in Japan.

 

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

...Korean, Scandinavian, and Japanese homes were regularly getting inexpensive > 100 Mb/s data lines.

Short, short version: Japan has 40% of the U.S. population living in 4.1% of the space. Phrased another way, the average Japanese telecomm is servicing 10x as many customers in any given region. That makes it far more economical to pay for fiber and other forms of really fat bandwidth.

As for your client trying to get reliable megabit to their office in L.A., I'd suggest that's because his telecomm is a bunch of trained apes who couldn't tell copper from the slab of asphalt it's running under. I've had no problem with a 10/1 residential line in my town, which is nowhere near any major metropolis.

Re:Good

[blind biker]

to get a reliable 1 Mb/s connection to their office, right here in the middle of Los Angeles.
  They are currently paying $150/mo for a DSL line that ain't working.

You must be shitting us. How can a 1 Mb/s DSL line cost $150/month anywhere??? Crazy stuff.

Re:Good

[m85476585]

For a business line, that's about right.

Re:Good

[GodKingAmit]

Have you looked at the population densities of the Scandinavian countries?

Re:Good

[Shadowlore]

Damn, that's expensive compared to DSL here in Idaho where you can get 20MB for under a hundred. That 1MB line in LA (that is not working) is 8 times what a 1MB line in Boise, Idaho costs (and it works).

explains everything

[DreadfulGrape]

So that's what gave Jobs the heart attack...

Re:explains everything

[ray_mccrae]

I smell a new meme coming along.

Re:explains everything

[Anonymous Coward]

hope the SEC arrests you

Yay!

[atari2600]

I'll wait for my 2$ apple store credit to show up. The article (sigh ipaper, cannot copy and paste) says the contractual obligation isn't just two years but five years if you count the data services/plan. What gives?

Also Googling for "iphone antitrust ruling" gives interesting results. (Rambus and MS? wth?).

Re:Yay!

[Free the Cowards]

What gives is that they're talking about Apple's contract with AT&T, not your contract with AT&T. The reason you can't buy an iPhone and use it with T-Mobile in the US (unless you hack it) is because of Apple's exclusive contract, which currently runs for five years.

Re:Yay!

[thatskinnyguy]

says the conjugal obligation isn't just two years but five years if you count the data services/plan.

That's just how I parsed it. And quite frankly, it doesn't change my interpretation of the sentence one bit.

Re:Yay!

[everyday17]

What about Sony and Xbox, who release software updates that brick hacked consoles? Doesn't this ruling suggest that Sony and Xbox's behavior is also illegal?

Sony and Microsoft aren't saying that if you want to use their online services you have to use a certain ISP, and besides the primary thing that people hack consoles for is to play copied games illegally. People hacking iPhones generally aren't using them to do anything illegal.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like the G1 being a T-mobile phone?

Or can I get one of those for AT&T now?

Re:Yay!

[Free the Cowards]

If you're trying to make a point, you're doing it in an incredibly stupid fashion. I never said the iPhone's AT&T exclusive contract was something in any way unique.

Re:Yay!

[Sentry21]

Which wasn't that big of a deal when you could buy a case of them with cash up-front, but not being able to get them from anywhere unless you sign a contract seems to me to be kind of a dick thing to do. If someone wants to buy it and have a shitty experience, knowing full well that they'll be missing out on stuff, then go for it. Make them pay full price, but don't limit them. Let carriers implement visual voicemail, and off you go.

clarification

[larry bagina]

per the first paragraph, the AT&T/Apple restriction is ok, but they [might have] imposed other limitations after the 2 year contract (umm, which hasn't ended for anyone yet).

Re:clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

per the first paragraph, the AT&T/Apple restriction is ok, but they [might have] imposed other limitations after the 2 year contract (umm, which hasn't ended for anyone yet).

If someone purchases an iPhone and ends their two year contract after they pay the applicable fees associated with an early ended contract, is it against "computer fraud and abuse" to not allow them to use their hardware?

Recently Sprint was forced into allowing its customers to unlock their phones. So, applying that logic, if I own an iphone (and am not renting it from AT&T, is it not an abuse of law to release a patch to hardware which intentionally damages my property?

Sorry if that didn't make sense.

Re:clarification

[mr_matticus]

If someone purchases an iPhone and ends their two year contract after they pay the applicable fees associated with an early ended contract, is it against "computer fraud and abuse" to not allow them to use their hardware?

I don't know what you mean by "computer fraud and abuse", but if you pay the termination penalties, you have the legal right to unlock your phone. This does not mean that either AT&T or Apple have a legal obligation to help you do it.

So, applying that logic, if I own an iphone (and am not renting it from AT&T, is it not an abuse of law to release a patch to hardware which intentionally damages my property?

No, because it does not damage your property. I am assuming "patch to hardware" means "software update", because I am aware of no such hardware patching. The software is Apple's property; your ownership of the copy does not include any right of modification, subject to your physical modification of the chip it's stored on. Your installing the software update is entirely voluntary. The software update causes no damage, as the device works as intended afterward (bugs not included).

It is a colossal abuse of common sense, however, to install a software update, as an unlocked user, without waiting for confirmation as to whether it can be unlocked again afterward.

Re:clarification

[fbjon]

I think they should help, actually. In that situation you've bought the phone for it's full price, effectively, and if it's not unlocked, it's not a functioning product.

Re:clarification

[mr_matticus]

Full price does not imply unlocked. The status of its lock has no bearing on whether it functions as designed--especially since it was designed to be locked. It continues to function exactly as it did from day one. It was a functioning product then, and it continues to be indefinitely. The hyperbolic rhetoric does not generate sympathy.

I agree, from a social-normative perspective, that they should help. But from a legal perspective, they don't have to, and from a business perspective, it's a wash. As it's their product, they can follow whatever logic suits them.

Re:clarification

[fbjon]

They have to follow consumer protection laws before inventing their own logic.

Re:clarification

[mr_matticus]

What consumer protection law poses a problem?

The device is not non-functional with a lock. A Verizon phone is functional, and it works only on Verizon.

Who gets to be in the Class?

[Bobartig]

People on other carriers that want to use the iPhone?

People who were "compelled" to get an ATT account to use the iPhone?

People who didn't get an iPhone because of the exclusivity?

Who *wasn't* damaged?

Just for the record, I have an iPhone, I was already with ATT, and Apple should have figured out that this might have been illegal beforehand.

Re:Who gets to be in the Class?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a scenario to the iPhone. Similar exclusivity deals have been made with plenty of other phones and you'll find this kind of practice all over the place.

For whatever reason, people are so crazy over the iPhone that they feel its their right to have one on their own terms while there are plenty of more open alternatives on the market.

Re:Who gets to be in the Class?

[HTH NE1]

Precedent has to be set somewhere. You just have to pick a battle you think you have the best chance to win.

Re:Who gets to be in the Class?

[mr_matticus]

D. None of the above.

People who bought the iPhone and are allegedly stuck with AT&T for five years as a result, despite having agreed to a two-year contract.

The exclusivity agreement, according to the complaint, prevents any iPhone customer from going anywhere else once their contract is up. The problem is that (a) no one's contract has expired, so there is no evidence for or against Apple and AT&T as to what happens at that time, (b) there are already tools to unlock the iPhone and use the device on other networks, which, after the AT&T contract and the product warranty expires, Apple could not care less about for end users, and (c) the "legal action" discussed does not extend to people unlocking their handsets for the purpose of lawfully connecting them to another provider's network.

This, furthermore, is not a finding of fact or law. It is not an opinion. It is simply a rejection of a dismissal motion. It by no means suggests the final outcome, nor does it endorse any of the allegations made by the plaintiffs. It is entirely possible that this suit will be dismissed further along in the discovery process, dismissed during trial, or that Apple/AT&T will win at trial. It will likely provide nothing of value to consumers either way, with the possible exception of an announcement of an "official" unlocking tool for customers whose initial contracts have expired.

It is important to note that such a tool being offered upon completion of your term commitment would entirely moot this case.

Re:Who gets to be in the Class?

[peragrin]

That is what really gets me. AT&T and Apple's deal isn't abnormal in the cell phone industry. Certain phones don't show up in certain regions because of such deals.

The big plus of this whole lawsuit is that all this will be made public and the cell phone industry will be forced to change. Like Apple broke open music downloads by forcing an industry to be more open (and closed), maybe this lawsuit will break open the cell phone industry. Of course it won't be apple leading the charge but defending the old ways but hey you must start somewhere.

Re:Who gets to be in the Class?

[SenseiLeNoir]

You hit the nail on the head. You have signed up to a 2 year compulsory contract, yet you have (at least) a 5 year hidden contract, as you will NOT be able to use the phone on any other network, shoudl you wish to move. (this is on the assumption that after their exclusive deal is up, they will actually allow firmware updates to unlock the simlock, which I seriosuly doubt).

So yes, it stiffles competition, as people are likely to remain on AT&T just to use their iPhone, even after the 2 years is up.

Re:Who gets to be in the Class?

[madcow_bg]

Well, won't an official unlocking tool be a breach of their contract with AT&T?

