Slashdot Log In
Apple Sued Over iPhone Bricking
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Oct 06, 2007 06:05 AM
from the better-than-the-price-change-suit dept.
from the better-than-the-price-change-suit dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The week's debate over the iPhone 1.1.1 has finally resulted in legal action. InfoWeek reports that on Friday, California resident Timothy Smith sued Apple in a class-action case in Santa Clara County Superior court. The suit was filed by Damian Fernandez, the lawyer who's been soliciting plaintiffs all week for a case against Apple. The suit doesn't ask for a specific dollar amount, but seeks an injunction against Apple, which prevents it from selling the iPhone with any software lock. It also asks that Apple be enjoined from denying warranty service to users of unlocked iPhone, and from requiring iPhone users to get their phone service through AT&T."
Related Stories
Firehose:Apple Sued Over iPhone Bricking by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Hardware: Open Source Hardware Gets Public Introduction 106 comments
JoeBorn writes "The Sunday New York Times has an article on Neuros video recorder and describes the benefits of open source hardware to its mainstream readership. Can a mainstream audience appreciate that hackability can translate into new features or will it all just seem too geeky? In this case, the Neuros OSD got a YouTube browser. While the details might be lost on the average reader, are they getting the sense that some companies allow users to benefit from other users modifications while others are actively bricking products for applying 3rd party apps? In other words, is openness starting to add value to the brands that support it?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
OfCOM (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:OfCOM (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.unlockiphone.info/2007/07/iphones-in-france-law-says-they-must-be.html [unlockiphone.info]
Will Apple be prepared to allow unlocked phones in these countries (presumably leading to a free European market in officially unlocked phones), or will they choose to lose sales and not sell where they can't enforce a lockdown and get the revenue that goes with it?
Re:OfCOM (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://mindthegeek.blogspot.com/2007/03/great-idea-from-belgium.html [blogspot.com]
http://www.ibert.be/2007/08/looks-like-iph [ibert.be]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OfCOM (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.thestreet.com/s/huge-iphone-fees-juice-apple/newsanalysis/techtelecom/10369581.html [thestreet.com]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/sep/17/mobilephones.apple [guardian.co.uk]
To make the same profit without a lock, Apple would have to raise the retail price significantly. Looks like a subsidy to me.
Re:OfCOM (Score:4, Informative)
What Apple want is for the customer to own the phone and not the service provider. Steve Jobs said many times he wishes to change the business models of mobile phone service providers where they provide the service, and the customer owns the device (iPhone). Now this is where it gets into a dodgy area in the UK. Contract phones are locked in the UK because the device is owned by the service provider until x amount of payments are made - payments that cover the subsidy costs. Because the service provider owns the device, they can do whatever they want to your phone; they can lock it to their network, block the phone, or even take it off you. The contract will state this, and if you want the device to be unlocked the contract will have to be terminated, you will have to pay all the payments for the term of the contract (to cover the subsidy). When the contract ends, the service provider will usually give the ownership of the phone to the customer, so if the customer wishes they could unlock their phone, a small and reasonable administrative charge may be made (£15 is what O2 charges). Now, the iPhone is not owned by service provider, with what OfCOM have stated (telephones must be unlocked on request and small admin fee may be charged), the iPhone should be allowed to be unlocked from day one of ownership. O2 are stating you will not be allowed to unlock the phone for 9 months and doing so will terminate the contract so the rest of the last 9 months contract will have to paid off, however the phone is not owned by O2 in any way, so what they are doing is going against what OfCOM have said. 'Yeah what contract, there was no contract when I bought the phone' will be in my head when it is launched. I have asked at three O2 stores and they have confirmed the iPhone will not be owned by O2 however their HQ is pushing for the iPhone to not be unlocked. One stored offered to unlock it, but do not know of any means to at the moment. I will stay with O2 but do not want that awful contract they offer for the iPhone, I get a better offer on PAYG. Notice the contract is "for the iPhone" and not "with the iPhone". The O2 stores believe a PAYG method will be available just like AT&T if you have a poor credit rating. I asked I could have the PAYG and they said yes if it is offered as they cannot say no because it would break discrimination laws. If PAYG is offered, they for sure cannot keep you locked in. You do pay full whack for the iPhone, they have a nice table that was printed that states how much each handset will cost on certain contracts, the iPhone was listed and it said, "£269. (none subsidised)".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, I think "unlocked" means "unlocked".
Re:OfCOM (Score:5, Informative)
I doubt its going to sell many units to the teenage "cool and hip" crowd because every teenager I know in the UK doesn't want to bring an expensive phone out on the town and I doubt your "power manager" type will end up with one because, from my albiet limited expearence with O2 stores. The staff are actually quite good at matching the phone to the individual, it may not necessarily be the most expensive phone they have on offer nor might it be the coolest looking but it will be roughly what the customer is after.
