AT&T/Apple Class Action Lawsuit Official

[sourceninja]

I think the point here is that it should be a law that all phone companies must unlock your phone for you once your contract is up or you pay your termination fee.

 

[gsaldivar]

I think the point here is that it should be a law that all phone companies must unlock your phone for you once your contract is up or you pay your termination fee.

Correct.

Additionally, once the phone is unlocked the purchaser should be free to activate service on a compatible carrier of their choice. Even if that carrier is not "partnered" with the phone's manufacturer.

While it may not have been spelled out in law, that has been the standard practice for the mobile phone industry for many years now - long before the iPhone even existed.

If Apple wanted to sell phones that were locked to AT&T indefinitely, then that should have been made clear to purchasers at the beginning.

 

[Patranus]

---

 

[Zebo]

I actually think the case has some merit, after the original contract period, one would expect to be able to use the device on another carrier, this case is really about the first iPhone buyers who signed a 2 year contract and have a reasonable expectation to be able to use the device on another carrier without having to unlock it.

As a result, we may find out when ATT's carrier exclusivity expires.

Then every phone you buy with any carrier has merit. Actually I see good things coming of this if successful. Finally carriers as they should be, dumb band width providers like EU.

 

[Patranus]

I actually think the case has some merit, after the original contract period, one would expect to be able to use the device on another carrier, this case is really about the first iPhone buyers who signed a 2 year contract and have a reasonable expectation to be able to use the device on another carrier without having to unlock it.

As a result, we may find out when ATT's carrier exclusivity expires.

So I should also be able to use my iPhone on Verizon when my contract is over...correct?

 

[KingGheedora]

This suit seems shaky but I do agree with it in spirit. Carriers make it harder to switch because the only support phones that work exclusively on their network. I'd rather an open market where phones can move freely between carriers. The phone situation in the US is screwing the consumer over.

For example, Samsung Captivate only works on AT&T. It's $X dollars off contract. I don't get a discount on the monthly contract for paying full price for the phone -- i have to pay the same monthly fees as people who get a subsidized phone. So they are making extra profit off me. I might actually be better off signing up for another 2 year contract and paying the ETF if i decide to switch carriers. My total cost would be the same. So what's the point of buying a phone off contract. What kind of strange world is this.

Anyways, i hate practices like this. I totally support this lawsuit even though it's technically wrong, because overall AT&T shafts their customers.

 

[Bateluer]

So I should also be able to use my iPhone on Verizon when my contract is over...correct?

In a few years, you'll be able to because everyone, minus Sprint, will be operating an LTE network.

 

[Synomenon]

There was news a week or two back about Sprint merging with T-Mobile once they begin rolling out LTE.

 

[sourceninja]

So I should also be able to use my iPhone on Verizon when my contract is over...correct?

There are physical and artificial constraints here. I have a GSM radio in my iphone. There is no reason I can't sign up for any GSM service I want to, except for artificial limitations imposed by at&t and apple. If I truly own the phone at the end of my two year contract, then those limitations should be removed. I think this should be true for all phones.

Another option would be for them to call it a lease.

 

[Patranus]

There are physical and artificial constraints here. I have a GSM radio in my iphone. There is no reason I can't sign up for any GSM service I want to, except for artificial limitations imposed by at&t and apple. If I truly own the phone at the end of my two year contract, then those limitations should be removed. I think this should be true for all phones.

Another option would be for them to call it a lease.

But you are so wrong.

Lets say I jailbreak and then carrier unlock my iPhone. Even if I do this and move to T-Mobile my phone will still not work. T-Mobile doesn't have the infrastructure allow the phone to work correctly.

AT&T is the only carrier in the United State that the iPhone will work on and that is a FACT.

 

[EarthwormJim]

But you are so wrong.

Lets say I jailbreak and then carrier unlock my iPhone. Even if I do this and move to T-Mobile my phone will still not work. T-Mobile doesn't have the infrastructure allow the phone to work correctly.

AT&T is the only carrier in the United State that the iPhone will work on and that is a FACT.

What if you wish to go on vacation with your iPhone and use a prepaid sim card, or hell move out of the country?

What do you mean T-mobile doesn't have the infrastructure to allow the phone to work. They have good coverage in all major cities. I've seen quite a few students at my University carrying iPhones running on T-mobile.

Do you mean video voice mail? Maybe if the phones could be carrier unlocked something could change. Regardless, the phone still works. You can make calls on it, go on the internet. Just a feature of it does not.

I don't really understand why there's always someone like you in every thread. Are you against consumer rights? A person signed a 2 year contract for an iPhone. They should be able to use it on any carrier that physically can utilize the phone that they want to after 2 years, just like you can with any other GSM phone.

If you're against a lawsuit, fine, but are you really against a policy change like I said above?

 

[Patranus]

What if you wish to go on vacation with your iPhone and use a prepaid sim card, or hell move out of the country?

What do you mean T-mobile doesn't have the infrastructure to allow the phone to work. They have good coverage in all major cities. I've seen quite a few students at my University carrying iPhones running on T-mobile.