A not-official one would certainly not moot the case at all, since it voids the warranty.

Re:Who gets to be in the Class?

[mr_matticus]

Well, won't an official unlocking tool be a breach of their contract with AT&T?

No.

The agreement is between Apple and AT&T. In order to get an iPhone, you must sign a contract for two years of AT&T service. Once you fulfill that obligation (by completing it, or by terminating it with penalties), you can use the iPhone on any carrier that will accept you. The release of a tool to customers upon completion of the service term breaches no contract.

A not-official one would certainly not moot the case at all

And?

Wait... what?

[pushing-robot]

I have a hard time seeing how the iPhone could be considered monopolistic when it has such a small market share; you can't have a monopoly by law unless there are no good alternatives to your product.

On the other hand, I'd love to see an end to the AT&T exclusivity agreement and unlocked iPhones for sale in the USA. I hope this case leads to more than just punitive damages.

Re:Wait... what?

[sexconker]

Apple's marketing seems to state pretty strongly that there are no good alternatives for to the iPhone.

Re:Oh Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this count as funny...it's not even relevant!

Re:Wait... what?

[larry bagina]

and slashdot readers seem to state pretty strongly that the iPhone is lame and not nearly as good as open moku ^W ^W android

This is just a preliminary finding.

[darkmeridian]

The title of the article discussed a motion to dismiss. The article itself was slashdotted, but a motion to dismiss only means that the lawsuit is allowed to continue. The holding only means that the complaint states a legally-cognizable cause of action, and does not address the substantive merits of the plaintiffs' (as it was a class action) case aside from that.

I would like to know if this was filed under the federal antitrust statutes or the California antitrust laws. If it is the former, than the decision would have national implications and Apple may lose significant amounts of money if it is found liable of anti-competitive conduct.

Moreover, if the contract between Apple and AT&T Mobile is ruled in violation of law, does AT&T owe Apple money anyway, or are they just going to sue each other? This will be fun to see.

Re:This is just a preliminary finding.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely right - it is only a rejection of a motion to dismiss or compelled arbitration. In other words, the courts have upheld nothing other than that it believes the claim has enough merit to warrant a lawsuit. Something tells me though that Apple & AT&t will still win it in the end though.

Re:This is just a preliminary finding.

[dgatwood]

What I hope comes out of it are the following findings:

• Customers have a fundamental right to unlocked phones except during a contractual subsidy period.
• Telcos are required to provide unlock codes at the end of the subsidy period, with no exceptions. (It is then incumbent upon them to require the hardware manufacturers to provide those codes as part of their contractual agreements.)

I have mixed opinions on the other issues being argued, but my opinion on the unlocking thing is that AT&T needs to be smacked down hard.

Re:Wait... what?

[rimugu]

IANAL
Anti-monopolistic is not just to eliminate current monopolies, but to prevent creation of new monopolies and punish ANTI-COMPETITIVE practices.

Antimonopoly?

[MMC Monster]

Apply iPhones are a small fraction of all smart phones, let alone all phones.

AT&T/Cingulair has at least a couple viable large competitors in most markets in the U.S.

How the heck is this a monopoly?

Re:Antimonopoly?

[squiggleslash]

They're a 0% percentage of smartphones. Jobs redefining the term doesn't make a phone whose software is controlled by the manufacturer a "smartphone".

Re:Antimonopoly?

[Pebby]

No one is saying Apple has a monopoly, the suit is pointing to monopolistic behavior (forced tie-ins, etc.).

Re:Antimonopoly?

[Question Mark]

From TFA, the monopoly is on "after-market voice and data services" and applications for the iPhone.

The case law the judge cited was in regards to copy machines, namely Kodak using various illegal means to enforce a monopoly on replacement parts for Kodak copy machines. The Supreme Court ruled that the market for "Kodak copy machine replacement parts" was a different market than the market for "copy machines", and thus antitrust laws applied.

In this case, Apple has a monopoly on "iPhone applications" and AT&T has a monopoly on "voice and data service for the iPhone." If Apple allowed people to unlock their phones for use on other carriers, or to install apps not purchased through iTunes, no monopoly would exist.

Re:Antimonopoly?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

How the heck is this a monopoly?

You know, you could read the linked article - it explains it fairly clearly.

Re:Antimonopoly?

[onefriedrice]

From Wikipedia: "A smartphone is a mobile phone offering advanced capabilities beyond a typical mobile phone, often with PC-like functionality."

I don't see how the term has to be redefined to include the iPhone since it refers to a phones' capabilities rather than software licenses and implementations. Looks like you're the one trying to redefine the term...

Re:Antimonopoly?

[Silicon Jedi]

According to the edit history, you just changed the definition.

Re:Antimonopoly?

[squiggleslash]

I suspect the Wikipedia page was edited after Jobs started using the term. Until the iPhone was released, the term smartphone was used exclusively to refer to phones that had an open architecture and allowed the user to load arbitrary applications on them rather than having all software controlled by the manufacturer. The definition used by Wikipedia barely covers the Nokia 9000, the original smartphone and the first smartphone I ever had.

The only extent to which the definition has blurred has been over the more advanced capabilities of standard phones. Most factory-unlocked Motorola GSM phones, for instance, are closer to the original smartphone definition than the iPhone, being able to run user loaded Java applications making the phones theoretically capable of anything a PC is capable of, albeit subject to memory, storage, and speed limitations. At this point, the same cannot be said of the iPhone, which is subject to arbitrary restrictions set by Apple. If and when Apple lifts them, it'll have the right to call the phone a smartphone. But not until then.

More Accurate Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing has been "Upheld", all that has happened is that the court denied Apple's 12b6 motions for dismissal. (Failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.)

This case is still pre-trial. Discovery has not happened yet. Apple can still file for summary Judgment.

If the complaint survives Apple's inevitable motion for summary judgment, then the case will go to trial. Then there will be appeals.

 

Re:More Accurate Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you! Lawyers and judges always get blasted by techies for not understanding how ridiculous some orders are (like when the judge in the torrentspy case ordered that everything in RAM was discoverable). However, techies who read these court opinions and other statutes end up outraged or in a touchdown dance for no reason.

Dismissal of a 12b6 != winning the case. It just means the case is moving on. Next, the parties will demand evidence from each other, and then they can argue the facts for summary judgment. Then they might get to trial. This case is far from over.

The case doesn't mean that iPhone users won. It just means iPhone users haven't lost.

-- Trial Lawyer

Re:More Accurate Summary

[Provocateur]

Lawyers and judges always get blasted by techies

Yes but in these forums? It's like if a tree falls in the forest when no one's around, will you still hear your ex-wife talk?

Oh, wait...that's not how that goes...

Will the Psystar law suit end going the same way??

[Joe The Dragon]

Will the Psystar law suit end going the same way?? as apple is locking mac os to it's hardware and useing software locks like how apple is locking the I-phone to ATT sim cards.

What about CDMA phones?

[jakethejuggalo]

Wouldn't this ruling apply to Verizon phones also? They're technologically the same as sprint phones, but if you switch from Verizon to Sprint or vice-versa, you can't use your phone on that new network. What's the difference between that situation and wanting to use the iPhone on t-mobile?

Re:What about CDMA phones?

[cdrguru]

I have a Windows application that I used for many years that is technologically the same as any other Windows application today - both run on the x86 processor. However, for some reason that is a complete mystery it does not work today. Funny, it worked fine in 1995. Could there be some subtle difference, other than the base underlying technology between windows 3.1 and Windows Vista?

That is pretty much what you are saying. CDMA has been heavily customized by the carriers so there is no carrier-to-carrier compatibility once you leave the lowest level of specifications. Attempting to activate a CDMA phone on anything other than the carrier the phone's software is loaded for is an exercise in frustration. It isn't going to work.

GSM is different. Quite different. There have been far fewer carrier specific changes for phones. You can claim that the carriers should not have made the CDMA extensions they did, but the time for that has past. The question now should be will carriers in the US make carrier-specific extensions to GSM that require custom carrier-specific software in the phones? If the CDMA/TDMA rollout in the US is any indication, they will do so to differentiate network services and provide additional features to customers. Of course, this will completely negate any ability to move phones (GSM or CDMA) between carriers in the future.

No, I do not know if the carrier-specific CDMA extensions are documented anywhere public. I suspect they are not and it is all considered trade secret. Qualcomm would know.

Precisely

[Sparks23]

Their statement was not 'we are going to brick other people's phones,' but 'if you have messed around in the baseband firmware, we can't promise this upgrade isn't going to break something significantly.'

They didn't set out to brick phones (and quite a few unlocked phones I know of took the firmware upgrade just fine). It was more a 'look, if you did this, you're on your own; we're not promising that this firmware won't completely break your modified phone.'

Which actually seems reasonably fair; if someone takes a car and decides to tinker in the brake system and try to come up with their own antilock braking system they feel is better, that's fine. But if they then have an accident, they can't realistically hold the car manufacturer responsible for the ABS they modified.

