vB Easy Archive - New iPhone lawsuit seeks billions in damages

Pages: 1

New iPhone lawsuit seeks billions in damages
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: wnrussell

Apple's claim that unlocking could damage the iPhone was a lie, suit charges

Quote:

October 11, 2007 (Computerworld) -- A class-action lawsuit targeting Apple Inc. and AT&T Inc., filed last week in federal court, accuses the companies of illegally conspiring to tie iPhone customers to the telecommunications company's wireless network.

The lawsuit (download PDF), which was filed in court in San Francisco the same day another was filed in a Sacramento state court, slaps the two companies with six charges and claims that they broke numerous state and federal laws and regulations. The suit seeks compensation for $1.6 billion in damages, plus punitive and other damages that could push the total to well over $2 billion.

According to lawyers for Paul Holman in Washington state and Lucy Rivello in California, Apple and AT&T conspired to block all modifications of Apple's iPhone to stymie any attempt by a user or competitors to diminish or tap into the Apple-AT&T revenue stream. Specifically, the suit charges that Apple blocked third-party applications, barred any ring tones but those it sold via iTunes, and disabled unlocked phones with last month's Version 1.1.1 update.

http://www.computerworld.com/action...8&taxonomyId=15

Posted by: Phreakish

Hey WN, what are you doing on this side of the forum

You and kbman didn't get bored messing with CDMA yet, did you?

As for the law suit, it's been reported and frowned upon already.

Posted by: DragonFlyGirl

Yep. But IMHO, Apple and AT&T are screwed.

Posted by: Hallandaleboy

Good.

Hopefully they take this as a sign that they need to stop trying to bully us into being on AT&T's network as well as blocking our 3rd party apps.

Posted by: wnrussell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phreakish

Hey WN, what are you doing on this side of the forum

You and kbman didn't get bored messing with CDMA yet, did you?

As for the law suit, it's been reported and frowned upon already.

Ha, ha. You should know that I am easily bored and easily amused! I am very impressed with the iPhone and had a chance to mess with it last week for a while. It was disappointing that it was not released for 'all carriers' as originally announced by Apple, and painful to watch the screen refresh speeds on the slower network.

As for the lawsuits, I am sick of them; like the person who is suing Apple for $1M because she did not get the $200 discount. If the phone was a flop, you wouldn't be seeing these frivolous lawsuits, but they seem to be popping up every day.

Everybody was complaining about Verizon locking down Bluetooth 3 years ago. Now, Verizon handsets have a full BT stack, and the most innovative phone like this one is all locked up.

Posted by: free_gas

Quote:

Originally Posted by DragonFlyGirl

Yep. But IMHO, Apple and AT&T are screwed.

Yes but the Caveat venditor is that Apple likes to bully people into "agreements" as they did with AT&T sharing a portion of the monthly rates.

Ol S.J. thought that he had everything figured out... But AT&T is not the one getting the bad PR, APPLE is. all the articles point to "Apple's doing" even though it might have been AT&T forcing apple to uphold the "exclusive agreement".
__________________________________________________ ___________
I might be going out on a limb here to suggest that if the unlocking continues Apple could be found in breach of contract, giving way for AT&T to "amend" the contract in lieu of such breach. AT&T could play hard ball and say that iPhones sold must be signed for activation in store before leaving, thus rendering Apple out of the loop. Now AT&T locations will be the only places to get the iPhone and APPLE stores are left dry of its own product... I just find that funny in a vindictive way, watching 2 large money greedy organizations fighting it out. (Dance puppets dance!)

as I said, Caveat venditor, If American customers ( a small minority of iPhone buyers) are acting this way, just wait until our friends over the pond get a whiff of this locked phone...

Posted by: peestandingup

Im not sure if they will succeed, BUT its a good thing to do as its bad press for Apple.

I like Apple, but they need their a$$es handed to them on this one. Business decisions like this only inhibit progress & give users less freedom. So, the more you support them by buying their product, the more they will do it & the more us as the end users will get screwed.

