“Complaints over Apple’s use restrictions and recent software update for the iPhone have erupted in two lawsuits alleging Apple and its carrier partner, AT&T, engaged in illegal monopolistic behavior,” The Associated Press reports.
“Two separate lawsuits were filed Friday in San Jose — one in federal court and the other in state court and both seeking class-action status,” AP reports.
“The federal case accuses the companies of unfair business practices and violations of antitrust, telecommunications and warranty laws. The state case raises some of the same allegations,” AP reports.
“By not allowing consumers to modify their iPhones to work on other carrier networks, the two companies conspired from the beginning of their partnership to maintain a monopoly, the federal lawsuit alleges,” AP reports. “The companies are unlawfully restricting consumer choice by preventing users from ‘unlocking’ their iPhones, and Apple intentionally disabled unofficial third-party programs or rendered unlocked phones useless with its software update, the lawsuit alleges.”
Full article here.
You’d think that no other carrier ever had an exclusive on a mobile phone before or that a company would be so bold as to no support unsupported apps and hacks.
Don’t you need to have something like 90% market share to even be considered a monopoly in any market? Just curious.
In related news, Microsoft cleared of having a monopoly on operating systems with its 95% strangle hold on the computer industry. . .
Isn’t this a form of flattery? If the iPhone sucked or was even just ok, no one would be upset, because this has been standard practice for years.
Of course it’s hard to say what the Monopoly suits again MS are about then. Why don’t people just switch to Mac?
It’s like complaining that the Chevy dealership has a monopoly on Chevys and that this somehow prevents one from buying a Ford.
This just in: Microsoft operating system penetration upgraded to 98%. Still NOT a monopoly.
Another ridiculous lawsuit. If Apple were selling the world’s only cellphone, this might make some sense, but there are hundreds of other cellphones, many with more functionality than the iPhone.
What people are really whining about is that Apple has released the first cellphone with a great, simple to use, interface, and they want in on the action. Unfortunately, to get their foot in the game, Apple had to enter into a financial relationship with a carrier, and that contract’s perfectly legal, and certainly not unprecedented.
I remember quite clearly a few years back when I was wowed by Motorola’s RAZR, but couldn’t get it because it wasn’t available on my carrier. I had a simple choice, and chose to pass it up…end of discussion.
This is some lawyers’ extortion suit begging to be settled.
A monopoly is a situation in which one company has gained control of the market for a particular good or service. This is in direct conflict with the values of liberalism which emphasize competition among numerous producers.
Even more when it acts so to undermine competitors and shutting down alternatives in a variety of ways.
Hardly that can be applied to Apple and the iPhone.
It’s an iPhone Monopoly!!!!
Actually, it more like buying a Chevy and then saying you can only fill it with gas from only one gas company even though the car can use gas from any petroleum company.
It’s not at all like that.
How quick before the courts toss these nuts out on their butts? I’m sorry, but you CAN buy other smartphones..5 months on the market is hardly enough time to be a monopoly. Sure, I don’t like that there’s no choice for carrier (yet), and yeah, I’d like a more open platform, but let’s petition for a 3rd party SDK, not file frivolous suits…
This is an example of why some lawyers make good firewood.
ONLY THE GOV’T CAN CREATE A MONOPOLY. MEANING NO OTHERS ARE ALLOWED TO LEGALLY COMPETE FOR A GIVEN MARKET (ALA THE OLD MA BELL, OR THE USPS)
AS LONG AS PEOPLE HAVE A “CHOICE” AND “CHOICE” IS THE OPERATIVE WORD, THERE IS NO MONOPOLY – PERIOD.
GO A TO MERCEDES DEALER AND TRY TO BUY AN AUDI, THEN SUE BENZ BECAUSE YOU CAN GET AN AUDI THERE (SILLY) – CASE CLOSED – GO BUY A CHEAP P.O.S. PHONE !!!
And the iPhone market share is what again? 95% of the cellphone market? What? It’s not? Surely 80% then! No?
Wait a minute… you mean Apple is using the fact that it invented the iPhone to keep a monopoly on the iPhone!??! HORRORS!
Will someone please file a lawsuit against the lawyers in these cases for wasting everyone’s collective time and the court’s (and therefore the taxpayers’) money in processing this crap?
I mean, surely we could start a class action suit against all class action lawyers? Citing collective misuse and abuse of public resources, causing irreparable damage to the judicial system, public trust and confidence in the judiciary, and draining the taxpayers of countless millions of dollars propping up the individual gains of a few thousand petty law-thieves.
Surely this proposed suit is no less ridiculous than the recent suits against Apple.
Any lawyers out there feeling like tilting at windmills with me?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Magic word: Hell (how do it know!?)
@Dave L: I think you hit the nail on the head, as far as what many people are thinking. The iPhone *can* run third party apps, so why not?
But the more I explore this line of thinking, the more I see how this kind of situation exists throughout the consumer world. My label printer only wants labels from its manufacturer. The printer manufacturer wants you to buy only their ink. My cell phone carrier (and it’s not AT&T;) only wants me to buy their music, software, and accessories. My vehicle manufacturer tells me to buy only genuine company certified parts. My tap water filter device is made especially for filters created by the same company. Everyone is trying to make money on the little stuff that keeps the big stuff going (sometimes they are even willing to lose money on the big stuff).
I don’t like it. But it’s common practice.
iPhone Monopoly? That would be a fun game!
GOOD!!
Consumers want CHOICE!!
Unlocked iPhones FOR ALL!!!
@blucaso: “surely we could start a class action suit against all class action lawyers?”
Priceless. What a beautiful idea. If only….
The real cause of these ridiculous lawsuits is that our judges don’t laugh them out of court. That, and the fact that we don’t have a “loser pays” system.
P.S. Will the fake “Jake” give it a rest?
Basically this lawsuit says Apple & AT&T;are limiting choice and should be penalized.
Wake up people!… You can still buy another device and/or choose any carrier you want. Both Apple and AT&T;were very clear upfront and this lawsuit and others like it are ludicrous.
On a related note…
There is nothing illegal about a monopoly. Using anti-competitive tactics and/or breaking the law (Microsoft) to gain the monopoly IS. If a company has garnered a large market share due to innovative and highly-desired product… good for them!
AT&T;/ Apple
with a iPhone Monopoly… duh.
It is the wrong use of the word.
And the product has not been out long enough to claim this.
Too many people writing about whatever some editor want to publish.
I wonder if cingular (now at&t;) & Motorola went thru all this hassle when they were the only ones you could get a RAZR thru?? I mean I wanted one but did not get it until it finally came to my carrier (years later)… an unwise choice, and one I’ve since regretted. Sounds like the moto / at&t;deal is about the same one as the current apple / at&t;one. And I don’t recall hearing all the stink about it as the iPhone ordeal. Sad, sad, sad…
That’s it! I’m starting a class-action lawsuit against Steak n’ Shake. It’s the only place a person can get a delicious Turtle Caramel Nut Sippable(TM) Sundae milk shake and there simply isn’t one close to me.
Who’s with me?!
How about when I wanted a Treo 750p but I am with AT&T;and the treo is sold exclusively through Sprint? I guess that’s not the same at all.