That said, the AT&T exclusivity contact may well verge on antitrust violations; IANAL, so I cannot really speak with any authority on that. However, restricting phones to specific carriers is pretty much par for the course. T-Mobile doesn't let you use the Sidekick on AT&T, nor the new Google Android phone that just came out. As far as I know, the Instinct is exclusive to Sprint. Etc.

So if they do rule that the AT&T exclusivity contract violates antitrust, I really do hope that decision can crack the practice of carrier exclusives overall. Forcing all phones to be sold unlocked, so that they can be taken to any other carrier with compatible cellular technology, would force carriers to actually focus on providing good service rather than relying on handset exclusives.

Re:Precisely

[MacDork]

Their statement was not 'we are going to brick other people's phones,' but 'if you have messed around in the baseband firmware, we can't promise this upgrade isn't going to break something significantly.'

Their statement went more along the lines of "We know this will brick certain firmware hacks and we will not be taking even the most trivial of steps to prevent that." They could have simply checked the OS and refused to install on a modified phone. Not only did they not do that, but Apple had the great big brass gonads to SAY they were not going to do that INTENTIONALLY. That goes beyond negligence. That's willful destruction. I'd Google the statement, but there's been so much iPhone hype since then, it is proving difficult to find.

Re:Precisely

[hobbit]

"Apple has discovered that many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed"

(From http://www.google.com/search?btnI=I'm%20Feeling%20Lucky&q=iphone+apple+statement+firmware+modified)

It's really not Apple's job to be writing workarounds for jailbroken phones (and exhaustively testing them -- what if the workarounds adversely affected unjailbroken iPhones?)

However, I would argue it is Apple's job to design the iPhone such that no changes (other than physically invasive ones) can ever cause the phone to be "permanently inoperable". And if they can't provide information to the user on how to reset the iPhone to factory defaults, they should bear the burden of repairing it.

Re:Precisely

[ShieldW0lf]

That said, the AT&T exclusivity contact may well verge on antitrust violations; IANAL, so I cannot really speak with any authority on that.

It really wouldn't matter if you were a lawyer or not. A Federal Judge has stated that it is an anti-monopoly violation. Therefore, it is.

Re:Precisely

[Torinaga-Sama]

T-mobile will let you can unlock a Sidekick. I have no personal experience with AT&T but a googling has told me that they at least used to use Sim cards and therefore should be usable on AT&T.

I have used T-mobile for years because they are the least bastardy carrier that I have a choice to use. As nice as it might be to have an iPhone, I won't switch carriers to have one, and I prefer not to void a warranty that I can't afford to shrug off.

I wish for your last paragraph to come true.

Re:Precisely

[drinkypoo]

That's a bunch of crap. There is no such thing as irreparable damage to software. The closest you can get is needing to reload the phone from JTAG or similar, which is beyond the reach of the average schmoe but it's still not unrepairable. I'm dealing with it now with my SMCWAPS-G :) (I have the parts kit for the JTAGger on order from Digi-key right now.)

If you make a "GSM" phone and it doesn't work on arbitrary GSM networks which match the frequency, you should just be shot. Or at least, slapped with a big fat lawsuit. This is a clear example of monopoly tying, which is illegal.

Re:Precisely

[MacDork]

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better.

Re:Precisely

[kybred]

T-mobile will let you can unlock a Sidekick.

You'll be able to use your Sidekick as a phone, but will lose alot of the Sidekick functionality. T-Mobile uses Danger's servers for that functionality and those servers won't be accessible from the AT&T network.

Re:Precisely

[DECS]

Wrong; the judge has only denied the motion to dismiss the case. Whether there was any violation of law remains to be determined.

Re:Precisely

[Anonymous Coward]

Not likely, as they will probably make incompatible technology.

Re:Precisely

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of contention seems to be what parts of the phone are warrantied. True, a car manufacturer can't be held liable for a customer's modified ABS, but the manufacturer can't subsequently cancel the warranty on the car's stereo because of the ABS. It seems that Apple should, at the very least, warranty their phones to the degree that they would be willing to re-flash the firmware in the event of, oh I don't know, purely accidental corruption that happened to brick the phone. Hell, I know guys who've gotten iPods repaired that were dropped in the toilet, and surely that must be a more burdensome service to provide.

IANAL, but personally I've felt that the whole phone carrier exclusivity thing either bordered on or has been violating antitrust regulations for a long, long time. The only reason I haven't cared more about it is because I don't use my cell for anything but phone calls, and then the only thing that's mattered is that the phone has worked under reasonable conditions for a price that isn't beyond whole-hearted extortion.

Finally, I think it would be a great day for consumers when phone manufacturers just build the hardware, software shops just make the OSes and apps, and the carriers just provide the connectivity.

Re:Precisely

[garote]

"That's a bunch of crap. There is no such thing as irreparable damage to software."

What, you've never overclocked an [expletive] Pentium before? You've never seen a fumbled BIOS upgrade? You've never seen a hacker stomp all over encryption hashes in NVRAM as part of an "unlock" procedure and then whine that the manufacturers should have anticipated and magically prevented his own abject clumsiness?

"This is a clear example of monopoly tying, which is illegal."

You think you can read the law like you can read code fragments? The law doesn't work that way. The iPhone is a subsidized phone.

Re:Precisely

[vague disclaimer]

Surely you aren't suggesting that Slashdot has used a deceitful headline and summary?

For shame!

Re:Precisely

[dhruvx]

Which actually seems reasonably fair; if someone takes a car and decides to tinker in the brake system and try to come up with their own antilock braking system they feel is better, that's fine. But if they then have an accident, they can't realistically hold the car manufacturer responsible for the ABS they modified.

Your analogy is flawed. It would make sense to say, you buy a car. Tinker with the brakes. After a while send it for "upgrades" ( say, they put in a fly-by-wire instead of the hydraulics ) and that "upgrade" bricks your car. You sue the manufacturer for the bricked car :P THAT would be a correct analogy.

Re:Precisely

[TheWGP]

The person originally posting this should have qualified their statement - there's no such thing as irreparable damage TO THE SOFTWARE PROGRAM, which is by definition simply 0's and 1's - BUT there sure is such a thing as software which, because it's broken, causes the hardware to malfunction/stop working/break/"release its magic smoke!" All of your examples are of this sort, and you do have a valid point - just recognize that he has a valid point too.

Also, for those (including parent) who have never been to law school, you'd be surprised how much various statutes, rules, codes and procedural directives can look like fragments of broken (programming-language) code, complete with broken cross-references and forgotten definitions for variables. Looking for some kind of grounds to file suit under bears more resemblance to bug-hunting code than you'd probably think.

Also, the iPhone's subsidization by AT&T is part of the case, but it's also wholly irrelevant. Even if AT&T sold it at full price, they would still need to sign a two year contract -- but have five years of exclusivity. Thus, if you want to continue to use your device, you MUST stay on AT&T. That's the complaint, boiled-down-very-simplified for you.

And yes, this is most likely illegal according to the plain language and letter of the law on tying (as a prior poster said, Magnuson-Moss covers a lot of things besides plain warranty). The question becomes what incentive this particular judge has to find a way for AT&T to wiggle out of this. (Apple is only peripherally related, honestly - the real meat of this is against AT&T. But if plaintiffs had only sued AT&T, AT&T would likely have drawn Apple in as an intervening defendant under their contract anyway)

Re:Precisely

[s4ltyd0g]

Look either they did it on purpose, or they were too incompetent to perform a checksum before bricking the phone. Which do you think it is?

Re:Precisely

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is tmobile will provide you with the unlock code when you terminate service with them at&t will not I have gone round and round with them on my smartphone even though I paid the deactivation fee

Point five is false.

[argent]

The original iPhone WAS subsidized by AT&T. The fact that it was only available with AT&T service, so there was no unsubsidized price listed, doesn't mean there wasn't a subsidy.

I imagine Apple will appeal on this basis at least.

Re:Point five is false.

[Anonymous Coward]

There iPhone was not subsidized by AT&T. The exclusivity contract was actually all about Apple wanting to get a share of every account that has an iPhone on it. Unlike just about every other phone out there, the manufacturer gets money for as long as you use it, not just when it gets bought.

Re:Point five is false.

[david_thornley]

My wife and I paid $600 each for our first-generation iPhones. If that was subsidized, I'd like to know what the unsubsidized price would have been.

We've been enjoying them very much, but neither "subsidized" nor "inexpensive" normally occurs to me as appropriate adjectives.

Re:Point five is false.

[argent]

My wife and I paid $600 each for our first-generation iPhones.

$500 after the store credit they offered when they dropped the price $200, or did you not bother to take them up on that?

If that was subsidized, I'd like to know what the unsubsidized price would have been.

Judging by other Apple products, and how much "Apple Tax" I've paid for Apple products I've bought in the past, about 40% more than a comparable Windows Mobile device, or at least $800.

We've been enjoying them very much, but neither "subsidized" nor "inexpensive" normally occurs to me as appropriate adjectives.

If you want inexpensive devices, don't buy them from Apple.