Posted by: wnrussell

Quote:

Originally Posted by peestandingup

I like Apple, but they need their a$$es handed to them on this one. Business decisions like this only inhibit progress & give users less freedom. So, the more you support them by buying their product, the more they will do it & the more us as the end users will get screwed.

Well, Steve Jobs went on record MANY times like this -

Quote:

Apple CEO Steve Jobs said he was wary of producing an Apple cellphone because, instead of selling it directly to the public, he would have to offer it through what he called the "four orifices" - the four big U.S. cellphone carriers.

Associated Press
By WALTER S. MOSSBERG (The Wall Street Journal)
Thursday, June 02, 2005

http://ptech.allthingsd.com/2005060...ers-innovation/

Posted by: peestandingup

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnrussell

Well, Steve Jobs went on record MANY times like this -
Associated Press
By WALTER S. MOSSBERG (The Wall Street Journal)
Thursday, June 02, 2005

http://ptech.allthingsd.com/2005060...ers-innovation/

Oh, Im sure when they started talking about all the profit sharing margins, his eyes lit up like a fat man's at Thanksgiving dinner.

Besides, its clear that he pimped his big plans to a few companies before he found one that would meet his demands. So, he had no intention of ever offering the phone unlocked. Even though they would be selling a ton more if he had & could have been available worldwide.

Apple usually doesn't do well with partners of this magnitude because they are too much of a control freak. Things usually end up getting screwy, which is obviously whats happening now. But contracts & huge exclusive deals are involved with this, so its make or break.

About that Mossberg article. One thing I've learned about Jobs over the years is you have to take everything he says with a grain of salt & go by his actions. He'll say one thing one week & do a complete 180 the next week.

Posted by: wnrussell

Quote:

Originally Posted by peestandingup

Besides, its clear that he pimped his big plans to a few companies before he found one that would meet his demands. So, he had no intention of ever offering the phone unlocked. Even though they would be selling a ton more if he had & could have been available worldwide.

I like your thinking, but it (locking and unlocking) doesn't really work in today's carrier business model. The quest for "Unbranded, unlocked, phones" isn't really feasible anymore, with all of the specialty software and authentication settings that are required to make a generic handset work on these networks today.

You can't just "Unlock" a full featured phone and move it to another carrier with all functionality. What Motorola is doing today is where all OEM vendors should head; make the carrier monster files freely available. Pick a handset with the correct network mode, and change it to the network compatibility you need.

The T-Mobile version of Motorola V3i is sold as the Motorola V3t (without iTunes Mobile). The Cingular V3r is also a re-branded V3i, lacking iTunes Mobile. Flash the phone to either one. Use a Verizon flash on a V9m ... and the phone reverts to a "Fresh out of the Verizon box" state. Use an Alltel flash ... and the phone reverts to a "Fresh out of the Alltel box" state. Use a Sprint flash ... and the phone reverts to a "Fresh out of the Sprint box" state. All settings, configurations, etc.. all revert to "factory" config like the day you took the phone out of the box.

That's really the way cell phones should be configured by now. Buy the phone, then pick the carrier. It it was a subsidized phone, then you would pay the ETF and then have full rights to the ESN.

Apple's dilemma goes beyond this simple fix though. The locking of their iPhone goes beyond the technical aspects, and the business deals they have with AT&T probably need a Class Action to fix, now that you mention it.

Posted by: peestandingup

I agree with that. I guess I was using the term "unlocked" as sorta broad & generic. Just meant that it shouldnt be tied to only one carrier of Apple's choice.

Posted by: wnrussell

Quote:

Originally Posted by peestandingup

Apple usually doesn't do well with partners of this magnitude because they are too much of a control freak. Things usually end up getting screwy, which is obviously whats happening now. But contracts & huge exclusive deals are involved with this, so its make or break.

Who knows, maybe this is how Apple is going to get out of its contract with AT&T.