digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

California man seeks class action lawsuit over iPhone bricking, lock-in

arstechnica.com — A suit seeking class-action status charges Apple with abusing the law in order to lock consumers into using AT&T, while also accusing the company of abandoning customers who unlock their phones.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Nudar, on 10/11/2007, -22/+127"California Man" knew what he was buying when he bought it: a phone that is only supposed to work on AT&T's network. Am I really supposed to feel sorry for him and the other people who got bricked?
    • Gir53457, on 10/10/2007, -3/+28I'll take frivolous lawsuit, for $599.99.
      • nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20This could be trouble for apple. Anyone frivolous enough to buy a $600 cell phone is probably frivolous enough to sue you when they don't like it.
      • robbh66, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Why exactly is this frivolous?
        It's 100% legal to unlock your phone in the US. Now, with that said, apple does not have to support such unlocking. The argument gets a lot less clear when you introduce the bricking of the phones but i suppose that's what this lawsuit will figure out.

        I personally don't blame Apple for wanting to make it hard for people to use their phones on other networks. However, if they bricked people's phones just because they realized they wouldn't be able to control those users that's wrong.
      • ibone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2robbh66 you are right on. Apple PURPOSELY DISABLED these phones. Was it really nessasary to disable the phones rather than just update the software with Wifi Itunes?

        I hope apple gets slammed for this because this is very very shady business.
        • PhoenixPath, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1lmao...

          Proof? Nah...who needs proof when we can toss around wild accusations that make us look like complete morons.
      • forgetfulca, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1'these phones'. Unfortunately, lots of modded phones came through just fine, and lots of unmodified phones got bricked. They'll have a tough time with this lawsuit, even if a judge agrees to see it.
    • Korexz, on 10/10/2007, -10/+20Interesting. Anyone that did not HACK their iPhone had no issues. Maybe the 3rd party that supplied the hack software should be sued? Did he READ the TOS, or EULA when he decided to HACK the OS on his iPhone?
      • arctic, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7Wow they try to provide a free service to help you around AT&T and you say they should be sued..
        • PhoenixPath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow...they sell you a phone , you purposefully break it, and you want to sue the company that sold it to you because it no longer works...
      • bsolidgold, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Not true. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that there were several phones that had never been tinkered with which were bricked.
        • devin_mm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Yes but they're still covered by warranty so they will be replaced.
      • forgetfulca, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3From what I read, actually, a number of unmodified phones DID have troubles. That's what makes this issue very not unclear: Specifically what in 1.1.1 caused problems?
    • SergeiGolos, on 10/10/2007, -13/+2If the iPhone gets unlocked.. i will get one. So as far as i am concerned, and i am sure a lot of other people who don't want to switch networks, this guys is fighting the good fight. It was a ***** move on Job's part to lock the phone, and more so brick the phones though his upgrade.

      The only thing ***** then Job's move is making apple pay money if they lose. Just unlock the phones, and let people decided what they want to do with a peace of hardware they paid for. Especially if they over payed by 200 dollars.
      • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9No, this guy is abusing the legal system. EVERYTHING was laid out plain as day and you knew what you were buying.

        And for the "overpaid by $200"... He was willing to pay it, so it's not "overpaid"
        • DrStephanHeimer, on 10/29/2007, -1/+3Actually many Legit customers have bricked phones as well, with no recourse to the phone working again
          • sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3if it is not modded the phone is under warranty. So their "recourse to the phone working again" would be taking it back and getting a new one.
        • robbh66, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1While you're talking about things laid out as plain as day why don't you mention the part about it being 100% legal to unlock a cell phone?
          • PhoenixPath, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1All well and good, but at that point Apple is no longer liable for service or damage caused by updates due to changes you made to the software.
      • bsolidgold, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Umm... the iPhone has been unlocked.
        • hansonc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2not legally or supported by anyone.
          • sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It is not illegal to unlock a phone. You are right that it is not supported.
    • moofer, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3So, he's suing Apple for running its business within the law? Wouldn't his efforts be better-spent on changing the laws instead?
      • tdous, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2IDIOT: Can I do Y with a X?
        CORP: No.
        IDIOT: I want it to.
        CORP: You can't. Also, if you do, you'll probably run into problems.
        IDIOT [buys X and does Y]: Hey, I'm running into problems! WTF!?! CHANGE THE LAW!
    • ScottoGato, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Not only that, but these people upgraded their phones when they knew the 1.1.1 update was going to brick their phone.
    • scotty1024, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Maybe he'd be happier if Apple had the bricked iPhone owners sued for breach of contract?