My take

[Thail]

My take on why apple should be punished isn't the exclusivity deal with AT&T being the only seller of the product, but with them disabling the product on other carriers, such that you can't use the itunes service if you did unlock the phone. Phones have been carrier locked for years, but most carriers can provide unlock codes for these phones once the contractual obligation is met, freeing the phone to be used with the other services. The iPhone however looses full functionality due to software restrictions installed by the manufacturer.

Although I'm a fan of competition...

[SpcCowboy]

How is this any different than any of the other phones out there that are available exclusively through one provider or another? (Samsung Instinct etc) While I'd love to see the cell phone company walls come down, I don't think Apple is doing anything different than everyone else in this case.

Re:Wait... what?

[LandDolphin]

And the Tabacco companies told us that Cigarettes are good for you.

Re:Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are good for you. They are also extremely bad for you. The negatives outweigh the positives by a long shot. They didn't say "cigarettes are good for you." Rather, they lied and said "cigarettes aren't bad for you." There is a difference.

AT&T may be due for some smackdown as well

[LionMage]

This isn't just about Apple. The document cites, for example, that AT&T Mobility does not (or is not required to) subsidize the cost of the iPhone, contrary to standard industry practice, yet they still charge a $175 early termination fee.

I am with the court on this one! Early termination fees only make sense if the carrier is subsidizing the cost of the handset.

Re:AT&T may be due for some smackdown as well

[fermion]

This problem goes beyond Apple. It is the way the cell phone industry works in the US. The carriers collude with the cell phone manufacturers to create specifically designed phones that limit user choice and competition. This is shown in the instance of iPhone where Apple went to every cell carrier asking them if Apple could design a phone that be user centered, and only ATT allowed them to do so. It is also shown in the case of Android, where T-Mobile, the bottom of the cell phone food chain, is the only company in the US that sells the phone. If one doubts the existance of this collusion, just compare the original razr as produced in the Europe, the US, and between the US carriers.

A long time ago the original ATT used the same arguments that the cell phone companies are using now. It is dangerous to allow third party kit on our lines. We have to charge exorbitant rental fees to our customer to cover costs. Fortunately these claims were eventually smacked down. If they were not, we would not have been able to put affordable modems on our computers, and the internet would be controlled by ATT.

I think this is an important case in testing the ability of cell phone companies to collude to limit customer options. I do not believe that attacking Apple is going to solve the fundamental problem. I see no reason why, if the cell phone carriers were open, that the iPhone could not be sold by any carrier. It is the behavior of the American cell companies, not the hardware designers, that is the issue.

Re:Wait... what?

[azakem]

I have a hard time seeing how the iPhone could be considered monopolistic when it has such a small market share; you can't have a monopoly by law unless there are no good alternatives to your product.

IANAL, but... there are still a few categories of anti-competitive arrangements that are considered per se illegal, such as price fixing and market division. If the plaintiffs could get the court to see this as some kind of egregious refusal to deal then they wouldn't have to deal with the market share problem. If that fails, the government could still shoot for abbreviated rule of reason review and put the burden on Apple and AT&T to show a plausible pro-competitive justification for their arrangement. I don't know enough about this stuff to even guess how it will turn out though.

Re:Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant marketing scheme! I can't wait for it to catch on...

"Always Coca-Cola, unless you want a Pepsi. That's okay too."

Monopoly

[DrYak]

The fact that it was only available with AT&T service, so there was no unsubsidized price listed, doesn't mean there wasn't a subsidy.

There's only one single company - ATT - through which Apple's iPhone is available, due to an exclusive contract signed between the maker and the service provider.
What does best qualify as a monopoly ?

I can't imagine how could Apple appeal on that.

Compare this to Europe, where anti-trusting laws where applied.
Here in Switzerland, the iPhone is available in subsidized form from 2 of the 3 phone operators. And in addition is available in unsubsidized form with "bring your own sim" no phone plan at-all.
You have 3 different solutions to get a phone.
Meanwhile, in the US you're forced to one single solution. It is a monopoly.

They could appeal about the firmware, by trying to show that there was no *intent* to brick the phone. That was an accident, and was inevitable due to the fact that they couldn't test the firmware against all the various after market modification that the users did themselves.
- They officially stipulate that they don't support those modification.
- The upgrade featured a warning that this could happen.
They may have some ground to appeal that point.

Guess again

[geekoid]

"We know this will brick certain firmware hacks and we will not be taking even the most trivial of steps to prevent that."

and that's fine. If you change your firmware, don't update it. It is not Apples res;ponisibilty to take thing you might do you your iPhone into account.

âoeUsers who make unauthorized modifications to the software on their iPhone violate their iPhone software license agreement and void their warranty. The permanent inability to use an iPhone due to installing unlocking software is not covered under the iPhoneâ(TM)s warranty.â

followed up with by Phil Schiller, Appleâ(TM)s senior vice president of worldwide product marketing:
âoeItâ(TM)s unfortunate that some of these programs have caused damage to the iPhone software, but Apple cannot be responsible for those consequences"

Considering the software was likely to ahve been done weeks before the release, I find it doubtful it was intentional. Also consider that it didn't brick all hacked iPods, only a few.

MOD PARENT UP

[db32]

None of the other comments thus far seem to touch on this.

Magnuson Moss Warranty Act of 1975

[adam]

They're suing in relation to a breach of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act of 1975, as well as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The Warranty Act is related to the product tieing, and bricking of unlocked phones. Essentially (and amongst other things) the MM Warranty Act says that it's illegal for a vendor to sell a product and require a tieing of services. From the FTC's web site:

"Tie-In Sales" Provisions Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. The following are examples of prohibited tie-in sales provisions. In order to keep your new Plenum Brand Vacuum Cleaner warranty in effect, you must use genuine Plenum Brand Filter Bags. Failure to have scheduled maintenance performed, at your expense, by the Great American Maintenance Company, Inc., voids this warranty.

They are arguing that tieing to AT&T, and then firmware releases bricking phones that have been unlocked to another carrier is an illegal/tortious act on the part of Apple. They allege Apple has told customers that downloading of unapproved software (but software that should be legal to install, under the MM act, imo) will void their warranty. Furthermore they have a vested financial interest in "approved" software from the Apple store, and obviously refuse to allow unlocking software to be included in that store. They refuse to provide customers who have lawfully canceled their AT&T contracts with unlocking codes so they may use their device with another carrier (again, covered by MM act). The list of allegations goes on. Full text of 15 USC Chapter 50, which is the section of the statute they have sued under (although I believe Title 16 - Commercial Practices, Chapter I - Federal Trade Commission, Subchapter G - Rules, Regulations, Statements and Interpretations under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Part 700 Section 102 also deals with warranty denials, text here).

They are alleging illegality on the part of Apple in that they monopolized the market for iphone applications, and also apple+AT&T for voice and data service monopolization. And of course the alleged illegality I spoke of above (services ties, denying consumers the ability to break these ties, pushing software updates that intentionally break the phones of users who have circumvented product ties, and then denying warranty coverage for these affected users)

I hope that was somewhat helpful.

Re:Magnuson Moss Warranty Act of 1975

[Kagura]

This was extremely helpful and was exactly the sort of response I was looking for. Thanks!

Re:Magnuson Moss Warranty Act of 1975

[Anonymous Coward]

i *still* dont understand why we need laws about this. why not just let vendors lock hardware? the terms of service are laid out in the contract. if youre the type of person who unlocks your phone, then you know those appley bastards are going to try and try to brick it. if you dont like the terms, dont buy the product. if enough people dont like it, there is a business opportunity for some other guy.

why do we feel that we need to legislate stuff like this? why do we bitch when we get what we knew was coming?

Re:Magnuson Moss Warranty Act of 1975

[dragon8x4x]

That was a great summary and explanation. Thank you

Re:Magnuson Moss Warranty Act of 1975

[KGIII]

I suspect that we'd be all up in arms if we bought a new computer and found that it was locked to use only Microsoft Windows. If we, in this situation, upgraded to Linux the PC would connect to a main server and then disable itself until you installed Windows again. The above isn't exactly the same as the complaint is a product that is forced to be tied in with a specific service. There are other exclusive phones out there but I think that, in all those cases, you can unlock them and use them with another carrier without fear of them being bricked.

Re:Magnuson Moss Warranty Act of 1975

[Anonymous Coward]

i am thinking that before you plunk down your (hard earned?) cash on that shiny new computer, you should be researching exactly what youre getting.

if that computer manufacturer lies about it, or if apple lies about it, then yeah you can be pissed when your equipment gets bricked. but since apple spells it out in the contract, you have been warned and you arent allowed to bitch when it happens.

im sick of people acting like they are entitled to the products they want at the price they want with the exact conditions they want. true, its RETARDED for companies to not sell things that people actually want, but thats their business. youre not entitled to an iphone, and youre not entitled to be able to unlock it when you were explicitly told you cant unlock it when you bought it.

we need laws to ensure that companies are honest and forthright in disclosing terms and details. we dont need laws dictating what terms companies are allowed to offer. people need to learn some god damned responsibility and self control.

(we also dont need to be bailing out all you dipshits who overspent your borrowed money, but thats another thread.... fucking assholes.)

