Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.