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."
They seriously need to be taken down a notch legally so they don't lawyer up at every opportunity.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
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.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
So that's what gave Jobs the heart attack...
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
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.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
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.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
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.
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.
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.
--Rachel
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.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.