      Starting with him apparently. :-)
    • sonycam, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Totally legal to unlock your iPhone, totally legal for Apple to ***** up unlocked iPhones = legal grey area.
      I don't know about you, but there's been lawsuits filed and won for a lot sillier things.
    • Rickler, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Thats completely asinine. Thats like saying your VW bug was never meant to be an amphibious vehicle so VW is going to make the onboard computer stop functioning properly next time you visit the dealership for service.
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -18/+9This douchebag and especially his law firm deserve a judgement why? FKing lawyers.... I thought bad apples are supposed to be rare?
    • Gir53457, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Well, apples do have a tendency to spoil faster once the skin is broken.
    • nebben, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4... bad apples? OH SNAP!
  • otatop, on 10/10/2007, -14/+51This is almost as dumb as the woman suing for $1 million over the price drop. Locking phones into one provider is nothing new, and they said from the start that they weren't going to fight unlocking, but they weren't going to help it either, so your phone may get bricked. I want to find this guy and kick his ass for wasting my tax dollars with this crap. Actually, I'll find that woman, too.
    • scbysnx, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5I'll say two things about this. They sold the phone at what seems to be an unsubsidized price in the beginning so there was no reason to lock it and the fact that they have a tool to unbrick the phones and are offering it to everyone tells me they're punishing those who unlocked the phone and thats fighting in my book
      • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7No, the fact that they are offering a tool means that they had worries their software upgrade would brick some of the phones, especially if they had been modified, and that they were prepared.
        The phone was locked to AT&T because they were the only network to play ball with Apple and give the phone what it needed.
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5It's Apple's equipment and they are free to sell/market it as they see fit. You also have the right not to buy their equipment if you do not agree with their terms. I see no problem here. The world does not revolve around you.
    • weeeezzll, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Better yet, get both of these idiots and lock them in a cage and make them fight to the death.
  • JlmAWP, on 10/10/2007, -9/+38Arg, this thing is getting out of control. Seriously, the specifics of the iPhone were carefully laid out months before purchase, in terms of network and software. I don't see how he has a case at all. It's like getting mad at Porsche for not having off-road capabilities. It's just stupid.
    • cmuwriter, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10This is more like using aftermarket products to make the Porsche off-road capable, but then having Porsche issue a recall to take away anything that could make the car off-road available. I don't agree with the guy suing them, but people should be allowed to tinker with their stuff.
      • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11Why should apple be held accountable when people break there licensing agreement by tinkering with stuff? When making a firmware update, why should Apple take into account what people did? Why is it there duty to help out people who have broken a contract with them? and before anyone says otherwise, a licensing agreement is a contract under US law.
        • cmuwriter, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4I don't know Steve, I don't know...
      • Vorsuc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7And you can, but Apple are not legally obligated to support you doing it. So if you want to unlock, the price you pay is never upgrading your firmware.

        If you do, Apple are entirely justified in locked phones back down and closing previous exploits.

        I just don't get why, given this is standard operating procedure for electronics firms and hackers, Apple users suddenly feel hard done to. Have they never owned an electronic device before? Or are they convinced some nicely designed bit of plastic deems them worthy of special treatment from the world?

        The case has no legs, if only because of the floodgates that'll open if this becomes a precendence case to be used against other firms.
      • Korexz, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3THANK YOU !!!

        Someone actually GETS IT!

        The 3rd parties are to blame, not Apple.
        • BlackCow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well no, Apple is to belame for being an ***** in the first place, they just can't be held accountable. So really its the fault of all you fanboys who support apple no matter how evil or monopolistic they are.
      • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4No, it's like Porche issuing a recall and then the owner being mad when the dealer wouldn't apply the recall to modified parts. You have to remember that it's always the users CHOICE which way to upgrade - go with Apple upgrades, or with hacked firmware.
        • tdous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, I want Steve Jobs at my house NOW rubbing my back and an engineer lacky fixing my goddamn iPhone. I want, you see. Therefore, I should get.
    • zapperdude60, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5what about the cayenne?
      • JlmAWP, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Oh hush :P
      • hansonc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3yeah like any of them have left the road. Seriously they only go to the grocery store and starbucks... it's in the EULA I believe :-)
    • moofer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Actually, to further strengthen your analogy, it's more like adding a bunch of after-market engine modifications and then expecting Porsche to honor warranty repairs on damage caused by the mods.
      • DrStephanHeimer, on 10/29/2007, -2/+1yeah but the key difference hear is that this is all software, its not a hardware mod like your porsche example. How hard would it be for Apple to allow the phone to be completely reformatted and initialized to factory defaults?

        Hacks and mods and other 3rd party apps don't work fine go back to the start. Where is the benefit in sticking comsumers (some totally incocent) with bricks.

        • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Firmware is hardware. Firmware quite literally controls the parameters in which the hardware operates - including the ability to drive hardware to places that can make it fail permanently.

          That's why unlocked phones have all these problems, while merely "hacked" iPhones to load software (does not require a firmware change) have been able to revert and carry on.
      • moofer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You don't think software can cause hardware problems? How about an app that consumes needless battery power, causing more frequent deep-cycle charges, lessening the life span of the battery? Or an app that doesn't use CPU efficiently that causes heat issues, that can result in heat-related component failure?