Re:Magnuson Moss Warranty Act of 1975

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting....since Verizon has been getting away with this since 2001 with BREW. You are totally tied to their service for applicatons, ringtones, wallpaper, anything the phone does.

I love how...

[jflo]

I love how Apple has become the new evil empire of corporations.... Microsoft used to be number one.... however, when a product becomes so popular and let just face it, everyone wants one, the greedy people behind the product will try to squeeze every penny they can out of it. At the same time, its the greedy people like the ones at Apple who have really added to economy problems. Whats the worth of a dollar if only a small handful of people are collecting the larger chunks of it?

Re:I love how...

[Concerned Onlooker]

"At the same time, its the greedy people like the ones at Apple who have really added to economy problems."

Wow, that's news to me. I had no idea that Apple was in the sub-prime lending market. Did they try to sell you a house along with that iPhone? Those bastards.

English: do you speak it?

[argent]

There's only one single company - ATT - through which Apple's iPhone is available, due to an exclusive contract signed between the maker and the service provider.
What does best qualify as a monopoly ?

I'm not even addressing the question of whether there is a monopoly or not.

I am addressing the question of whether there was a subsidy or not.

These are different words. Look them up. I'll wait. "Monopoly". "Subsidy".

Convicted monopolist some day?

[ClosedSource]

Some on Slashdot are fond of describing MS as a "convicted monopolist" which is incorrect since the action taken against them was strictly civil. Wouldn't it be mind-bending if they could accurately describe Apple that way some day?

I beg your pardon.

[ReedYoung]

You can Google the judge's opinion if you want, but my opinion ...

For once, the linked article is also the most pertinent document, in this case the legal document and not a local newspaper's synopsis of same. Hoodathunkit?

Tell it to the EU

[ClosedSource]

MS was slammed by the EU over server software when it wasn't (and still isn't) the market leader.

Interesting how this plays with the Psystar case..

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple recently submitted a motion in Psystar v Apple on a very similar point--whether a monopoly can exist on a single product where there are competing similar products.

I have to say, reading the groklaw article, I find Apple's argument reasonably persuasive on whether anti-trust law applies when a manufacturer restricts access to one of their products (summary: it doesn't).

At least Apple is toeing a consistent line, but I'm guessing they'll win here, probably on summary judgement.

A crushing blow for Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

All the Slashdotters who mod people down for pointing out that Apple is, was, and always will be a far more brutal monopoly than Microsoft have been dealt another crushing blow by reality.

Yes, we all know they make nice shiny electronic gadgets. But that doesn't justify their monopolistic behavior, no matter how much someone may hate Microsoft. Two monopolies doesn't make it right, and the GPL-based monopoly the Stallmanistas are trying to create will be no better.

Re:A crushing blow for Slashdot

[Digana]

Two monopolies doesn't make it right, and the GPL-based monopoly the Stallmanistas are trying to create will be no better.

Total flamebait, and I've bitten.

To say that the GPL promotes a monopoly is just so wrong that I won't even take the time to point out why it's so wrong. Just think before you say such obvious blather. I will attack the implication of rms here, since the GPL has far extended beyond him and there are people who fundamentally disagree with a number of things rms says and still use the GPL nonetheless (e.g. Linus), because rms isn't the GPL and the GPL isn't rms.

Bad summary

[torstenvl]

As darkmeridian said above, this is just denying a MTD. MTDs are filed in every case, ever, and they are denied in the vast majority of them.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Will the Psystar law suit end going the same wa

[Anonymous Coward]

It already has.

Apologist

[Anonymous Coward]

"They didn't set out to brick phones "

You don't know this; you're speculating.

But that aside, apple could have done a check sum and refuse to update the phone if the version was incorrect. But that wouldn't accomplish Apple's goal of serving as a warning to those people who chose not to play with your property the way Apple wants you to.

So please spare us the sophmoric analysis and transparent apologies, because unless you were there, you can't explain away the trivial things apple could have done to prevent this. Seriously.

Re:Wait... what?

[sexconker]

They often said that cigarettes were good for you.
They even trotted out doctors to say it for them.

There was a thing called 1950, you know.
Get off my lawn.
Etc.

And no. They aren't good for you.
What positives are there?

You're more likely to have a lighter/matches on you in emergency situations?
You get your fix and it calms you down?
You look cool?

Carry a lighter and don't smoke.
Don't get addicted in the first place and you won't need the fix, and you'll be generally calmer.
And it seems to me that smoking finally turned the corner from cool to trashy a while back.

This is bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple did nothing, committed no crime. Their only sin is NOT BEING MICROSOFT.

Wanna be a tech business in America? Don't not be Microsoft! Microsoft can shoot mothers and eat their babies at the company picnic and sell their daughters into prostitution in Singapore, and the government will just go "You want my daughter too?" But if you're not Microsoft, you'd better look out. You're not allowed to be in business in the United States.

That's why we take our tech startups to other countries now.

Most people

[tkrotchko]

"Who *wasn't* damaged?"

People smart enough not to buy one.

Scribd Sucks

[algae]

Thanks a lot for linking to an article that puts perfectly good plaintext info into a craptastic, poorly supported, embedded flash image that won't even load in 64-bit linux. Scribd sucks so badly it makes black holes jealous. There's already a document format for the internet, fuckers - it's called HTML. Might look into it.

Re:Scribd Sucks

[Collin]

i'd even prefer PDF. the scribd reader sucks even worse than loading up a PDF.

Re:Scribd Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

how many times do we have to go over this... if you want to run a 'nix desktop that actually works go with OSX.

Apple = Communism

[G1369311007]

I'm a Linux/Windows user so take it as you will, but FFS, lets not get into religion here. I don't have an iPod. I've never owned one and have no requirement for one. However, my friends swear by them. One person in particular has gone through at least 5 of them in two years. Each one had a manufacturing defect. Now if Microsoft had released something like that (360 red ring of death) everyone would be pissed, as they were. But we haven't heard the same backlash against Apple. I for one would be relieved to have Apple taken down a legal peg or two. I don't think they have the same "do no evil" mantra as our new Big Brother, Google. Rant over.

Re:Apple = Communism

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here.

You're trying to rationalize with complete Apple zealots and the only thing that will happen is the zealots with mod points will mod you down for daring to say anything bad about their wonderful Apple.

That's why the majority of anti-Apple comments are posted anonymously - it saves the karma because no zealot will ever moderate fairly.

Rip Them To Shreds

[Nom du Keyboard]

I hope Apple and AT&T get so ripped to shreds over this that nobody else will ever try this monopoly shit again out of fear that it could happen to them too!

Not so precise, actually

[Space cowboy]

Er, it's easy to make software that irreparably damages embedded systems. We're not talking about software that runs in nice safe wrap-you-in-bubblewrap PCs any more.

Send the wrong configuration down to a CPLD or FPGA device and you can configure the voltage inputs to be (say) 1.2 volts when a 5v signal is being applied. Kiss bye-bye to that oxide layer in minutes (or seconds). If the part that's now burnt out is only used during configuration, or even just rarely (say a low-power situation), it may not be obvious that you're SOL.

Along comes a new configuration (the Apple one) and Boom!(TM) - dead hardware.

I don't know if the iphone contains configurable parts with that sort of vulnerability (like FPGA's) - I do know it contains an embedded system for the baseband receiver which needed to be configured for that update.

Embedded processor systems like these are *much* more vulnerable to the halt-and-catch-fire because they're expected to be configured in a certain way, and the QA is rarely done to make them bulletproof, like traditional processors.

As far as I can see, Apple were only being reasonable: it's entirely possible for the hacked reconfiguration of the GSM baseband system to have completely screwed it up (because it probably didn't dot every 'i' and cross every 't' - it was a trial-and-error job after all), and the problem to only become apparent when a new "proper" configuration was attempted.

So, pretty *not* precisely, IMHO. For what it's worth, I've blown CPLDs up on one project and months later come back to use the same board on another project and found out it was no longer reconfigurable. It worked fine in the configuration it had, but as soon as I reconfigured, no dice.

Simon.

Better links to examples

[Space cowboy]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but:

Wikipedia (of course!) talks about HCF - style instructions, and also mentions the killer poke specifically as "a killer poke is a method of inducing hardware damage (i.e., actual physical, irreversible damage) on a machine and/or its peripherals by the insertion of invalid values, via e.g. BASIC's POKE command, into a memory-mapped control register."

Does it matter what you think?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I find Apple's argument reasonably persuasive on whether anti-trust law applies when a manufacturer restricts access to one of their products"

No offense, but it seems to not matter what you think, unless you're the judge. And as far as we know, you might find the arguments for the tooth fairy reasonably persuasive. That doesn't make it so, and it speaks more to your biases than any facts.

NEXT!

On the other hand....

[earlymon]

It's common /. knowledge that Apple + AT&T lock-in is pure evil - I agree with this knowledge, fwiw.

And it was evil of Apple to break hacking iPhones restricting user freedom.

On the other hand, maybe....

