2nd iPhone ‘bricking’ class action
p2pnet news | Mobiles:- “I am not normally one to name names and point fingers, but come on, how much warning did the world need,” posts C. S. Magor in UberReview, going on:
“Apple hinted that the updates were going to brick the iPhone, they warned again and then they warned some more. When the updates were released and the phones were bricked, everyone was understandably upset, but Timothy P. Smith got litigious.”
He did indeed, launching a class action against Apple saying it violates California anti-trust laws by compelling buyers to use AT&T, like it or not.
Smith also says unlocking iPhones is legal under copyright laws and the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act).
However, anyone who’d unlocked his or her iPhone so they could use it with a carrier other than AT&T risked having it turned into something about useful as brick.
And now a new class-action says Apple and AT&T intentionally broke the iPhones of customers who’d unlocked or installed third-party applications on the handsets, also claiming both firms conspired from the start of their partnership to illegally monopolize portions of the mobile cell phone market, says AppleInsider.
It goes on:
The 24-page formal complaint, filed Oct. 5 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, reads like a short story that begins by tracing the history of the U.S. mobile phone market, providing colorful background on its underlying architectures and technologies, and eventually Apple’s emergence on the scene with its iPhone handset in late June.
In the suit, Washington resident Paul Holman and California resident Lucy Rivello allege that Apple and AT&T unlawfully agreed prior to the iPhone’s release that the handset would not be unlocked under any circumstances as a means of preventing consumers from using programs or services other than those which directly generate revenues for the two companies.
Rivello and Holman cite Apple’s September 24 warning to customers who’d unlocked their iPhones, “and asserts that the company had not actually ‘discovered’ that ‘many’ unlocking programs would ’cause irreparable damage’ to the iPhone’ but instead ‘had been busy engineering its software update so that it would disable any Third Party Apps and the SIM card unlocks’,” says the story, adding:
“[T]he update was also designed to cause damage to the iPhone in the event that any use of non-Apple/AT&T products was detected,” the complaint says.
“None of these changes in the iPhone software update version 1.1.1 were technically required for the purpose of the upgrade, the suit claims, but were ‘designed solely to advance Apple’s unlawful purposes and conduct’.”
Back to Smith’s lawsuit, it wants an injunction to stop Apple from selling any iPhones with a software lock, says Mac.Blorge, adding the lawsuit is demanding that Apple, “continue to offer warranty service to owners of unlocked units”.
“At this time the exact size of the class is unknown, but is estimated that there are several hundred thousand owners of unlocked phones, all of which could become potential plaintiffs in the case,” adds the story.
Also See:
UberReview – First Jammie Thomas juror speaks out, October 9, 2007
useful as brick – The ‘grizzly’ side of iPhone, October 1, 2007
AppleInsider – Class-action charges Apple, AT&T with unlawful business practices, October 10, 2007
Mac.Blorge – Class-Action Lawsuit Filed Against Apple Over iPhone Bricking, October 8, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
October 11th, 2007 at 7:36 am
An unscientific poll tried to gauge just how many people have unlocked their iphones. Current results suggest that over 40% of owners have already unlocked it.
October 11th, 2007 at 10:49 am
It is not acceptable for Apple and AT&T to lock the iPhone nor it is acceptable for any cell phone company to lock any phone.
Both Apple and AT&T actually Cingular an Evile company that messed up their brand name so bad that they have to dish it.
It seem that they learn nothing from the 4 class action law suit lodged against them.
The fact that they warned people does not change anything. Did they made obvious to people that they were locking the stuff and did they explain the ramifications to their customers? Nooooo! Why not? Because it would have killed their market. That’s why!
October 11th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
If you don’t want a lock Iphone, just don’t buy an Iphone.
I don’t think I will ever buy a crap like that.
Happily, in France, we may not get the Iphone, because Apple got some problem with French laws that oblige it to sell phone without a provider, so for the same price (I think 399€=560$ as in England) you would have a phone lock and a 24 months subscription, or an unlock phone.
So Apple ask more money from Orange, our big provider, and it doesn’t want to pay.
Maybe we will have this crap for Christmas, maybe (I hope) not.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:14 am
I have no plans to buy anything at all from Apple. You’re paying for the brand here, nothing else.
I do however see both sides of the debate – I don’t know whether it is legal or not to prevent unlocking, but from a purely ethical point of view, what Apple has done here just seems very wrong. Everything I’ve heard about Itunes activation etc, screams of extracting more revenue from customers, and now they intentionally stop the phone working if it won’t get them their cut from AT&T. Jobs is a greedy asshole.
In the end – whether it breaks contract or not, it’s just a bloody nasty thing for Apple to do.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
take away their iPhones, and never let them buy another Apple product. Make them pay Apples legal fees for a frivolous lawsuit and them make all you other whiners work on something more important in life.
November 25th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
If I tell you not to do something, and that you won’t like what I’m gonna do back, you gonna do it? Maybe. If you do and I do something back and then would you sue me? I’d hope not! I warned you! If someone says that you can’t do something, then maybe there’s a chance that you SHOULDN’T do it, not because you CAN’T, but because you won’t like the outcome. If you are gonna say “I want an iPhone with Verizon” then, suck it up and get a phone from verizon, or suck it up and get the iPhone from AT&T. But if you REALLY want to try to use the iPhone with Verizon, it’s your fault if you screw it up.