Re:OfCOM (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like the sales staff are active advocates for the needs of the customer, like they listen to what the customer needs and earn their salary by tailoring a package to meet those needs.
That isn't allowed in the U.S. No Sales Manager would allow such a salesperson out on their retail floor. Here 'sales' is about maximizing return to the retail establishment at whatever expense. The customer is treated like a consumable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Last time I went into an O2 store they had the cheap £20 pay-as-you-go phones, and they did
obligitory (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:OfCOM (Score:4, Insightful)
Stupid lawsuit again...? (Score:5, Insightful)
While i agree that Apple should be forced to sell unlocked phones, modifying a product in a non-approved way DOES invalidate your waranty. Why should the vendor be held reliable if YOU break his software?
Re:Stupid lawsuit again...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple did not release an iPhone SDK or API that could be programmed to. Why should they be held responsible for what happens when iPhone updates break iPhones with arbitrary software on them.
It would be like changing the linux kernel for some special project you are workin on and then complaining that your unapproved changes no longer worked when the next kernel release came along. That's why there are API and SDKs and manual pages. Go beyond them at your peril.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stupid lawsuit again...? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And how could we go about getting proof... hmmm... maybe... how about a lawsuit? Isn't that what they're
Bricking not intentional (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bricking not intentional (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, he article you've linked to doesn't say that many unlocked phones have come through unbricked. It says that jailbroken (modified to run third-party software) don't get bricked, but people who've unlocked their iPhone definitely shouldn't upgrade because they're likely to end up with a bricked phone that doesn't even work on AT&T anymore.
Also, the important security updates are to the main iPhone itself and don't require a baseband firmware update - I'm guessing that's aimed at closing whatever hole allowed the unlocking in the first place. If it bricks a few unlocked phones, well, what do Apple care?
Re:Stupid lawsuit again...? (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed, why?
Let's find out!
*flips out a cell phone and dials his lawyer*
Re:Stupid lawsuit again...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now I've seen nothing but insinuations that Apple did this myself. But some lawyer obviously thinks there is a bit more then insinuations. Whether or not he's hoping to confuse the courts or has a good case remains to be seen.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stupid lawsuit again...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Think OS X 10.0 versus 10.2 they work the same yet the code itself has been cleaned up.
Re:Stupid lawsuit again...? (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you know? The upgrade might have had that effect but it might not have been deliberate, but simply the result of trying to apply an update to software that was in an unknown state because it have been modified by the user.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think I remember seeing that magic word "could" thrown in there in Apple's release. That "could" relieve them from some/any liability in a lawsuit. Of course, my persona
Testing for the unknown (Score:5, Insightful)
That sure sounds like premeditation to me.
Nah, that sounds more like them taking into account that if you do some unsupported random modification, then there is no way for them to know what you did. And if they don't know what you did, how is the testing process going to know what to test for? Private APIs are always going to be changing, since they don't need to take into account third-party applications are using them and if they are they shouldn't be.
If you hack something then you should accept the risks associated with it. Yes I believe Apple should be making the iPhone more open, but until it is anything you do which is not officially supported is at your own risk.
BTW Haven't a number of people come up with solutions to unbrick the iPhone?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stupid lawsuit again...? (Score:5, Funny)
They have every right to try to lock out third party apps/mods. I could create a machine that sucks dicks. Don't come crying to me if it bites your dick off if you modify the firmware to try and let it toss your salad too. My warranty would state that the alshithead dick sucker is specifically for sucking dick and alshithead will not repair, replace, or sew dicks back on if modified in any way.
Re:Stupid lawsuit again...? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not talking physical materials or workmanship here, we're talking about people changing the software on their phones, and that is something which goes against the terms of Apple's warranty for the product. Your car analogy isn't a particularly good one, as Apple aren't saying they won't repair a phone which has physical faults or non-software related issues. Apple are in no way responsible for the software if it's been modified by the end-user. This is fairly standard stuff in software development/support terms.
Unlocking an iPhone isn't a simple process, and it's not something you'd do accidentally or casually without understanding what you were doing. Anyone unlocking their phone did so on purpose, and knew at the time they were invalidating their warranty. It's made very clear on every single website I've seen which details one of the approaches to doing this. If you got the instructions, then you knew the risks. Simple as. Anyone who's unlocked their iPhone is no longer entitled to support either, as they're not using their iPhone for the purpose for which it was intended.
Re:Stupid lawsuit again...? -xts (Score:5, Informative)
Watch them lose the case.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean when you have to buy numerous formats of a song because you are not allowed to pirate what you buy, to yourself for use on another device.... then of course At&T iphone lockin is acceptable.... If you want to use a different carrier you need to use a different format/device.
