Judge OKs iPhone class action against Apple, AT&T

[HappinessNow]

Judge OKs iPhone class action against Apple, AT&T (AP) –3 hours ago SAN JOSE, Calif. —A federal judge says a monopoly abuse lawsuit against Apple Inc. and AT&T Inc.'s mobile phone unit can move forward as a class action. The lawsuit consolidates several filed by iPhone buyers starting in late 2007, a few months after the first generation of Apple's smart phone went on sale. An amended complaint filed in June 2008 takes issue with Apple's practice of "locking" iPhones so they can only be used on AT&T's network, and its absolute control over what applications iPhone owners can and cannot install on the gadgets. The lawsuit also says Apple secretly made AT&T its exclusive iPhone partner in the U.S. for five years. Consumers agreed to two-year contracts with the Dallas-based wireless carrier when they purchased their phones, but were in effect locked into a five-year relationship with AT&T, the lawsuit argued. The actions hurt competition and drove up prices for consumers, the lawsuit claims. Apple and AT&T have not commented on the terms of their deal. In its response to the complaint, Cupertino, California-based Apple said it did not hurt competition. In court documents filed July 8, Judge James
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gfyDQCdkZXsZNTgnX2TERmFrZx7AD9GT46I00

I accidentally left off the rest of the article; here's the rest republished from another familiar source:


In court documents filed July 8, Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said parts of the lawsuit that deal with violations to antitrust law can continue as a class action. The class includes anyone who bought an iPhone with a two-year AT&T agreement since the device first went on sale in June 2007.

Apple has sold more than 50 million iPhones in the last three years. The company does not specify how many have gone to U.S. customers.

Ware dismissed other claims against Apple, among them allegations that the company broke laws when an update to the iPhone's operating software caused some phones to stop working and deleted programs that users had purchased.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction to keep Apple from selling locked iPhones in the U.S. and from determining what iPhone programs people can install. It also seeks damages to cover legal fees and other costs.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/07/11/technology-telecommunications-equipment-us-tec-apple-iphone-lawsuit_7757649.html

[McRat]

Lordy I despise the legal profession.

As much as I think AT&T blows, and that Apple would be worse than MS if they controlled desktop computing, lawsuits like this are a joke.

Here's what happens most the time (all?): chews up a few years, then it's settled for $5 a piece for the plaintiffs and $10,000,000 for the attorney.

Apple is not a monopoly, nor is AT&T wireless. Cellphone apps aren't controlled by Apple, not even the AT&T apps. They can only control iPhone apps, and guess what? iPhones are a small percent of phones. http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/23/smartphone-iphone-sales-2009-gartner/

I guess that judge is simply unaware of the world around him, either that or he's a crook.

[ST3ALTHPSYCH0]

Besides that, jailbreakers have proven that Apple has not locked allowable content for those who truly want more.

[stmiller]

In the UK, iPhone is offered by all 5 major carriers.

[Lucradia]

In the UK, iPhone is offered by all 5 major carriers.

Great. I'll just pack my bags here....

[ryry46d9]

when are people going to wake up and relies the iPhone is just a over priced POS?

I say keep them with AT&T.

:popcorn:

[Warpnow]

Lordy I despise the legal profession.

As much as I think AT&T blows, and that Apple would be worse than MS if they controlled desktop computing, lawsuits like this are a joke.

Here's what happens most the time (all?): chews up a few years, then it's settled for $5 a piece for the plaintiffs and $10,000,000 for the attorney.

Apple is not a monopoly, nor is AT&T wireless. Cellphone apps aren't controlled by Apple, not even the AT&T apps. They can only control iPhone apps, and guess what? iPhones are a small percent of phones. http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/23/smartphone-iphone-sales-2009-gartner/

I guess that judge is simply unaware of the world around him, either that or he's a crook.


Firstly, Attorneys almost always take 1/3 of the settlement. That's just how it is.

Secondly, it depends how you define the terms. Iphones are a small percent of phones, but 100% of Iphones. If you define the terms narrowly, then ATT does have a monopoly on Iphones.

Personally, I agree with this case, and hope they win.