1. Apple saddles up AT&T to break into the phone market.
2. AT&T goes for it. Apple Board of Directors is appeased; if iPhone fails somehow, how were stockholders not protected by the new venture, given Apple's attempt to partner with the phone giant?
3. Many people are offended and alienated by this, however, the fact remains:
4. iPhone sales are a tech phenomenon.
5. Apple keeps AT&T happy by breaking hacked iPhones. See point 4 for how this affects Apple's bottom line. Note that AT&T never publicly complained.
6. Apple waits for it to be the court's fault that they have to open things up for other carriers.
7. Apple expands its iPhone market without violating the AT&T agreements for hegemony.

If you've spent much time at all in Silicon Valley, this kind of thinking and planning isn't so outlandish.

And truth is most often stranger than fiction in the tech industries.

Re:On the other hand....

[onefriedrice]

And it was evil of Apple to break hacking iPhones restricting user freedom.

The problem with this is that Apple hasn't prevented hacking the iPhone except to patch the security patches used by jailbreak apps. What else can they do; leave the insecurities there? You can probably see how this wouldn't be a possibility for them.

The problem is not that Apple patched their software. The problem was that they had no API when everyone wanted to develop apps. That is now a moot point. The real issue is simply that Apple requires $99 and their approval for 3rd parties to distribute apps on their store. What they should do is come up with some way that people can put whatever they want on their phones and perhaps allow iPhones apps to be downloaded outside of their store.

Re:On the other hand....

[garote]

They have. It's called jailbreaking. ;)

Re:On the other hand....

[rennerik]

"What they should do is come up with some way that people can put whatever they want on their phones and perhaps allow iPhones apps to be downloaded outside of their store."

There is a way to do it. Or, well, there was. Apple barred developers from doing it a couple of weeks ago.

I hope someone sues their pants off for monopolistic practices. This is basically equivalent to Toyota or Ford barring third-parties from independently distributing modifications or parts for their vehicles.

Imagine what a shitstorm that would cause, if Ford magically announced that it would ban every manufacturer that tries to sell parts for their vehicles outside of Ford's approved "FordStore(tm)".

Of course they can't get away with doing that, because third parties will still do it, and they (Ford) would have to sue the companies to stop them, but the suit would never get past the first day since there are laws in place that prevent just this from happening.

In the case of Apple, it's easier for them. They can actually physically restrict developers from distributing their apps through any other means because this is software, and they (Apple) can restrict whatever they want with little effort. So in order for developers to gain their rights back, they would have to initiate suit against Apple. And that's both costly, and difficult.

I really hope someone does it though... I really do.

Re:On the other hand....

[Xuranova]

They don't have to ban it but the moment any of those non Ford approved parts causes your car to need maintenance, they'll ask one question:

"What warranty? Your warranty went out the door when that part was installed. "

The burden then is on you to prove that non Ford approved part didn't break it and Ford has nothing but time.

You might get a nice Ford dealer and then there is no issue but if you don't, good luck.

Re:On the other hand....

[Anonymous Coward]

iPhone sales might be a tech phenomenon but they are not a cell phone one.

Apple aim to sell in a year what Nokia sell in a quarter.

You left out a very important detail

[unassimilatible]

Seriously? Are you serious? Because there's an f'ing law against artificially tying products to services. It's illegal under current legal definitions because there's a law against it. Jesus.

No, there's only a law against tying if the party doing it has a dominant market share. The relevant market here is PDA phones, and Apple sure as hell doesn't have a monopoly in the PDA market. Maybe you should know your law before you start railing on others.

Re:You left out a very important detail

[randomc0de]

(5) The term "warrantor" means any supplier or other person who gives or offers to give a written warranty or who is or may be obligated under an implied warranty.

Oh shit, looks like it covers everyone.

(c) Prohibition on conditions for written or implied warranty; waiver by Commission No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if -

Oh double shit, looks like you forgot to actually read the act before opening your mouth.

Re:You left out a very important detail

[dwater]

You think Apple's iPhone is a "PDA phone"? I would class is as more like an 'music player with some phone and pda functions added'.

Silly decision

[unassimilatible]

Too bad the judge bought it. The relevant market under antitrust law is PDAs, not Apple's own OS. And Apple doesn't have a monopoly on PDAs.

As an Apple stockholder, I wish people would either buy iphones or not. Instead, they voluntarily enter a contract for a hugely subsidized phone, and then sue. All this kind of lawsuit crap is going to do is drive up the prices of phones, leading to less innovation (who's going to buy a $600 phone?).

I thought people here were libertarians? I guess there's a lot of libertarian for me, nanny state for you libertarians out there.

Re:Silly decision

[KGIII]

Two things...

This is California (where the suit is) where they are generally Democrats misusing the term "liberal."

This is California. They don't have to make sense, we keep them around for amusement.

What about Apple's pursuit of happiness?

[unassimilatible]

Or more importantly, Apple's stockholders' rights? Or are only your "rights" absolute?

I hope you enjoy $600 phones, because that is what iphones will cost when they are no longer subsidized by the cellcos.

BTW, "pursuit of happiness?" Now we are citing the Declaration of Independence as law?

Re:What about Apple's pursuit of happiness?

[KGIII]

BTW, "pursuit of happiness?" Now we are citing the Declaration of Independence as law?

I'd sure as hell hope so. That whole intent thing is important, at least to me.

No sense at all

[thejuggler]

If you alter your iPhone or any other device in such away that it was not intended and then you upgrade the software you should expect it to break or become a brick. That is just common sense. No manufacturer or software vendor should be held responsible for YOUR hacking of a device.

If Apple's deal with AT&T is illegal then every phone contract with every phone provider is illegal. Blackberry anyone? Or how about NextTel when those first came out. Every cell phone requires a service provider. My AT&T phone (Samsung, not an iPhone) will not work with other cell providers. Do I get to sue Samsung? No. So Samsung has chosen to make separate phones that will work with each cell provider. Apple has chosen to limit their customer base by not doing so. Is it criminal? No, poor marketing for sure. But it only hurts Apple. You as the end purchaser/user have the ultimate choice of NOT buying a product. It's YOUR choice to buy an iPhone knowing that it will only work with one provider. You choose to buy or not to buy. No one forced you to buy an iPhone.

Grow up people. Companies are here to make products people want and to make a profit doing so. Then they pay their employees and share holders. Nothing Steve Jobs is doing is beyond that and especially not criminally beyond that.

Re:No sense at all

[Budenny]

This may be true in one way, this is how the law may be, in one or more of the many hundreds of countries in the world.

Unfortunately what the court decision is telling you is that the law in the USA is not as you would like it to be. That is not a matter of anyone's opinion, its a decision of the court, its the way the law is. If I don't like it, or if Steve does not like it, or if you do not like it, tough. When you say, 'grow up people', do you mean the court should grow up and change its mind about what the law is? A ridiculous idea, the court is the arbiter, its not opining, its deciding. Or do you mean that people should grow up and stop wanting Apple to comply with the law? Why exactly?

You need to take your own advice: grow up, and start respecting the law of the USA as enunciated by the courts. The laws were passed by a democratically elected body, the judgments are being passed by a judiciary which has been appointed in accordance with the appropriate processes. What needs to happen is for Apple to comply, just like everyone else has to comply. Whether they or you like it or not.

Re:No sense at all

[thejuggler]

"Grow Up" is directed at all the people here that seem to hate companies and profits and paying for software.

Re:Wait... what?

[repvik]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco#Benefits

Re:Wait... what?

[MBGMorden]

It's supposed to say that or it wouldn't be good marketing. Heck I'd probably get an iPhone myself (they've been interesting when I've played around on them in stores), but AT&T's service area doesn't reach my house. I'm stuck with Verizon and Nextel as options,and I ended up choosing Verizon because everyone else I know uses Verizon so their "in" network deal works well.

Given that limitation, I've been looking at other phones. I can honestly say that from what I've seen the BlackBerry Storm looks like it could be a nice alternative (or at least a decent knockoff) to the iPhone.

Still waiting on more info on the Android phones too.

I'm sure Apple would love that

[Sentry21]

I'm sure Apple would be thrilled if the exclusivity agreement was deemed invalid. Then they get to work with T-Mobile to add visual voicemail and some good data plans, and then even MORE people get to buy the iPhone (and even less care about the G1).

The only question then becomes whether T-Mobile's 3G network is good enough to handle iPhone data traffic, or if they're willing to build it out fast enough if it's not.

OS X is essentially, AppleScript

[weston]

Second, OS X hasn't been out 15 years.

Not named as OS X, but there's enough in common with NeXTStep that you can argue it's been out for 19 years... longer if you count the 1986 previews.

There's also a number of things that carried over from OS 9 that might still be important to workflow under OS X, mostly AppleScript, but there might be a few other things.

Analogy (no cars involved).

[jotaeleemeese]

Tying up products artificially is illegal in most civilized countries.

In Mexico some bakeries used to force people to buy other stuff (like bread, or eggs) before they would sell you milk.

It is the same thing really, Apple and AT&T are forcing you to buy each other's wares without having any technical justification (only because so far they can) and I hope that any such deals are found to be illegal in as many localities as possible.