        This is why I'm glad you're playing on the computer and not engineering any products that I use.
    • SocialPoison, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Not quite moofer, it's like you had done the modifications to make a Porsche an offroad vehicle, and then Porsche came to your house, flipped a switch, and crippled your vehicle because you didn't leave it stock.

      /looking forward to the next person to carry this analogy
      • derrickgossman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6you make it sound like these people didn't have any control over the update. they initiated the upgrade themselves, apple didn't push it to their phone without their permission.
        • subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Exactly. For his analogy to be accurate, he should have said "and then Porsche came to your house, BECAUSE YOU CALLED THEM AND ASKED THEM TO, flipped a switch, and crippled your vehicle because you didn't leave it stock"
      • moofer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, it's nothing like that. Apple didn't come to these users houses and turn off their phones. The update was voluntary, and the "users" were warned far in advance of what was going to happen to them. To further your analogy, the Porsche owner took their car to the dealership and asked them to disable it.
  • onetimer, on 10/10/2007, -8/+59More accurate description: Idiot bricks his phone by intentionally violating Terms of Service and attempts to blame the manufacturer.
    • SirZRX, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3what terms? he didnt sing anything or clicked i agree!
      • hansonc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Apple should require you to sing something before buying the iPhone... they could just submit the film to American Idol then.
      • jimbojones1977, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7He clicked it when he agreed to the 1.1.1 upgrade, dumbass.
      • PhoenixPath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Uhhh...

        You agree to the TOS when you sign up for service. You agree to TOS when you purchase the product.

        ...and better yet, you agree to TOS when you decide to apply the update.
    • EntropyFan, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Lets change the names here. You aren't allowed to alter the XBox. Mods are very frowned upon. If MS finds a modded box, they ban it from the live services.
      What would happen if MS bricked any modded XBoxes? Everyone would go bonkers about how evil MS is, and how the manufacturer has no right to intentionally damage their equipment.
      But it is Apple, so it's OK?
      • jimbojones1977, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5This is just a stupid comparison.
        • EntropyFan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1In what way, might I ask? In both cases, hardware (and expensive hardware at that) was modded in a way the manufacturer doesn't allow.
          MS chose not to intentionally brick the hardware.
          Stupid?
        • onetimer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What, you're assuming because my Icon is a character from the HALO series that I must be an xbox fanboy that worships MS? For your information, if MS chose to Brick xbox's that users modded in violation of the Terms Of Service, I would NOT be blaming Microsoft. Just like the iPhone, it's the users fault.

          If you read the fine print, you are actually technically renting the xbox from MS, and technically at anytime they can ask for it back and return your money.
      • sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4the main difference with Microsoft and apple is apple doesn't force you to upgrade the software and microsoft banns you just for modding it.
        • EntropyFan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Apple bricked the hardware for modding it. How is this better?
  • danasghar, on 10/10/2007, -5/+28and apparently it warns you before you install the software to unlock it. Ive heard it actually warns you and you have agree and acknowledge that you run this risk. what an idiot(s).
  • harrypl0tter, on 10/10/2007, -7/+18why do dumb ***** try to sue over anything. Seriously....he knew that the iphone was supposed to work only on the att network. IT is just like me suing because a HD dvd doesnt work on a blu-ray player...
    • monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Seriously. It's not a direct metaphor at all, but it's like those people who decided to sue McDonald's for making them too fat and unhealthy, although we've been taught since the day we were born that they make junk food. It was thrown out of court immediately.
    • AddMan3001, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Just another great example of how no one these days seems to want to take responsibility for their own actions, and how if anything goes wrong, the default response seems to be "Sue!!!"
    • justinzagar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3because some dumb ***** actually win
  • flaminio, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4Maybe the iPhone wouldn't be so expensive if every idiot didn't file lawsuits.

  • indyGuy, on 10/10/2007, -17/+8Boo ***** hoo - poor fanboys. RTFC (read the ***** contract) you signed up for.
    • damonic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I'm a fanboy and I totally agree with you. If you altered the phone you deserve what you get. But it or dont buy it based on the out-of-box features. I love Apple but the have a tendancy to break things with their updates. There are many utilities that will break when Leopard is released. Its the way of the Apple world. Dont upgrade if you cant afford things to break.
  • Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -5/+38"Apple's allegedly unlawful practices are forcing consumers to pay "artificially inflated" prices for the iPhone and AT&T's service."
    What a coincidence. That ***** Steve Jobs just held me at gunpoint, took $400, and gave me an iPhone last night.
    • cmuwriter, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3Allegedly numbnuts.
      • Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Way to completely miss the point of my post, and the part of the quote that I was commenting on, numbnuts.
    • jebudas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10No dude, you read it wrong:
      ...and that Apple's allegedly unlawful practices of using jedi mind tricks on potential customers are "forcing" consumers to pay artificially inflated prices for the iPhone and AT&T's service.
    • subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Apple's allegedly unlawful practices are forcing consumers to pay "artificially inflated" prices for the iPhone and AT&T's service."

