“Well, get ready to hear about it a lot more in the months to come, as the judge in the case has officially certified the case as a class action, meaning it now officially includes anyone who’s ever bought an iPhone on AT&T,” Patel reports.
Patel reports, “If you’ll recall, the argument is that iPhone customers signed up for a two-year contract without being told that AT&T had an exclusive for five years — thus in reality being held to the carrier for an additional three years without recourse…”
Read more in the full article here.
Hg Wells: . . . those days of yesteryear when MDN used to be about Macs?
Yes, and making fun of Enderle and Ballmer.
The real issue, not really emphasized at Engadget, is that ATT will not unlock your phone after your contract is up, so that you cannot use your phone on T-Mobile in the USA or elsewhere in the world. Presumably the class action case is charging that not unlocking your phone is part of the five year deal with Apple.
One has to assume that this is something ATT wanted and Apple agreed to in order to get a carrier. If so, this is a suit aimed at ATT and not Apple. Or it could be that Apple still gets money from ATT after your contract is up, and Apple would not get money from other carriers here or in the rest of the world.
@Jeff the Trader… What carrier do you want to use your phone on??? Even if you unlock the phone you are limited to carriers you could possible go to… I believe T mobile would be your only option (maybe)… As far as exclusive phones go I believe all carriers have them but again they will only work unlocked on a network that the phone is compatible with… I second point here that we seem to forget is that with technology refreshes how many people keep a phone for more then 2 years? The iPhone may be the exception because of its uniqueness but… So bottom line even if you bought an iPhone without activation where are you going to use it???
@Jeff the Trader
I hope you win the “rights” to unlock that iPhone and take it to one of the others. Good luck getting it to work!
Ampar
Don’t forget our “rights” to make fun of Thurott!
“Don’t forget our “rights” to make fun of Thurott!”
It’s a-Paul-ing!
Ubermac writes, “Tort reform will never happen. DC is infested with that lawyer vermin, you will never flush it out.” Arriving for a dinner my first year in DC, the host pulled me aside and warned me that she and I would be the only non-lawyers at that little gathering.
But it’s more than the number of lawyers present. It’s money from lawyers, especially personal injury lawyers, that floods (mostly to Democrats) into campaign coffers. Maybe more than they get from the financial industry.
I’m thrilled about this. If it takes a lawsuit to turn this ship around, then so be it. The iPhone SHOULD be on multiple carriers (VZW please!!!)… I’m purposely not getting the new iPhone 4 until it’s on Verizon’s network… and hopefully at that time, in support of LTE.
While this may not be THE most stupid lawsuit ever, it certainly ranks up there.
Exclusive partnering has been part of the U.S. system of doing business for about as long as the U.S. has been in existence. There is absolutely nothing illegal about it.
There are many phones that are exclusive to certain carriers. It is just that the iPhone is one of the most popular. People who don’t want AT&T;and still want the iPhone are just whining babies about this. Their only thought is to sue and the money grubbing lawyers are the ones egging them on.
This judge should never have let this lawsuit go forward. It should NEVER have gained class action status. The judge should have sanctioned the lawyers for ever filing this suit in the first place!
Think of the Comcast class action case that just settled: each person who actually signs up and admits to using P2P software for downloads (and thus invites a lawsuit from the RIAA and MPAA for tens of thousands of dollars) gets $16 (yes, $16) and the lawyers get $3 million (yes, $3 million). Thus, because of the RIAA/MPAA risk, few will file for their $16. The lawyers still get $3 million. Who wins here but the damn lawyers.
This is why I believe the old adage: 99.9% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
@Shadowself
Do you mean how I can’t buy a Cadillac at a Ford dealership? Can I get my Ford fixed at a Cadillac dealership?
Great- now we’ve got racism going on here!…
The public perception, as discussed in the latest Tech Owl report, is beginning to turn to that “iPhone 4 has too many problems.” AT & T exclusivity and class action suits are part of the equation. The antenna issue is way overblown, as even Consumer Reports has stated- normally not exactly Apple advocates.
Apple survived all these years because of its devoted following. It is now being attacked by both foes and fans who happen to be whiners. They have their work cut out for them. Me, I have no problem buying a case if necessary, and I trust Steve Jobs and Co. over the long haul.