[v1ad]

i hope they are stuck with at&t. will help the droid platform, and will keep more clients with out the terrible phone. and people with that phone deserve to be stuck with at&t. i checked out the new iphone and it is just as terrible as the previous 1.

[HappinessNow]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gfyDQCdkZXsZNTgnX2TERmFrZx7AD9GT46I00

I accidentally left off the rest of the article; here's the rest republished from another familiar source:


In court documents filed July 8, Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said parts of the lawsuit that deal with violations to antitrust law can continue as a class action. The class includes anyone who bought an iPhone with a two-year AT&T agreement since the device first went on sale in June 2007.

Apple has sold more than 50 million iPhones in the last three years. The company does not specify how many have gone to U.S. customers.

Ware dismissed other claims against Apple, among them allegations that the company broke laws when an update to the iPhone's operating software caused some phones to stop working and deleted programs that users had purchased.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction to keep Apple from selling locked iPhones in the U.S. and from determining what iPhone programs people can install. It also seeks damages to cover legal fees and other costs.http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/07/11/technology-telecommunications-equipment-us-tec-apple-iphone-lawsuit_7757649.html

[zekopeko]

Lordy I despise the legal profession.

Nobody likes lawyers until they need one.

[kamaboko]

I get the cheapest phone my carrier provides. God, it's just a phone. I don't need to tote around a toy phone loaded w/mindless apps, not to mention blow upwards to 1K/year if not more on monthly connection fees. Jesus...what a waste of money.

[betrunkenaffe]

Nobody likes lawyers until they need one.

Not true, they don't like them then either.

[McRat]

Not true, they don't like them then either.

+1
:o

[zekopeko]

Not true, they don't like them then either.

Sure they do.

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

I don't hate lawyers. I hate people that sue for ridiculous reasons. Apple is lame so I don't really care that they got sued though.

:D

[McRat]

off topic

[McRat]

The reason lawsuits like this are so laughable is because what it shows of us as a society:

"Our luxury items aren't nice enough for us, so we will sue!!"

An iPhone ain't a kidney machine or airplane or fire extinguisher. It's a FREAKIN' TOY FOR RICH FOLK!

Yup, I'm one of them. I have enough surplus money so I can waste it on a telephone that plays movies and Space Ninjas games.

I hate the fact it won't tether, that Apple controls the Apps, and that I must use the crappiest Telecom, AT&T, but I realize that it was my choice to buy it. I love the device, but acknowledge that there are 250 other models to choose from.

[Swagman]

I get the cheapest phone my carrier provides. God, it's just a phone. I don't need to tote around a toy phone loaded w/mindless apps, not to mention blow upwards to 1K/year if not more on monthly connection fees. Jesus...what a waste of money.

So THAT'S why they call it the Jesus phone !!

[Jaecyn42]

The reason lawsuits like this are so laughable is because what it shows of us as a society:

"Our luxury items aren't nice enough for us, so we will sue!!"

An iPhone ain't a kidney machine or airplane or fire extinguisher. It's a FREAKIN' TOY FOR RICH FOLK!

Yup, I'm one of them. I have enough surplus money so I can waste it on a telephone that plays movies and Space Ninjas games.

I hate the fact it won't tether, that Apple controls the Apps, and that I must use the crappiest Telecom, AT&T, but I realize that it was my choice to buy it. I love the device, but acknowledge that there are 250 other models to choose from.

It's got nothing to do with "how nice our luxury goods are". It's about property rights.

One of prime motivations for the Founding Fathers of the United States (as well as their inspiration, John Locke) was the protection of personal property and the right of the individual to do with his property what he wishes, so long as the end did not interfere with the rights of others.

As technology has advanced, hardware manufacturers and software developers have artificially constrained, in one way or another, the individual's right to use his property as he wishes, often under thinly veiled guises of protecting their own IP rights or network security (see PS3 and the removal of Other OS).

The system is stacked so blatantly in Big Business' corner, it's not even funny anymore. It's about time somebody in the US Justice system finally entertained the idea that an individual has the right to use their hardware as they wish. It's about time the pendulum swung back towards individual property rights.

[McRat]

It's got nothing to do with "how nice our luxury goods are". It's about property rights.