      As far as AT&T's service goes, the iPhone service plan that offers the exact same level of service that I currently have is actually $20 a month less than I currently pay for an equivalent package for my Blackjack.
  • carvsdriver, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Yet another person in our society who feels the need to get rich off of someone else's success. Good job buddy. I hope you DIAF. (And I'm not even a MAC fan, let alone an iPhone fan)
  • CraigJ, on 10/10/2007, -6/+31Wha't next? Someone suing because they spilled hot coffee on their lap and burned themself?
    • brianbb98, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2yes.
    • houndeyex, on 10/10/2007, -13/+2Already been done. That's why McDonalds cups (and everyone else) have warnings.
      • CorpT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9What? I've been in a coma for the last 20 years and just woke up today. That's crazy! What's wrong with America? Next you'll tell me that lovable running back OJ Simpson is in trouble with the law.
      • FallenWings, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Thank you, Ted. That was the joke.
    • Jaitls, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15u people are numb to sarcasm.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Why do ***** idiots like yourself still bring up this case? This was NOT an example of a bad lawsuit. McDonalds ADMITTED to breaking their own guidelines by making the coffee scalding hot...MUCH hotter than is considered safe. And they did this to save a few pennies by not having to make as many batches. If you spill most coffee on yourself, you will get burned, sure. You will NOt get third degree burns that require skin grafts like the woman did. She had every right to sue, and every right to win.
      • Hollic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7She ***** spilled coffee on herself. Of course it's going to be hot. I'm fine with her medical bills being paid for because, admittedly, it was pretty stupid for them to try and squeeze every last penny out of the coffee that way, but it's not a multi-million dollar claim.
        • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Did you not read my comment? Yes, it is going to be hot. NOT scalding hot. Not hot enough to cause third degree burns like she received. Again...McDonalds ADMITTED to wronhgdoing, you ***** idiot! They purposely overheated the coffee to almost its BOILING point so it would stay hotter longer so they wouldn't have to throw away as many batches. And THIS is why she sued, and why she won.
          I hate to break iot to your ignorant self, but MOST lawsuits involve some "blame" on the part of the plaintiff. In this case, the blame was that she spilled it. However, that does NOT absolve the blame due to the willfill negligence of this McDonalds for overheating coffee to the point of it being extremely dangerous (at that temperature it was also not safe to drink) just to save a few pennies.
          As for how much...1. she did not get multi-million dollars. The judgement came down a bit to the high 6 figures. and 2. What is your life worth to you? And I don't mean life versus death. I mean how much is itworth for you to do whatever lame things you enjoy doing every day? If you had to get extremely painful skin grafts, would you really want nothing mre than what it cost?
          • Hollic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I wouldn't want more than what it cost because in the end I was the dumbass that spilled the coffee on myself. Sorry for owning up to being clumsy. Thank you, Internet Tough-Guy, for your sound logic.
        • pyrates, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Apparently you like to play the ignorant fool. Here are the facts:

          1. The coffee was heated much higher then you could possibly drink it.
          2. They did this because they didn't want people drinking the coffee while in the restaurant to get free refills. They wanted them to leave with the first cup still in hand so that they could save a few pennies and not have people get the free refills.
          3. At that temperature, trying to drink it was impossible. It was capable of burning flesh and muscle before it cooled down. No matter how quickly you doused out the hot liquid, once it got on you, you had 3rd degree burns. Do you know how painful those are? I'm guessing not.
          4. If it was 140 degrees Fahrenheit, which is the temperature of coffee served at home, then it would sting at first, but nothing more. It would require no hospital visits or skin graphs.
          5. McDonalds had been doing this for years with a lot of complaints and knew that their product would cause things like this to occur, but just kept on doing it.

          In other words this was a completely legitimate lawsuit that was bound to happen. See http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm for more info.
      • Alpione, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Some facts are always missing when people bring up this case as an example of our "lawsuit society." One has already been mentioned - that the coffee exceeded standards by quite a distance. The other, and more important, is that the lady originally only asked for help with her medical bills. She didn't demand a dime over that. McDonald's wouldn't give her a cent and they got nailed because of it. Also remember, like someone else said, that the verdict was reduced considerably by the judge... Oh, those pesky facts...
      • gbarger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm pretty sure...unless they were microwaving the coffee...it can't really go above the boiling point.
        • Asniper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1who microwaves coffee? have you ever made coffee before? it's very possible to do so.
      • CraigJ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Thanks for the ***** idiot label, you are a brilliant individual. I know all that ***** about the McDonalds lawsuit, still, I think it's apt. Why? Because even if McDonald's is guilty of making their coffee too hot (sonething I disagree with), etc., she is the one who dumped it in her lap. $480,000 for that is just obscene, and just because the legal community thinks it was right and just does not make it so. And by the way, the proper temperature for brewing coffee is 203-205 degrees in the basket. That will burn if you spill it on yourself, so don't.
        • fangorious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I don't think it's an apt comparison because one involves physical disfigurement and the other doesn't.
        • CraigJ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's apt because the user in both cases is the primary cause of the problem.
        • pyrates, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So many people are so clueless now a days, for CraigJ:

          McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.
        • Hollic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thank you for being awesome. Just thought I'd get the props out there so you don't feel like you're alone in a sea of IT'S THE BIG CORPORATIONS FAULT FOR BEING ALL CORPORATIONY rhetoric.

