Read more.Quote:
Two lawsuits have been filed against Apple and AT&T. The charge? anti-competitive behaviour, at the very least.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Two lawsuits have been filed against Apple and AT&T. The charge? anti-competitive behaviour, at the very least.
Quite frankly Apple had this coming, companies simply shouldn't have the right to decide what you do with a product after you purchase it. I'll tolerate software use being restricted to using say, one copy because that's fair, but saying that the physical object you've spent your hard earned cash on can't be used the way you want to is stupid.
What next, Apple sell you an iPod that can only be used to play songs produced by Sony??
US law on cellphones is very sketchy. I don't see the unlocking aspect getting very far, but there might be a restraint-of-trade case regarding the use of 3rd-party apps.
Agreed, it's like selling a computer that can only run a Microsoft OS, and is 'killed' if you install linux or any other OS. Hopefully the laws governing fair competition will cover this to open the market and so lower prices of the contracts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucio
Sure, Apple had this coming, but it's their choice to do the upgrade, and I suspect the plantiffs have to prove that the update was on purpose as opposed to essential?
Giving the contract to a single carrier was plain wrong and definitely bad for the customer. Hope they'll take note and alter their UK arrangement with O2 to include other suppliers.
Where I live O2 isn't even an option, the only carriers with a strong enough signal for me to get reception at home is Orange and Three :angst:.
This one's actually on sketchier ground, legally speaking, there's a lot of phones already sold in the UK that are locked to a specific network and require hacks to be able to use them freely. What makes a difference is that they don't have updating mechanisms for their designers to kill off unlocked phones.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenalien
Ultimately I think that'll be the arguement used, that the bug fixing packages are not available to people who have modified their phone and thus are restricted from using their product freely.
Since the iPhone still has a significant security flaw relating to TIFF images it might be possible to argue that users have a right to install any update Apple issues to fix this even if they've unlocked their phone, on the basis of implicit fitness-for-purpose. I have my doubts about other minor bug fixes though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucio
While it being bad for the consumer is very true, Its Fantastic For Apple. Im sure there getting a ridiculous cut of the profits of AT&T. But whats bad for the consumer is ultimately bad for the company e.g unlocking phones/piracy. When will corporations learn that there Just trying to stamp down on a big Spring(consumer =D).Quote:
Originally Posted by greenalien
Pfft this will get thrown out soon enough - or it should anyway..
IMO Apple have done *nothing* wrong here, its clearly stated in the terms and conditions that you are not allowed to mess with the firmware of the device, and that while you might own the phone you don't actually own the firmware (and you never do with any phone - the closest you can get is open source firmware..).
Its ridiculous, you can quite happily unlock an iPhone and use it if you really want (even if it does break the terms) by simply not updating...its no different to Sony with their PSP really - you can 'unlock' that to work with homebrew applications but if you updated with certain Sony updates, your PSP became bricked. Or Nintendo with their wii - you could modify a wii to play homebrew but then it could be bricked by certain games or updates. I don't see any lawsuits against Nintendo regarding this.
I don't like the iPhone being locked onto one network any more than any one else - I would like one but I am not going to as its 02 only in the UK..but thats life, thats business..Apple have done nothing wrong.
At what point does the buyer get to see those terms and conditions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spud1
If the buyer is fully aware of that restriction before they buy, then fair enough. But if you buy, open the box and a bit of paper falls out telling you of that limitation, then it's very different. And if the condition is further buried in Section 28 Para 6 subsection 3(a)(iii), then it's worse yet.
There's an old principle in (UK) contract law that one party can't unilaterally impose conditions on a contract after the contract is made, and the "ticket" principle established that the conditions couldn't be hidden away on documentation (such as a ticket) that one party doesn't see until they've made the contract .... think of buying a cinema ticket (or in one landmark legal case, renting a seafront deckchair) and only finding out the conditions after you've paid and been given your ticket. I'drather imagine US law has a similar principle.
But it is is clear to the buyer before you buy, then I'd say it's fair enough. The buyer shouldn't buy unless they're prepared to accept the conditions.
But as I read it, those lawsuits aren't actually anything to do with Apple restricting consumers from applying updates, etc. It isn't about consumer protection, or at least, not directly. They're anti-competitive lawsuits, and the point is that Apple are attempting to prevent other airtime carriers providing service, not about users selecting the carrier they want. It's about protecting a competitive market, most assuredly including protecting other corporates rights to compete on a level playing field, not about protecting consumer's rights to hack firmware .... which under copyright law, is very likely to be illegal anyway. By which I mean, replacing Apple firmware entirely should be legal, but hacking existing Apple firmware and using that would not.
Fair points - but having the terms + condition 'inside the box' is normal for almost every product you buy which includes software. When you buy Windows for example there is a EULA which you have to agree to before you use the product. Its not displayed outside of the box, you have to purchase the product to read it. The way they get round it (I guess) is that you can take the product back to the shop if it is un-used, after you have read said conditions.
The same is true of the iPhone - you can send/take it back if you don't agree and havnt used it yet.
Just because 99% of people NEVER read the terms and conditions after purchasing something isn't an excuse - they are provided there and if people don't read them then its their own fault. I personally don't always read the terms either - but equally I don't kick up a stink when something like this happens, as it would be my own fault for being lazy :)
I don't think that this lawsuit can succeed.
Exclusive Phone\Contracts have been going on for years now (at least in the UK) and was most recently seen when Samsung only made the U700 available through Vodafone. Tying a phone to certain contract means that you can get the phone for a lot less than it's actually worth in exchange for a guaranteed payment to a service provider over a certain period.
Where the case might succeed though is if it can be proved that the phone was being sold at a realistic retail price without any discount as a result of the contract. If that is the case then it certainly is anti-competitive for it to be tied only to one network (but only when that network is not their own network). Apple could just buy AT&T and get away with it then.
This is covered by a clause saying that if you don't agree you can return the product for a full refund (which, I agree, is not very satisfactory, but is enough to protect the contract legally). Using the iPhone requires activation through iTunes, which only happens after you specifically agree to a set of terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
I agree that restraint-of-trade is the most promising approach, though, as I said, I think this would have a better chance when applied to the issue of 3rd-party apps than alternative carriers. US law on cellphone carriers is complex and has been subject to a lot of special-interest elements.Quote:
They're anti-competitive lawsuits, and the point is that Apple are attempting to prevent other airtime carriers providing service, not about users selecting the carrier they want. It's about protecting a competitive market, most assuredly including protecting other corporates rights to compete on a level playing field
The US Copyright Office has ruled that is is not a circumvention of the DMCA to alter a cellphone personally in order to connect to another carrier. Since hacking the iPhone doesn't involve making a copy of it (you have one iPhone before the process and one after), attempts to build a case on the basis of making a derivative copy would be difficult.Quote:
not about protecting consumer's rights to hack firmware .... which under copyright law, is very likely to be illegal anyway. By which I mean, replacing Apple firmware entirely should be legal, but hacking existing Apple firmware and using that would not.