One of prime motivations for the Founding Fathers of the United States (as well as their inspiration, John Locke) was the protection of personal property and the right of the individual to do with his property what he wishes, so long as the end did not interfere with the rights of others.

As technology has advanced, hardware manufacturers and software developers have artificially constrained, in one way or another, the individual's right to use his property as he wishes, often under thinly veiled guises of protecting their own IP rights or network security (see PS3 and the removal of Other OS).

The system is stacked so blatantly in Big Business' corner, it's not even funny anymore. It's about time somebody in the US Justice system finally entertained the idea that an individual has the right to use their hardware as they wish. It's about time the pendulum swung back towards individual property rights.

A lot of people suffered because of misuse of commercial monopolies. There is a reason for monopoly laws.

AT&T and iPhones are not monopolies in the wireless telephone market, and no amount of lawyers in the world are going to change that.

The difference between the PS3 and iPhone is that Apple did not remove your rights after you bought an iPhone, you never had them to begin with.

[whiskeylover]

It's got nothing to do with "how nice our luxury goods are". It's about property rights.

One of prime motivations for the Founding Fathers of the United States (as well as their inspiration, John Locke) was the protection of personal property and the right of the individual to do with his property what he wishes, so long as the end did not interfere with the rights of others.

As technology has advanced, hardware manufacturers and software developers have artificially constrained, in one way or another, the individual's right to use his property as he wishes, often under thinly veiled guises of protecting their own IP rights or network security (see PS3 and the removal of Other OS).

The system is stacked so blatantly in Big Business' corner, it's not even funny anymore. It's about time somebody in the US Justice system finally entertained the idea that an individual has the right to use their hardware as they wish. It's about time the pendulum swung back towards individual property rights.

Oh, but its Apple, so its all good. If it were MS, the same people would have been super upset over their loss of freedom and what not.

[McRat]

Oh, but its Apple, so its all good. If it were MS, the same people would have been super upset over their loss of freedom and what not.

Unlike the iPhone's 28% market share of smartphones, Microsoft controls 90% of the computer market.

[Jaecyn42]

A lot of people suffered because of misuse of commercial monopolies. There is a reason for monopoly laws.

AT&T and iPhones are not monopolies in the wireless telephone market, and no amount of lawyers in the world are going to change that.

The difference between the PS3 and iPhone is that Apple did not remove your rights after you bought an iPhone, you never had them to begin with.

Again, this nation was founded upon the ideal that the individual has an inalienable right to private property and to dispose of his property as he wishes, so long as he does not violate the rights of others.

What Apple and AT&T have done with the iPhone is a clear and obvious incursion upon the property rights of the individual. The monopoly argument can come or go, as far as I'm concerned. Locking end users into a given carrier's service, or tying the guarantees of a given product to that carrier's service, violates the property rights of those individuals.

The individual does (or at least, should) have the right to use their property with whatever network or service they wish, provided compatibility between device and network/service.

[McRat]

Again, this nation was founded upon the ideal that the individual has an inalienable right to private property and to dispose of his property as he wishes, so long as he does not violate the rights of others.

What Apple and AT&T have done with the iPhone is a clear and obvious incursion upon the property rights of the individual. The monopoly argument can come or go, as far as I'm concerned. Locking end users into a given carrier's service, or tying the guarantees of a given product to that carrier's service, violates the property rights of those individuals.

The individual does (or at least, should) have the right to use their property with whatever network or service they wish, provided compatibility between device and network/service.

Sure sounds like you are demanding that manufacturers have no rights, and must make whatever you feel they should make.

The "app store" is Apple's property. They cannot use it as they wish?

Are you saying that if I own a software store, you can force me to sell what you say?

[Jaecyn42]

Sure sounds like you are demanding that manufacturers have no rights, and must make whatever you feel they should make.

The "app store" is Apple's property. They cannot use it as they wish?

Are you saying that if I own a software store, you can force me to sell what you say?

No, I am demanding no such thing. I am only demanding that the property rights of the individual be protected.

We're not talking about the App Store (an online service) here. We are talking about the iPhone. A tangible, physical piece of hardware which an individual may purchase and wholly own.