          Honestly, I understand they were being dumb, but not recklessly so. It's not like they were thinking "Gee, if someone spilled this on themselves they would be horribly disfigured. Oh well! It'll save us 5 cents!" That's just bad business sense. Ford learned that from the exploding car PR fiasco.
    • scott9378, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

      *The more you know*
  • MYarms, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Awww how sad, but guess what... you shouldn't have spent $600 on a phone and then hacked into it. As I see it you got what you deserved.
  • skyz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+20i think he is suing to make a statement ~ i think pushing for interoperability of devices is good ~ i don't like ATT ~ i want to remain with my current carrier as they are hassle free ~ also for frequent travelers a phone that is that costly does so many things that you come to rely on that you can't take to europe or the far east seems totally behind the curve ~
    • ersnyder, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9I ~ think ~ you ~ should ~ leave ~ the ~ "~" ~ out ~ of ~ your ~ writing ~ because ~ it's ~ annoying.
    • Sabin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Welcome to North America where all our phones are "totally behind the curve".
    • CorpT, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1~ is clearly more difficult to type than '.' Why would you choose to be wrong when it is more difficult?
  • Juaquin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Well he's not going to win on the bricking, but I believe there is a law that requires them to unlock any phone after 90 days, so he may just win that one.
    • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I don't believe that is true ... there are plenty of "locked" phones under Verizon, ATT and others
    • Korexz, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2You can unlock any phone, but don't expect the manufacturer or service provider to help you after you decide to HACK your phone.

      I did this with a Samsung phone on Verizon to enable MP3 playback that Verizon took away. When I bricked my Samsung I didn't go after either party.
    • monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1There is no such law, whatsoever. If I remember correctly, they have a three-year contract with AT&T.
      • nightsweat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Not necessarily. You buy the phone, then you activate it. It's during the activation process you get the AT&T contract. Buying the phone obligates you to no contract whatsoever.
    • FallenWings, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sorry, but that's incorrect. It may be industry SOP to provide unlock codes after 90 days, but it is by no means required by law. The "unlocking provision," as spelled out in the DMCA, is simply an exemption from prosecution. This is to say that if you unlock phones, or make a business out of unlocking phones, you can't be sued for "violating copyright." The EFF website has a lot of good information on the matter, give it a look.
      • Juaquin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ah, thanks for clarifying this. In that case I guess he's screwed. Really, though, there should be a law preventing companies from locking you into a phone, especially if you paid the full price (like the iPhone). I can understand if you got a huge discount on the phone because it came with a contract and AT&T is recouping their lose on the phone with the contract (like my Ericson), but if you pay full price for an iPhone you should be allowed to unlock it and use it on any service. He could possibly sue on monopoly - he'd probably lose, but it's more accurate than suing based solely on unlocking.
  • TheIguana, on 10/10/2007, -15/+10Locking your customers in is a pathetic business tactic. And thats all she wrote.
  • soboness5, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7Why are people complaining about the features of a phone that THEY decided to purchased? Apple advertised it as working with ATT, and nothing else, so why do people feel they are being 'wronged' when they can't use this phone on other carriers? Give me a break, I'm tired of hearing about this. I hate ATT and therefore did not buy the IPhone and am sticking with my POS Razr until a better option is available. Simple as that - its called patience! I didn't buy my Acura RSX and then try to sue Acura becuase I couldn't put Ferrari parts into it.
  • xenodata, on 10/10/2007, -10/+10Library of Congress said unlocking of phones was legal, so I think this guy has a leg to stand on there. They have to let people unlock their phones. Sorry big business.
    • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Although unlocking the phone may be legal, that doesn't mean that Apple has to allow it to happen. It means that the unlocker can't be sued for unlocking the phone. It's not really a subtle difference.
    • monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Anyone who unlocked their iPhones and now have expensive bricks actually have perfectly working iPhones. They're behaving exactly as they are supposed to, in fact. PA42 is right.
    • tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2They do not have to let people unlock their phones. The exception in the DMCA merely states that a company cannot use the umbrella of the DMCA to sue someone for trying to unlock their phone. Big difference.
    • PhilThePirate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2To quote the article, "to clarify, a 2006 exemption in the DMCA granted by the Library of Congress prevents the prosecution of any individual who unlocks a mobile phone for personal use. This leaves consumers in the position of ostensibly being clear to unlock their own phones, but Apple is not legally required to facilitate this, or support it." RTFA before you comment next time.
    • OrangeTide, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Maybe we should elect better representatives in the future. Oh wait, we don't elect anyone to the Library of Congress!
  • dubdope, on 10/10/2007, -12/+17the apple cult seems to have a problem with other companies trying to screw consumers over, but when apple does it, it's A-OK!

    i guess this is unconditional love?