Anticompetitive practices is the only thing to argue here, but if you bring in a bunch of other non-issues then you can make the case lose.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Caveat Emptor (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, Apple has not attempted to deceive anyone on this issue, and they make it clear that service is with AT&T only. If you don't want to be locked-in with AT&T, then don't buy an iPhone. Period. If you still must absolutely have a class-action lawsuit, then do it against the Steve Jobs backdating accounting scandal.
DMCA Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it? I think the current situation is as follows:
Bloody idiots. (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, so I'm with everyone else hoping that before long the practice of locking phones to specific networks gets outlawed, but in this particular case, Apple haven't done anything wrong.
They are only responsible for providing updates which work with their software as supplied, and not software and iPhones which have been hacked specifically against Apple's advice, to get them working on other networks.
If your phone gets bricked by an Apple update after you've unlocked it, then it's entirely you fault. No-one else's. You did something that you knew full well at the time you shouldn't have done, and let's face it, it's not a simple process, so there can be no possible claim that you didn't know the consequences of your actions, and if you didn't understand this process and the implications, then you're even more of a fool for doing it. You've learned valuable lesson here - don't mess with things you don't understand. You immediately voided your warranty, again something you were fully aware that you'd be doing, and began using it in a way it was never intended or designed to be used, so you're not entitled to support. And now you've came out of it looking like a cock. With no phone. You bloody idiot.
Lockin won't fly in Europe (Score:5, Informative)
The GSM standard expressly provides for cross-vendor compatibility through simple SIM change, and unlocking of locked phones is entirely legal in most if not all European countries. In fact, it's a substantial business to provide unlocking services, and to sell ready-unlocked phones.
That doesn't mean that it's free (a cellphone service provider will charge you for unlocking, since it carries the risk for them that you might defect to a competitor if their service is bad). But it does mean that unlocking is supported.
If the accepted and legal position in the US is that providers are allowed to deny GSM service mobility by not offering unlocking and by bricking unlocked phones on purpose (allegedly), then those providers are about to face problems when they try to do the same thing in European jurisdictions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, I hope
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not an Apple fanboy. I don't own any Apple products, but I do know software and embedded development rather well (after 20+ years experience) and I also like to think I have sensible and objective opinions on matters like this. Something you
Different than everyone else? (Score:4, Informative)
Why is the iPhone any different than a computer? (Score:4, Insightful)
I really see no true difference between using your iPhone (with a carrier OF YOUR CHOICE) and hooking your landline (with a carrier OF YOUR CHOICE) through your computer's modem so you can use a software phone and answering machine. Also, how is it any different from using your laptop with a cellular card (with a carrier OF YOUR CHOICE) to get internet connectivity on the go?
To my layman eyes, the law in this area seems ad hoc and gives special attention to handheld cellular devices. Fortunately, it seems likely that unlocking is legal [slate.com]. I seriously hope this case will be the first of many to push regulation of companies that maliciously sabotage their customers after they bought the product to maximize profit.
I'm currently a very satisfied Mac user (I'm writing this post from a 3 year old PowerBook G4 17" that still runs like a spotted assed ape) but these sorts of moves sour me on AAPL. I'll give them a few chances to mess up and be forgiven, but as a computer savvy person who's primary love of Apple is for how they've beautifully wrapped what's under the hood, I can just as easily go right back to Linux where I came from. After all, that's what I use on the desktop and in the server rack already. Why is it, just when Microsoft seems to have shot itself in the foot with Vista and controlling what users do with their hardware, that Apple jumps right of the cliff with them?
Apple's gonna win, as they should, if they fight (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, if Apple was suing folks for unlocking the phone, that would have been something else (and certainly brings to the forefront debates on shrinkwrap, reverse engineering rights, etc.) but they have not. The proper response to this bricking is another hack, not a lawsuit.
Apple is also perfectly within their rights to not give warranty service to those that modded their phone. The Magnuson-Moss Act only provides protection to those whose aftermarket bits did not cause the phone to die. If these folks had not modded their phone, the update would not have killed it. The act was meant to protect those that say, bought ordinary aftermarket headphones... automatically denying warranty service for THAT would be a blatant violation of the Act. For folks that would avail themselves of the Act, even a liberal interpretation would mean they would have to prove that Apple's update deliberately disabled the phone. Given how many things that can go wrong with code updates, I would be surprised if Apple simply just did not test on an unlocked phone, and the process just happens to brick the thing. Apple probably bricked many legit phones during their testing process until they got the bugs worked out...
SirWired
iPhone in Europe (Score:4, Interesting)
New Twist on an Old Trick (Score:5, Funny)
Apple could have avoided this (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple obviously wanted to brick the phones. Just about every other upgrade i've ever run checks the bits it's upgrading to make sure it's good to go.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple probably wants this (Score:5, Interesting)
I Filed an FCC Complaint (Score:4, Interesting)
I got a call from the office of the president for AT&T. Unfortunately I was downstairs celebrating my daughters birthday so haven't been able to talk to them to see what happens, but I was pretty dang surprised.