Apple and AT&T have colluded to ensure that all iPhone users get their mobile service from AT&T exclusively. This is anti-competitive (illegal) behavior which violates Man's inalienable right to use his own physical property as he sees fit.

Your software store analogy is completely nonparallel. Allow me to straighten it:

You own a computer store. I come to your store to buy a laptop. I find that you have intentionally modified the BIOS on all the computers you sell so that they will not boot from any source other than the internal hard drive. You have done so in collusion with Microsoft in order to ensure that all your customers only use Windows.

That behavior is anti-competitive and it violates my right to use my property as I see fit. My choosing another OS does not, in anyway, violate your rights as a business owner. You are still free to sell (or not sell) whatever software you like; and I am free not to buy it or use it.

That's more parallel to the Apple-AT&T situation than your Software store example.

[ZACH4]

No, I am demanding no such thing. I am only demanding that the property rights of the individual be protected.

We're not talking about the App Store (an online service) here. We are talking about the iPhone. A tangible, physical piece of hardware which an individual may purchase and wholly own.

Apple and AT&T have colluded to ensure that all iPhone users get their mobile service from AT&T exclusively. This is anti-competitive (illegal) behavior which violates Man's inalienable right to use his own physical property as he sees fit.

Your software store analogy is completely nonparallel. Allow me to straighten it:

You own a computer store. I come to your store to buy a laptop. I find that you have intentionally modified the BIOS on all the computers you sell so that they will not boot from any source other than the internal hard drive. You have done so in collusion with Microsoft in order to ensure that all your customers only use Windows.

That behavior is anti-competitive and it violates my right to use my property as I see fit. My choosing another OS does not, in anyway, violate your rights as a business owner. You are still free to sell (or not sell) whatever software you like; and I am free not to buy it or use it.

That's more parallel to the Apple-AT&T situation than your Software store example.

I have a scenario for you.


Lets say I buy a new Toyota Prius. I now wholly own a tangible, physical piece of equipment. I would like to run this car on diesel instead of gasoline, but Toyota has intentionally built the car to run only on gasoline which violates my inalienable right to use my own physical property as I see fit.

My choosing another fuel does not, in anyway, violate your rights as a business owner. You are still free to sell whatever fuel you like, and I am free not to buy it or use it.


Now who is with me on filing a class action suit against Toyota, because a diesel Prius would get awesome mileage.

[McRat]

What puzzles me, is there are LOTS of choices with smart phones.

You can buy smartphones with open platform apps. You can buy phones with 3+ carrier choices.

You can buy an unlocked iPhone from Apple and run it on a different carrier.

You can join the Apple Developer's team for $99 and write your own apps.

Any limits you place on your cellphone are self-imposed. The inability for you to do certain things with certain devices is a character flaw, not a legal issue.

[Jaecyn42]

I have a scenario for you.


Lets say I buy a new Toyota Prius. I now wholly own a tangible, physical piece of equipment. I would like to run this car on diesel instead of gasoline, but Toyota has intentionally built the car to run only on gasoline which violates my inalienable right to use my own physical property as I see fit.

My choosing another fuel does not, in anyway, violate your rights as a business owner. You are still free to sell whatever fuel you like, and I am free not to buy it or use it.


Now who is with me on filing a class action suit against Toyota, because a diesel Prius would get awesome mileage.

Your scenario is still nonparallel.

There is not one singular provider of unleaded gasoline. While the Prius is constrained one particular fuel type, the Prius owner can still choose where to buy their gas.

Your scenario might be apropos if the Prius only ran on a wonky, secret fuel formula which was made exclusively by one company...let's just say BP, for the sake of argument.

In that situation, you might have a point; but that extends the metaphor to near absurdity.

[ZACH4]

Your scenario is still nonparallel.

There is not one singular provider of unleaded gasoline. While the Prius is constrained one particular fuel type, the Prius owner can still choose where to buy their gas.

Your scenario might be apropos if the Prius only ran on a wonky, secret fuel formula which was made exclusively by one company...let's just say BP, for the sake of argument.

In that situation, you might have a point; but that extends the metaphor to near absurdity.

I guess my point was that with modification the Prius could run on diesel, and with modification the iPhone can work on any carrier.

