US Government May Not Be Able To Fix Cell Phone Unlocking Problem

An anonymous reader writes "We recently discussed what appeared to be a positive response from the Obama administration on the legality of cell phone unlocking. Unfortunately, the Obama administration may not be able to do anything about it. It has already signed away our rights under a trade agreement with South Korea. Lawyer Jonathan Band, who works for the Association of Research Libraries, wrote, 'The White House position, however, may be inconsistent with the U.S. proposal in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and existing obligations in the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) and other free trade agreements to which the United States is a party. This demonstrates the danger of including in international agreements rigid provisions that do not accommodate technological development.'You can read more about this issue in a short eight page legal primer by Jonathan Band (PDF). An interesting, related note that the U.S.-KOREA FTA is possibly inconsistent with our domestic patent/drug law in the Hatch-Waxman Act as well. The trade agreement requires us to grant injunctions until the patent is invalidated as opposed to thirty months under current domestic law."

Comments

Re:other countries have laws that phones must be u

[wbr1]

This is already done. All carriers keep a list of phones with bad ESN/MEID numbers. THey become bad through being reported lost or stolen, or having an outstanding balance. This even keeps sales of phones between customers of the same carrier down. You cant just buy a sprint phone from someone and expect it to work on sprint, if the ESN/MEID is blacklisted its a no go.
Carrier lock is simply a way for them to try to abduct more customers. I use abduct very purposefully here.

abduct [ab-duhkt] verb (used with object) 1. to carry off or lead away (a person) illegally and in secret or by force, especially to kidnap.

There is no technical or contractual reason to keep you locked. The OP is correct in that you sign a binding legal contract when entering a contract with a mobile carrier, but when that contract is up, they want you to stay, not run off to some n-contract or other carrier with the phone you purchased (albiet at a subsidy) from them. If their contract did not cover the subsidy discount on the phone, then they need to redo their math and stop devices that are now legally owned by others hostage.
In addition to this however, there is no incentive for handset makers to push to change it. If you cannot continue to use your phone on a carrier you like, what do you do? You purchase a new phone and the handset maker profits as well.
None of this fosters competition or aids the consumer. It is solely a self serving policy by those in (capitalistic) power.