    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4No one was screwed over... deal with it.
      • dubdope, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2are you purposely proving my point about the apple cult and their unconditional love?

        apple is not allowing people to use its phone with other companies. they're taking away options from the people.
  • kiwimonk, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3If evolution was true.. Men would have vaginas on their hands!
    • northernmunky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3So where is your vagina?
    • FallenWings, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And where is your subjunctive? Anyone?
  • bffoley, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I love how stuff like this always makes headlines. You can sue anyone for anything. Most of these wacky BS lawsuits get thrown out immediately because they have no merit. However, they make a good headline so digg digg digg!
  • psyjoniz, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4this guy is a ***** moron.

    BURIED
  • NYankee2003, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Library of Congress? Since when do they have any legal authority whatsoever?
    • nightsweat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3They have huge authority over copyright and the issues the DCMA addressed.
    • CorpT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Their librarians are even rougher than the Salvation Army soldiers.
  • indietroy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Just another idiot trying to get a free handout. It's the American way. Maybe if people would actually read the terms of use agreement, they wouldn't make such assinine attempts to sue the company.
  • ptsd, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7awesome. im glad someone is standing up for consumer rights.

    im sick of this fanboy mentality...im so ***** sick and tired of you idiots.

    @harrypl0tter
    "IT is just like me suing because a HD dvd doesnt work on a blu-ray player"
    no its like buying a third party cell phone and having it work with at&t but not verizon...its like buying an iphone at target and only being able to use it with one service provider. with people like you in the world my respect for human life is dwindling on a daily basis.

    its like buying a toyota and only being able to drive it on toll roads, its like buying a dell and only being able to use comcast to connect to the internet, its like your brain is mush and your opinions are worthless

    thats what its like
    • jebudas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I think it's more like buying a porsche and being told you cant put diesel in it. Yes, you could mod the porsche and maybe make it run on diesel, but you cant sue porsche!

      No one is forcing the customer to buy an iPhone.
    • PA42, on 10/24/2007, -2/+4"with people like you in the world my respect for human life is dwindling on a daily basis." Locked cell phones have nothing to do with respect for human life. Your analogy about Toyota is bad too.
    • SasquatchBill, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6No, ptsd, you're a tard.

      The consumers were INFORMED that they weren't able to use it on another carrier, and that it was built to run only on AT&T. After making this informed decision to buy, they took the risk upon themselves.

      If you are informed that your Toyota will only run on toll roads, and then you buy it thinking you can make it work elsewhere, you've got no basis for getting pissed when it won't.

      A smart consumer will not purchase the iPhone if the AT&T network bothers them. A stupid one will buy it and then complain when their work around stops working. Tough luck, cry babies. What you reap is what you sow.
      • ptsd, on 10/24/2007, -4/+2@PA42
        i was refering to fanboy mentality, the shills who stop at nothing to defend their brand name.
        diesel analogy makes no ***** sense, people unlocking the iphone are not swaping out the cpu.

        @SasquatchBill
        i dont give a ***** who was INFORMED, when they were INFORMED, or even how they were INFORMED. its a ***** cell phone i have a reasonable expectation that it work with most if not all service providers. just like i have a reasonable expectation that a ***** car drive on a road.
        if apple cant conform to californian law or the dmca then ***** apple...its their responsibility to make sure their product follows the laws of the market it wants to sell to.

        people buy a iphone its theirs, they should have complete control over it. there should be no automatic updates or any software being loaded onto the device without the owners expressed permission. apple decides to upload software to everyones iphone without their permission and it bricks peoples iphones...apple can eat *****. its your ***** phone not apples.

        you people scare me.

        • llamawoot, on 10/24/2007, -2/+3ptsd, you sir, are an idiot.

          Apple didn't just automatically load software on everyone's iPhone. The update was only installed with the users' permission. If you hacked your iPhone, clicked through the warning about it possibly bricking your hacked phone, and then it did what it said it would I don't really understand how you can complain.