Both modifications would need to be done by highly knowledgeable people in the respective field, but it can be done, so Apple is not restraining anyone to AT&T. They are creating a device to work on a specific carriers network, if you want to modify the device you buy to work on another network you can.

[Nano Geek]

Your scenario is still nonparallel.

There is not one singular provider of unleaded gasoline. While the Prius is constrained one particular fuel type, the Prius owner can still choose where to buy their gas.

Your scenario might be apropos if the Prius only ran on a wonky, secret fuel formula which was made exclusively by one company...let's just say BP, for the sake of argument.

In that situation, you might have a point; but that extends the metaphor to near absurdity.Why pick on the iPhone though? All carriers sell exclusive phones that you can't get on other carriers. Besides, if you really want to use the iPhone with T-Mobile, you can jailbreak it fairly easy.

As far as I'm concerned, their argument does't hold water.

[Jaecyn42]

I guess my point was that with modification the Prius could run on diesel, and with modification the iPhone can work on any carrier.

Both modifications would need to be done by highly knowledgeable people in the respective field, but it can be done, so Apple is not restraining anyone to AT&T. They are creating a device to work on a specific carriers network, if you want to modify the device you buy to work on another network you can.

An interesting point, but you're still making a faulty comparison.

A Prius owner may choose between fuel suppliers without voiding their warranty. There is no need to modify a Prius in order to choose between competitive fuel suppliers.

In order for an iPhone user to choose between service carriers, they must jailbreak their iPhone, violating the terms of Apple's EULA and, consequentially, voiding any warranties on the device.

This, coupled with the fact that jailbreaking the iPhone is well beyond the scope of the average iPhone end user, creates a considerable barrier against an iPhone user choosing an alternate service carrier.


EDIT:


Why pick on the iPhone though? All carriers sell exclusive phones that you can't get on other carriers. Besides, if you really want to use the iPhone with T-Mobile, you can jailbreak it fairly easy.

As far as I'm concerned, their argument does't hold water.

Apple may not be the only company that uses SIM locking; however, at the moment, they are the only company which does not allow for authorized SIM unlocking. Other companies do allow authorized SIM unlocking if the customer pays full retail price for the phone OR has completed their service contract.

[ZACH4]

In order for an iPhone user to choose between service carriers, they must jailbreak their iPhone, violating the terms of Apple's EULA and, consequentially, voiding any warranties on the device.

This, coupled with the fact that jailbreaking the iPhone is well beyond the scope of the average iPhone end user, creates a considerable barrier against an iPhone user choosing an alternate service carrier.


I'll admit you got me with that line of reasoning, so I'll try a different approach.

According to the iPhone EULA (which you agree to by buying and using the phone) says that you do not own the software. So because you do not own the software running on the device, you cannot expect to use it in any way you see fit. If you want to use the iPhone in whatever way you see fit you will just have to install your own software. Just as most of us have decided to use our computers in the way we see fit, so we get rid of the software that came on it and installed Linux.

P.S. I just like to play the devils advocate and I like to argue about anything, regardless of what I actually believe. That being said, I think the lawsuit against Apple is most likely justifiable.

[Jaecyn42]

I'll admit you got me with that line of reasoning, so I'll try a different approach.

According to the iPhone EULA (which you agree to by buying and using the phone) says that you do not own the software. So because you do not own the software running on the device, you cannot expect to use it in any way you see fit. If you want to use the iPhone in whatever way you see fit you will just have to install your own software. Just as most of us have decided to use our computers in the way we see fit, so we get rid of the software that came on it and installed Linux.

P.S. I just like to play the devils advocate and I like to argue about anything, regardless of what I actually believe. That being said, I think the lawsuit against Apple is most likely justifiable.

Fair enough, I like Devil's Advocates; they keep me well-honed. :)

Apple's EULA does indeed include the aforementioned provisions; it does state that the End User does not own the software. Ipso facto, Jailbreaking violates the EULA.

That said, Apple's EULA does not allow Apple to break Anti-trust laws. We can thank the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution for clearing that much up for us. If Apple's EULA violates State or Federal laws (ie. Anti-trust Laws), the EULA is an illegal contract and, as such, completely non-binding.