Do you mean video voice mail? Maybe if the phones could be carrier unlocked something could change. Regardless, the phone still works. You can make calls on it, go on the internet. Just a feature of it does not.

I don't really understand why there's always someone like you in every thread. Are you against consumer rights? A person signed a 2 year contract for an iPhone. They should be able to use it on any carrier that physically can utilize the phone that they want to after 2 years, just like you can with any other GSM phone.

If you're against a lawsuit, fine, but are you really against a policy change like I said above?

How does your smart phone work if not all the features of smart phone works?
Either the phone works or it doesn't (and it doesn't).

Again, I can't physically use my smart phone on T-Mobile because T-Mobile doesn't have the infrastructure to allow me to use my smart phone on their network.

 

[Pliablemoose]

All iPhones will work on TMobile, but only on the Edge network, it's slower, but it works.

 

[EarthwormJim]

How does your smart phone work if not all the features of smart phone works?
Either the phone works or it doesn't (and it doesn't).

Again, I can't physically use my smart phone on T-Mobile because T-Mobile doesn't have the infrastructure to allow me to use my smart phone on their network.

Can you make a phone call on it? Can you surf the internet on it?

Remember it's a phone...

Are phones without video voicemail all of a sudden no longer considered smart phones or not working?

It should be up to the consumer after the 2 year contract to decide if their phone works. They own it. Not you, not Apple and not ATT.

Hell if they just want to unlock it so it'll sell for more on ebay, why can't they do that ("First Sale").

 

[Patranus]

Remember it's a phone...

No, its a smart phone.

It should be up to the consumer after the 2 year contract to decide if their phone works. They own it. Not you, not Apple and not ATT.

So I should be able to install OS X on any computer I want....Oh wait, the courts said that you can't. You are licensing the OS from Apple and they say that you have to run it on their hardware which runs on AT&T.

 

[EarthwormJim]

No, its a smart phone.




So I should be able to install OS X on any computer I want....Oh wait, the courts said that you can't. You are licensing the OS from Apple and they say that you have to run it on their hardware which runs on AT&T.

This is hardware, not software. This is something that you physically can hold and own and directly interact with. Jesus you really would accept that you're licensing a smart phone?

A better example would be being locked to only using ATT dsl for internet on your Mac, and never being allowed to use another internet provider. You would accept that?

Or what about buying a subsidized netbook with a cell network provider card. After the contract expires, you would be ok with never being able to use the netbook on another wireless carrier?

I thought the court ruling btw, was that you cannot sell non Macs with an Apple OS on them.


If you're against a monetary lawsuit against apple, that's perfectly fine with me. I cannot fathom though that you would be for a phone never being able to be unlocked due to completely artificial rules.

 

[Patranus]

This is hardware, not software. This is something that you physically can hold and own and directly interact with. Jesus you really would accept that you're licensing a smart phone?

Pretty sure it is software that locks the user into AT&T........

If you want to write your own OS for iPhone hardware be my guest.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Pretty sure it is software that locks the user into AT&T........

If you want to write your own OS for iPhone hardware be my guest.

Frightening, well I'm done arguing with you since you are pretty happy to have zero rights as a consumer.

 

[Patranus]

Frightening, well I'm done arguing with you since you are pretty happy to have zero rights as a consumer.

A right is something that requires no action by another and doesn't infringe on another right.

Making a software change to your phone certainly requires an action by another.

Then again, I guess these days we can just make stuff up and call it a right...
(who cares about the rights of others)

 

[EarthwormJim]

A right is something that requires no action by another and doesn't infringe on another right.

Making a software change to your phone certainly requires an action by another.

Then again, I guess these days we can just make stuff up and call it a right...
(who cares about the rights of others)

You're implying that the phone because it has software, it is licensed to the user and not owned. That is what you said before.

It takes action to lock a phone initially. Other carriers sell unlocked iPhones outside of the US.

Unlocking a phone should not require any action on the part of the carrier or Apple other than allowing it within the terms of agreement after the contract has expired.

Unlocking a phone is protected by the DMCA btw, so it is a right. A carrier is not forced to provide the unlocking service, but they can't forbid it. There is no sanctioned way to unlock an ATT iPhone, so it is being forbidden right now.

 

[Patranus]

You're implying that the phone because it has software, it is licensed to the user and not owned. That is what you said before.

It takes action to lock a phone initially. Other carriers sell unlocked iPhones outside of the US.

Unlocking a phone should not require any action on the part of the carrier or Apple other than allowing it within the terms of agreement after the contract has expired.

Unlocking a phone is protected by the DMCA btw, so it is a right. A carrier is not forced to provide the unlocking service, but they can't forbid it. There is no sanctioned way to unlock an ATT iPhone, so it is being forbidden right now.

What you fail to understand is that Apple is well within their right to say the someone cannot modify THEIR software in a way that would be against their TOS.

The same can be said of OS X. You cannot legally modify OS X to run on non Apple hardware.

I manufacturer might choose to release a device that is unlocked initially or choose to release a locked in device. It would require an action by another party (the manufacturer) to unlock the phone.

What Apple is doing is controlling THEIR platforum.