          This is like deciding to willfully walk through a labeled mine field. When you blow yourself up....its your fault.
        • tdhurst, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2ptsd...you're wrong. Shut up.
  • aerogant, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Looking past laws and lawsuits, does anyway honestly think it's right that these companies do this? I mean they basically sold their customers/fans to AT&T, that is how much they like us.
    • aerogant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I guess some people like being treated like this.
    • javaroast, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No it isn't right and it is the tip of the iceberg about what is wrong with the entire cell phone industry. It harkens back to the bad old days when you had to rent your phone equipment from AT&T. The public is being locked in and locked down to a series of proprietary networks built on public airwaves. The auctions for these airwaves were sold to the public as a cash windfall, but in reality they have turned into a license to fleece the consumer.
  • Mizzike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4...it was only a matter of time.
  • SystmBetatester, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12stop crying. apple users should be use to their hardware being locked down by now.
  • shinelikeitdoes, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1seriously stupid. thats like going to disneyland and suing them for not having looney toons characters in the park.
    you know what the deal is.
  • vfx2k4, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Yes because we all know Steve Jobs came over to our house, put a gun to our heads and forced us to buy phones without even showing us the contract. LOSERS SUE.
  • indietroy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I think that this nation needs an official definition of "common sense" to prevent these types of lawsuits from polluting our legal system. The sad part is that lawyers are the ones who give these fools an audience, and the fools in turn keep the lawyers in business.
  • Rob223, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4This is stupid... iphones brick because the OS is unstable when hacked, not because Apple intentionally bricks them.
    • nightsweat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Not true. Look at the Apple iTunes DAAP nonsense to see their willingness to take away functionality when it isn't being used the Apple-approved way.
    • Jaitls, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You are so wrong. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. With this logic the next apple iphone update should not BRICK my hacked phone. Lets see if your right.
  • jibs01, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2What kind of sense does it make to brick a device that has the ability to be so much more. Would it make sense if Microsoft locked down its Windows Mobile to not allow for 3rd party apps? So this guy may get a good chunk of change if he wins but that also means 3rd party support, a legal way for Apple to get out of the contract with AT&T, and we wouldn't have to worry about voiding the warranty for a software related issue... As far as the pricing part of it, early adopters always pay more that's the way it is and always will be, if you don't have the money then don't buy it right away!
    • PhillyMJS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Would it make sense if Microsoft locked down its Windows Mobile to not allow for 3rd party apps?"

      Maybe if they did I wouldn't have to constantly reboot my POS Windows Mobile-based phone I have to use for work (Sprint PPC6700). The only 3rd party app I put on it was one that let me delete the other junk that came preinstalled on the thing-- not that the 100% stock configuration my colleagues are using is a paragon of stability, either.
  • ookxtreme, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1what an idiot! i'm sure he walks around everyday looking for $hit to sue over, crack in the pavement, snow on a sidewalk, HOT coffee, it's just the type of guy you would never want to come over for a party because he may trip over a beer can and sue! it was just a mater of days till some butt hole sued over this.....
  • sdipaola, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2 Not sure I get the harsh anti-suing comments here (is it just apple fanboyness?). This is a big (EFF-type) issue - do we want corporations to sell us hardware (the iPhone, or a car) where they can control how we use it even after purchase (iTunes or you can only drive this car on our toll roads or we brick your car or refrigerator or TV or...). This to me (and France for the matter) is a big issue beyond Apple for our future.
    As I read this argument from the article:
    1) "... 2006 exemption in the DMCA granted ... unlock their own phones"... 2) "carriers have implemented a practice of providing unlock codes ... 90 days into a contract ...". 3) "... AT&T has said that it won't be providing unlock codes. ..." 4) Ergo: "unfair, monopolistic behavior."
    Look I know many of you think Apple is great and all (and they are in many ways) but there is a very significant principle here, do you real want all companies to be allowed to treat us like this (manipulating the hardware they sell us with after purchase software limiters and manipulations where we have no right to use other software that we prefer for our hardware). Look beyond Apple and the iPhone to the big issue and in that case I hope more people sue and the EFF takes this on.
  • Jaitls, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The Terms of Service Contract agreed by any customer and drafted by AT&T is not that binding. If Apple or AT&T are limiting consumer rights by dictating how and WHERE we can use our phones then a court MIGHT provide us with a viable remedy. This being said we should send our complaints directly to the FCC (1-888-CALL-FCC). Federal law and FCC standards mandate phone companies to provide some sort of unlock code or procedure so that the purchased phones can be used on other networks. Don't let a piece of paper that you never even actually read tell you what you can and can't do with a piece of equipment YOU own!
  • Speed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Question: If it was a Zune Phone that was being bricked for unlocking, would you be reacting the same? Is your stance because you think the lawsuit is frivolous, or because it's a lawsuit against Apple?

    And for the record, there's no reason for the update to completely brick the phone. It's not hard to have a checksum or something to make sure that the firmware being upgraded is the right kind, and to just abort if it detects that it'd been modified in any way. That's the way most updates work, they run a check to make sure they won't eff up what they're upgrading. Why did Apple not do this?
    • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I would still say it's frivolous. I happen to love Apple products, but that has nothing to do with it.