I think one factor is that there was no way to buy an unlocked phone. In my view, locked phones are more of a consumer issue than ATT contract.
@ Silverhawk
No, this is like there are only certain dealerships and shops that are authorized by Ford or Cadillac to do warrantee work on your car. If you have a 10 year powertrain warrantee and 9.5 years after you buy it, if you want that powertrain repaired you must go to a place that Ford or Cadillac says you must.
When a person bought their iPhone there was NO, I repeat — NO, promise by Apple or AT&T;that you could ever use it on anything other than AT&T;’s network in the U.S. The exclusive deal was announce to the entire world. When people bought those phones they were told the only carrier was and is AT&T;. Neither Apple nor AT&T;has said anything differently.
The exclusive deal has always been rumored (no formal statement from Apple or AT&T;no matter what people are saying) that the deal was a five year deal. That would put it through late June 2012. Anyone who bought an iPhone before now is foolish to assume they could go to any non AT&T;system before then.
If Apple & AT&T;extend their exclusive deal it might go beyond 2012. Unless either Apple or AT&T;makes a statement to the contrary, people should not assume the exclusive deal is going away any time in the foreseeable future.
The MDN site hasn’t gone downhill, Apple is selling so many macs that even racists like peter panic who lives in Forrest County Arkansas can now afford to own one.
…”1. The original iPhone was not subsidized. The user owned it from day 1. It should have been unlocked after the initial contract, every other cell phone can be. – down Apple”
That is completely wrong. Original iPhone was as subsidised as all subsequent ones. Its subsidised price was $400 (around $800 was the unsubsidised price Apple charged AT&T).
As for unlocking the phones after the initial contract, there is no justification for AT&T (nor Apple) prohibit unlocking of iPhones. All GSM carriers in US (that’s T-Mobile and AT&T) provide instructions for unlocking of phones upon request. The only exception is iPhone, and there really is no reason for that. If the class action suit were about that, it would possibly make sense. However, it isn’t, so it doesn’t (make sense).
I hope they use the Chewbacca defence and have this case thrown out.
“Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense!”
Since I don’t want to be part of this lawsuit who can I sue for including me without my permission?
Sue the guy who made the racist comment earlier.
“Since I don’t want to be part of this lawsuit who can I sue for including me without my permission?”
Why would you sue when anyone can easily opt out of a class action suit?
That makes no sense.
As an owner of 4 generations of iPhones, I would like my name taken off of this bogus lawsuit. I’m adult with the ability to choose to not buy an iPhone if I’m unhappy with the carrier. I’m also a shareholder who realizes that Apple is only being targeted because of their success.
Ok, wait… I don’t get it. What’s the difference between this and me buying a Verizon phone but not being to move that Verizon phone to AT&T;or T-Mobile because they aren’t compatible? With that logic shouldn’t all Cellphone carriers be sued?
I’m with Michael Perry.
I had an LG Chocolate from Verizon that I loved (until it crapped out 6 months after I got it so I got another one and it crapped out 6 months after I got IT and since the warranty period was only a year, I was left with one more year on my Verizon contract but no phone) but wanted to take to AT&T;.
IF my LG Chocolate hadn’t been such a big pile of steaming crapgoodness, I would have loved to have switched it over to AT&T;to get away from Verizon’s bad customer service.
Since I couldn’t, I stopped using Verizon since I had no CDMA phone and ended up buying a BB Curve with AT&T;.
Where is the CA lawsuit against Verizon for this?
-Beeb
By the way, anti-semitism, at least as it is usually practiced, is not technically racist.
Quiz: Name which ONE of the following three groups is not part of the Caucasian race:
Hispanics
Ashkenazi Jews
African Americans.
Thanks and goodnight.
LOL US legal system is RETARDED!
The agreement between Aplle and AT&T;is, or was, corporate secrets. This judge is stupid.
Fraking Lawyers and Democrats! Can’t live with them and….uh, er…
If you keep on working on your smashing data just about this good topic, would you please give some facts just about buy essay paper, because I will to buy essays written in the custom essays service.