This "business model" of screwing of people by artificial scarcity has got to stop one way or another.

It may be ilegal in many places ...

[jotaeleemeese]

But people are not calling their bluff so far.

Forcing people to buy one product in order to be able to buy another is a classroom example of an anticompetitive practice, which is banned in most civilized places, unfortunately most Apple fanboys are so wide eyed playing with their expensive toys that they fail to see they are being abused by the unholy alliance of phone maker and mobile telephony provider.

As soon as some of them begin to wake up and smell the coffee complaints will follow and will, hopefully, end this most abusive "business model"...

Re:It may be ilegal in many places ...

[xero314]

Forcing people to buy one product in order to be able to buy another is a classroom example of an anticompetitive practice, which is banned in most civilized places

As I mentioned above, this is not entirely true. Bundling products is perfectly reasonable and accepted in every country I know of. It's a matter of how that bundling is used. For example, a Ford dealer does not have to sell you a frame or body of a car separate from the engine, even though in many cases the engine that is supplied with the car is manufactured by another manufacturer (not 100% sure about for but I know that Lotus does that). My Apple computer comes bundled with an Intel processor, which is again, considered standard and acceptable practice.

Again I am not defending Apple in this case, though I have my opinions, as I am just trying to point out that not all bundling is illegal or regulated, or even unfair.

Re:It may be ilegal in many places ...

[shmlco]

"Forcing people to buy one product in order to be able to buy another is a classroom example of an anticompetitive practice..."

Right. Good thing that there's a dozen or so other major cell phone manufacturers, and three other major service providers.

Apple is offering a phone that runs on AT&T's network. That's the product. No one is being forced to buy it, anymore than anyone is forced to buy an Instinct from Sprint.

Re:It may be ilegal in many places ...

[Ruliz Galaxor]

Bundling products is allowed, but that is not the point. The point is that the product is bundled, without giving customers the option of buying only the unbundled product.

You can buy the engine of a car without buying the whole car. You can also buy an Intel processor without the whole computer. But you cannot buy an iPhone without an AT&T contract.

Re:It may be ilegal in many places ...

[xero314]

You can buy the engine of a car without buying the whole car. You can also buy an Intel processor without the whole computer.

This is true, but that is merely coincidence (except in the car case where availability of replacement parts are required by law). I think you would be hard pressed to purchase a frame or body for a new car without all the bundled components. And you would also be hard pressed to purchase a Laptop computer without all the required components. And yes there are embedded chips that are not available to individual sale, only as part of their bundled products.

There are plenty of products in this world that are bundled and do not allow you to purchase the individual components.

Re:It may be ilegal in many places ...

[Achromatic1978]

Apple is offering a phone that runs on AT&T's network. That's the product. No one is being forced to buy it, anymore than anyone is forced to buy an Instinct from Sprint.

And when they say it's all good because you're only locked to AT&T for 2 years, but in reality, they've signed a 5 year exclusive agreement with AT&T? One of these things is not like the other ...

Re:It may be ilegal in many places ...

[shmlco]

No, they've signed a 2 year contract with AT&T.

One should note that we're still about 9 months out from the expiration date of the first 2-year contracts for the original iPhone. As such, the assumption that a given user is locked into a 5-year exclusive agreement is premature. Which means the lawsuit is premature.

No one knows--including you--what end-of-contract options Apple and/or AT&T may or may not introduce when that time comes...

Re:It may be ilegal in many places ...

[Lars T.]

Forcing people to buy one product in order to be able to buy another is a classroom example of an anticompetitive practice, which is banned in most civilized places,

So all Linux distributions are illegal.

Not true.

[jotaeleemeese]

You can't be forced by a supermarket to buy bread in order to sell you eggs, no matter how big or small the milk producer is.

Re:Not true.

[xero314]

This is not true. If the Eggs and the bread were packaged in a single bundle you could very well be forced to purchase them together. You can't go to the prepackaged salad section and chose a salad but purchase only the dressing inside. There are so many things in this world that are bundled in this fashion that it's common place.

I'm not saying that Apple is correct in this particular case, but bundling of products is perfectly reasonable.

Nice Im glad you heard about this thing, economics

[Anonymous Coward]

All this kind of lawsuit crap is going to do is drive up the prices of phones, leading to less innovation (who's going to buy a $600 phone?).

Now maybe you should learn something about it.

I was referring to antitrust law

[unassimilatible]

Not warranty law. No way Apple loses this case, at least not on tying grounds, no matter what a smartass jailhouse lawyer you like to pretend to be on Slashdot.

Re:I was referring to antitrust law

[Khyber]

Umm, warranty law specifically makes reference to it being illegal for a vendor to sell a product and require a service tie-in. Just what part of the law would you really know, sir? Magnusson-Moss had lots more in it than just warranty.

Only illegal if its Apple?

[TRRosen]

Do other carriers have EXCLUSIVE phones? Yes. although its hard to notice when they release 3 new phones a week.

Can I buy a Nextel phone to use on Verizon's network? No.

When a Windows update crashes because a third party diver was installed does Microsoft get sued? No.

Re:Wait... what?

[mauldus]

They have a monopoly...on excellence. :P

These phones CAN work on all those networks...

[shmlco]

"These phones CAN work on all those networks."

Okay... I'll make you a bet. If you can software unlock an iPhone to run on Verizon's CDMA network in, say, a week, I'll pay you a thousand dollars.

If you can't, you pay me a thousand. Deal?

I'll even go double-or-nothing for Sprint...

Re:These phones CAN work on all those networks...

[dwater]

I'm curious...what was the point in your post?

Re:These phones CAN work on all those networks...

[shmlco]

Just that the parent doesn't seem to realize that the statement "These phones CAN work on all [sic] those networks" is false-to-fact. They can't. And the iPhone, and the iPhone 3G in particular, won't work correctly (or at all) on any network other than AT&T's.

Darn. Now he's not going to take the bet...

GSM phones are inherently multi-provider

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Apple stockholder, I wish people would either buy iphones or not.

That's what people would like to do.

Unfortunately, Apple only allows them to buy iPhones tied to a service, which is in contravention of the MM Warranty Act.

To have their cake and eat it too, Apple should have offered the iPhone only as a tied lease, not sold it as personal property. GSM phones are generic devices by design, so just as in Europe, to release a GSM phone is to naturally release a multi-provider device. Apple seems to want people to forget that.

Re:Wait... what?

[madcow_bg]

Well, judging by the name alone, not supporting the PATRIOT act is also very unpatriotic! My point is, there are many articles in a law, and some of them may cover such cases, and that's up to the judge to decide. Judging by the name of the law is simply not enough.

Someone from the US, explain this to me:

[JonJ]

We just started selling the phones here in Norway, I work for an Apple Premium Reseller, and all the phones _has_ to be sold with plan from Netcom. HOWEVER: After you have bought the phone, you may pay a fee and then terminate your subscription with said company, and your phone is then free from all simlocks, you can use any sim you want, and software updates does not brick your phone, since you're not using a hacked firmware. AFAIK atleast. Is this not possible in the US? Or does it only apply to the 3G version? I'd greatly appreciate it if someone would explain this to me.

Verizon lost my business

[Vandil X]

I like Verizon's network (i.e. I seem to get a great signal everywhere I travel), but I hate their locked down phones.

I love the iPhone, but AT&T's network is less plentiful in my area, in fact, I work/travel in mostly an Edge-capable area it seems and rarely see 3G coverage.

In the end, I really wanted the iPhone for the batman belt of things it was replacing and ditched Verizon for the iPhone3G.

The bundling of iPhone & AT&T made me an AT&T customer. The moment I can use my iPhone (i.e. the same functions and everything) on Verizon's network, I'll leave AT&T in a heartbeat.

Re:Verizon lost my business

[DarthJohn]

You won't be able to use your iPhone* on Verizon's network unless they switch from CDMA to GSM.

* the one you're using on AT&T's network. You may be able to buy one soon (no idea really) that will work on CDMA networks.

Tying versus dominant marketshare

[sjbe]

No, there's only a law against tying if the party doing it has a dominant market share.

What you are talking about is tying. The requirements for tying to be illegal per se necessitates the entity tying the products have "economic power" sufficient for other antitrust violations to hold. Recently the supreme court has held that holding patent or copyright does not by itself grant such economic power.

Whether Apple/AT&T are violating any laws is an exercise I leave to you gentle reader.

You are reading too much into Magnusson-Moss

[Stu Charlton]

Product & Service tie-ins are not illegal.

Magnusson-Moss just involves restrictions on WARRANTIES , i.e. opting-out of a service tie-in, or using an alternative source, cannot void a warranty.

Just take a look at enterprise software products (e.g. Oracle's database, Microsoft's SQL Server, IBM's anything) which have been sold this way since the 1970's:

- Usually they are sold by a license fee and then a 21%-of-license fee support/maintenance contract annually, with the first year being mandatory.