      Apple has every right to protect their user agreement. They are making money off of the fact that the iPhone is only available on ATT and this sent out a pretty strong warning to the community that they want it kept that way.
    • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Sure it would still be frivolous. Any hacker knows that firmware modifications means that you are probably not going to be able to easily use manufacturer updates from then on. The Zune would greatly benefit from a more involved hacking scene.
  • dougerdo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Never reverse engineer a first gen device.
    • Sabin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Tell that to PSP users with launch units that are modded to do whatever they please. Of course no one sues Sony over PSPs that get bricked by failed attempts at modifying the Firmware in ways it was not meant to be.
      • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Well, no-one used to... I'm sure this will give people ideas.
  • tomthecat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1By the way, he would not be going through this problem if he simply just hit "CANCEL" on the update box in itunes. If you are using a "modded" phone why would you not just wait and see what the update does. Somebody once said "if its working just fine, why mess with it".
  • hansonc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I bought a phone that works exactly as advertised, I changed the firmware to an unsupported state to change the phone to work in an unadvertised/unsupported manner. Then I installed a firmware that I was explicitly told not to install if I changed my firmware. My phone stopped working in the unsupported/unadvertised manner.

    Where's my check.

    WTF is wrong with these people. They broke their own phones and this is Apple's fault?

    • Jaitls, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The only problem with your argument is that Apple had no right to BREAK my phone. I can do whatever i want with my phone, providing it does not hurt anyone else. But apple can only refuse to update my phone, refuse me service via AT&T, or sue me for what they think is a violation of their contract. They can not send me code through iTunes and intentionally fry my phone! If you still think that this is not apples fault, you don't know you rights as a consumer.
      • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5They didn't BREAK your phone. They made a firmware update available and YOU chose to install it, even after they warned you.

        You say "They can not send me code through iTunes and intentionally fry my phone!" It's not as if they only gave the code to people who hacked their phone, they gave it to everyone in the easiest manner possible (through iTunes). Should they make exceptions for people who violated a contract with them?
  • skeeterbug84, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0How exactly is Apple going to support a phone when you drop in your own software? They now have NO idea what exactly they are supporting anymore. Good luck with that one..
    • nightsweat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Did that work when Apple=IBM and you were railing against Compaq IBM compatibles?
      • Jaitls, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You really think that bricking phones that were unlocked was an unattended "side effect"? Apple wasn't trying to provide us with support when they fried these iphones.
  • skyz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4no i don't think that 'you get what you deserved' ~ i think you and i deserve better ~ we are the consumers ~ steve jobs fortune comes from us ~ products should be designed to please consumers ~ i bet if someone comes up with a cool phone with all the features HELLO GOOGLE that you can use on your preferred carrier can switch carriers and is global everyone will jump all over it ~ and the company's stock will soar into the stratosphere ~ i would buy both the phone and the stock ~ apple fans sometimes make me think of the stockholm syndrome
    • derrickgossman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You expect people to take your opinions seriously when you type like that? Use a period.
  • nightsweat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Apple should want to lose this suit. I won't buy an iPhone solely because of the AT&T lock. Yes, it is unlockable now, but Apple's shown a willingness to brick the thing. If they were forced to support unlocked phones by law, it shoudl insulate them from any contractual claims by AT&T and it will win them a lot of customers like me who just won't go with crappy coverage and no privacy firms like AT&T.
    • tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Apple will not make any revenue off the contracts of non-AT&T customers. The loss in revenue will be far greater than the profit on the iPhone itself.
      • nightsweat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Apple makes money off the hardware. Apple makes money off the purchase of iTunes with the phone. Apple makes money off the purchase of apps they sell for the phone. Apple will make a ton MORE money off this phone if it isn't crippled the way it is now.

        AT&T won't make any money off the phone. Tough.
        • tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Its been known for a while now that Apple shares in the revenue from the contracts.
  • InvaderK, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You guys! Instead of arguing about it here what you all need to be doing is unlocking your iPhones if you haven't already so we all can jump on the money wagon...


    **Sarcasm**
  • HanSolo69, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3whine wine whine bitch bitch bitch.
  • minoss, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I bet the comments here would be to a different tune if you replace Apple with Nokia.
    • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Why? Hacking a device means manufacturer firmware updates are risky, period.

      What you are seeing is backlash from a very large hacker culture who has owned and bricked a lot of devices over time trying to mess with them. They understand those are the risks. With the iPhone, too many people were trying to hack a phone with zero understanding of just what it was they were actually doing. Being pro-Apple has nothing to do with it.
  • skyz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2so apple is a religion jobs is a messiah and it really is a 'jesus phone' but it is not omnipresent it is only present through ATT and only in the northern hemisphere ~ i should get totally dissed for this ~ go for it ~
  • run12490, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0This case is going to revolutionary! It will open the way to see what the Supreme Court thinks about companies locking their phones to certain phone companies.

    And hey... there have been several dumber cases. You know how all coffee you buy from fast food places says hot on it now... yea, well that's because a woman sued McDonald's after getting burnt when she spilled it on herself.
  • AggieTales, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1http://tuiw.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/locked-and-le ...
    read and learn, Apple is perfectly within their rights to ignore this guy and void his warranty
  • digitallysick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1He won't win, but maybe this will help apple in providing a solution to unlock the iphone
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.