- If you cancel your support contract after the first year, then the vendor has the right to terminate your support for *all* products you own by that vendor, and if you renew it, you have to renew it for *all* products, and pay retroactive fees with a penalty for the time you weren't in support.

Both of these entitle you to product upgrades & support resources (ie. email, phone, bug fixes and maybe a support-representative on site if you're big enough). But they don't void your warranty if you cancel it (a lot of enterprise software is under customized warranty -- long-term or even perpetual, depending on negotiations).

Re:fp

[gcnaddict]

That sounds like a painful request.

progress!

[Eil]

Back in the late 19th century when the landline telephone network was relatively new, the telephone industry naturally looked quite a bit different than it does today.

1. You couldn't simply buy a new telephone in any store, you could only rent one from AT&T along with a monthly service plan.

2. You could only use AT&T phones on their network. No other third-party phones or devices were allowed. They would repossess your phone if they caught you doing anything "unauthorized."

3. There was no other phone company to choose from, so if you wanted a telephone, you were stuck with AT&T.

This is in stark contrast to today's high-tech wireless cell phone industry, where you are only subject to a few comparatively minor restrictions if you would like to use the most advanced phones currently on the market, the iPhone.

1. You can't simply buy a new iPhone in any store, you can only purchase one from AT&T along with a monthly service plan.

2. You can only use AT&T/Apple-approved software on the iPhone. No other third-party software or applications are allowed. They will brick your phone if they catch you doing anything "unauthorized."

3. There is no other cell carrier to choose from, so if you want an iPhone, you are stuck with AT&T.

What bleak times those must have been!

(P.S. Before I'm deluged with pedantic replies: yes, there are indeed other cell phones than the iPhone and cell phone providers than AT&T on the market. I'm just having a bit of irony here, let me be.)

Maybe you should learn about subsidies

[Anonymous Coward]

Iphones are subsidized by the ATT contract. If those contracts are deemed illegal, the iphone will jump to its actual price, which would include Apple's usual healthy profit margins. This will make iphones unaffordable for a lot of people.

So yes, the lawsuits, if successful, could make the phones more expensive. Smartass.

Are you unfamiliar with cell contracts in the US?

[unassimilatible]

Unfortunately, Apple only allows them to buy iPhones tied to a service, which is in contravention of the MM Warranty Act.

According to who, the plaintiffs in the case? You? All the major cell carriers in America have been doing this for years. It allows the celcos to subsidize the high price of phone hardware. Show me case law that interprets MMWA this way. This is a lawsuit that survived a 12b(6), which is a long, long way from winning on the merits.

Nonsense

[unassimilatible]

Umm, warranty law specifically makes reference to it being illegal for a vendor to sell a product and require a service tie-in. Just what part of the law would you really know, sir? Magnusson-Moss had lots more in it than just warranty.

Great, another jailhouse Slashdot lawyer. Well I am an actual lawyer, since you called out my knowledge. As Stu points out, MMWA, as the name suggests, is a restriction on warranty law, not tying products and services together, which celcos have been doing for years, Sparky.

As is typical here, Slashdot submitters and commentators, so critical of judges not knowing tech, know nothing about how the law works. A 12b(6) motion is Apple arguing "you cannot sue for that." The motion is challenging solely on legal grounds - for the purposes of the law, all the facts are considered true. In other words, the facts aren't even being considered in a 12b(6) hearing. The motion was denied, but that is a long, long way from the plaintiffs winning. And they will likely lose a summary judgment, which considers the facts, or lack of them, supporting the suit.

Disclaimer: IAALBNYL. (I am a lawyer but not your lawyer) This is not legal advice, so don't rely on it. Not that you can tell most of the know-it-all jerks on Slashdot anything anyway. If you told them the time of day they'd probably argue with you. But I digress. Do not rely on this as legal advice.

Perhaps you should go back to high school civics

[unassimilatible]

BTW, "pursuit of happiness?" Now we are citing the Declaration of Independence as law?

I'd sure as hell hope so. That whole intent thing is important, at least to me.

Of course it's important, but the Declaration of Independence has no legal weight. It is a political document. You can't cite it in court. Any high school American Government teacher would tell you that. Did you miss that day? Oh, and if you care about intent of the Framers, there is that "liberty" part as well. The Framers would be rolling over in their graves to learn the government actually has the power to set aside voluntary private contracts so easily. They felt so strongly about contracts being inviolable that they wrote it into the Constitution (which is actually citable in court as law). How's that for intent?

For the record, I teach business law and political science, so I'm not just talking out of my ass here.

Re:fp

[giantweevil]

Also life-altering.

Wouldn't he have to wear a colostomy bag for the rest of his life?

Re:Are you unfamiliar with cell contracts in the U

[giantweevil]

The prices of all products are artificially inflated to produce more profit. They don't actually cost anywhere near that much to make.

It costs around four dollars to actually make an iPhone or other Cell phone, but they sell them at high prices to make gallons of money.

Mass production works wonders on the price of items, however this isn't necessarily reflected in the consumer pricing.

The Schadenfreude is Strong with this one...

[His Shadow]

The decisions won't stand, and will amount to nothing. But the Apple bashers can pile on in defiance of logic and reason all they want. If you knowingly crack a device so that it no longer works as intended, and then apply an update from the manufacturer that will undo that crack, what in Odin's name did you expect to happen? This is what you get for having the most technologically sophisticated nation on Earth coupled with a backwards and technologically ignorant populace. Add lawyers and stir.

Re:Perhaps you should go back to high school civic

[KGIII]

I think I should have been more clear. No, it can't be cited (or course) but the intent should always be maintained in our laws in my humble opinion. Then again, I only teach kids to swear and play with matches so don't take my opinion into account. I really *do* hope that the Declaration of Independence is taken into account when they vote on new legislation or consider repealing existing laws. I want it referenced, often.

In this case I hope that they uphold the law, then figure out that the law is broken, fix the law, and then declare the case null and void. That's what the appellate courts are for I understand.

Microsoft vs Apple

[flipperdoo]

My wife works for Microsoft and the tricks they get up to make this seem very tame, she works in 'Strategic Planning' and all they do all day is work out how to trip up Google et al rather than create or innovate. It's funny to be a bystander and here the stories.

Honestly slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am so tired of hearing all of this news about issues withe the Iphone, I want to hear some real news that has to do with Apple and something that is made by them that isn't the iphone.

Re:Are you unfamiliar with cell contracts in the U

[Descalzo]

But they have to pay the guy who thought it up, the guy who drew up the plans, the secretary for the guy who drew up the plans, the guy who sweeps up Apple Inc. after hours, the guy who drives the ship full of stuff to China, the guy who drives the ship full of finished iPhones back from China, the guy who makes the stupid "Hey, I'm a Mac" commercials, the guy who runs the lights for the stupid "Hey, I'm a Mac" commercials, they guy from the Apple store who flirts with your girlfriend while you're trying to see which of those sexy cases will look best on your new iPhone, and we could go on and on.

Look at all other carriers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Every other carrier had exclusivity contracts, even AT&T has exclusive contracts with other phone manufacturers. If the exclusive contracts are disallowed by law then two things happen. one there is no economic benefit to the carrier to upgrade or innovate their networks to draw customers because everyone has the same hardware/technology, I.E. visual voice mail,etc. Second, if you are unable to draw in new customers with innovative, exclusive, new hardware such as the iphone, why would a carriers subsidize the cost of any phone? there would be no real economic benefit to the company. Although many people may hate it, apple and AT&T just beat all other carriers/phone manufacturers at their own game, exclusive contracts. This decision is bad for the industry and for the consumer because without exclusive contracts between manufactures and carriers the subsidies and upgrades die out. Imagine all phone increasing by at least $200 or so, not just smart phones or iPhones, and new things like visual voice mail and app stores never being implemented. besides verizon was originally asked to have the iphone if i remember reading correctly and they turned it down, so its not AT&t's fault and its not Apples fault its all the other manufactures and carriers fault for not thinking of it first.

Reward companies for innovation, not by suing other companies to keep control of outdated methods, especially if they were just plain beat at their own game.

/usr/stfu -plskthxbye

[Anonymous Coward]

There are other phones out there with equal if not greater capability at equal and lower prices. I don't see the complication. Why is everyone picking on Apple? Because they WANT the product, without agreeing to their terms? Isn't that a tad childish? Is it some kind of crime all of a sudden to provide complete solutions... Oh we want the iPhone, but we want it on whatever network we want. We want OS-X but we want them to make it work on NON-APPLE hardware. It's APPLE's responsibility to give it to us. They do have a monopoly, you know. I suppose we ought to bring suit against Nintendo for not releasing Mario Kart on the Playstation while we're at it. And I guess we better start suing Microsoft since we can't get Sync in anything that's not a Ford product. What's that? This car parks itself, but I have to buy a Lexus to get that technology? Oh no, they have a monopoly! [rolleyes] You whiners need to grow up. Nobody's forcing you to buy any of this. You have a choice. You don't like the caveats, buy another vendor and live without the perks.

Re:Are you unfamiliar with cell contracts in the U

[giantweevil]

That's correct, but the pricing is inflated far beyond that.