Judge OKs iPhone Class Action Against Apple, AT&T

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A U.S. District Court judge has given the go ahead for a monopoly abuse lawsuit against AT&T and Apple to move forward as a class action suit. This is a different class action lawsuit that the hardware related suit we told you about last week.

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.
Click to expand...
 
How exactly is the iPhone a monopoly? And everyone knew it was tied to AT&T ahead of time...
 
Rizen said:
How exactly is the iPhone a monopoly? And everyone knew it was tied to AT&T ahead of time...
Click to expand...

One could use the same argument with Microsoft and Internet Explorer...

"How exactly is Internet Explorer a monopoly? And everyone knew it was tied to Windows ahead of time..." :D

Sorry, couldn't resist, but it's another pointless lawsuit that'll make the lawyers a fuckton of cash and anyone else associated with it a lot of heartburn.
 
I have had my iPhone 3gs since it came out and I have enjoyed it, only had to replace it one (free of charge) because of some memory issues or something like that. But my only complaint with it is how Apple is so locked down on what can and cannot be installed on the phone, like how they prevented the wireless syncing of the iphone that some dude made a while back ago. yes I know I can jailbreak my iPhone (and i did for a while) but I shouldn't have to in order to have open access to what ever app, program, or third party developed feature I want for it.

that just my 2 cents
 
Rizen said:
How exactly is the iPhone a monopoly? And everyone knew it was tied to AT&T ahead of time...
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the issue is customers were given the impression that the iPhone would be tied to AT&T for two years. They were not told that Apple and AT&T would continue the exclusivity for 5+ years. So, rather than having to keep your iPhone with AT&T for the span of your 2 year contract and then being given the option to take the iPhone device to another carrier, you are forced** to keep service with AT&T.

** assuming no jailbreaking, of course
 
This is ridiculous. If you don't like the product then don't buy it. Are they going to go after GM next for only offering Onstar on GM vehicles?
 
kdw1975 said:
This is ridiculous. If you don't like the product then don't buy it. Are they going to go after GM next for only offering Onstar on GM vehicles?
Click to expand...

That depends is Onstar going to force you to use not allow you to use your A/C at all if you don't subscribe to it?
 
kdw1975 said:
This is ridiculous. If you don't like the product then don't buy it. Are they going to go after GM next for only offering Onstar on GM vehicles?
Click to expand...

You just covered your own point: GM offers OnStar on their vehicles... it's not forced.

The problem with this lawsuit is if they actually rule on it it could affect vendor tie-ins not only in the cellular industry but in all industries.
 
I will agree that them locking down the phones does suck. HOWEVER, so what if it is tied to only AT&T. Sprint phones are made for the sprint network, verizon for the verizon....

Can you get the new EVO and use that on AT&T's network?
 
I hate the lack of choice. But would there be a lawsuit if Apple had their own network? Where iPhone was exclusive to iNetwork?
 
this is some interesting news. i didn't really see this coming because 90% of the people i know with iphones are complete idiots who just bought the phones cause 1) their parents are rich and/or 2) it looks cool (which it does, not gonna lie). i wonder how apple will defend themselves on this one? this might affect my job when i start working for an at&t retailer...crap. :[
 
Rizen said:
How exactly is the iPhone a monopoly? And everyone knew it was tied to AT&T ahead of time...
Click to expand...

nobody knew it was tied to AT&T for 5 years, when it was originally released. And even then, the only way anybody found out it was for 5 years, is due to some supposed paperwork that was turned in to the court in regards to another lawsuit.

Bahamut said:
One could use the same argument with Microsoft and Internet Explorer...

"How exactly is Internet Explorer a monopoly? And everyone knew it was tied to Windows ahead of time..." :D

Sorry, couldn't resist, but it's another pointless lawsuit that'll make the lawyers a fuckton of cash and anyone else associated with it a lot of heartburn.
Click to expand...

except you don't pay for Internet Explorer, along with purchasing Windows. IE is an application bundled with Windows. So there is quite a difference.

Exavior said:
I will agree that them locking down the phones does suck. HOWEVER, so what if it is tied to only AT&T. Sprint phones are made for the sprint network, verizon for the verizon....

Can you get the new EVO and use that on AT&T's network?
Click to expand...

iPhone does work on other networks; you may not get 3G from the other provider, but if you jailbreak the device it can be used on other networks. Problem is, AT&T (apparently) won't unlock the device for you so you can leave AT&T's network.

As for the following quote:

The actions hurt competition and drove up prices for consumers, the lawsuit claims.
Click to expand...

I whole-heartedly agree. If iPhone was not exclusive to AT&T, chances are AT&T would be offering some of these much much better Android devices than what they currently offer. They would probably be offering more than 2 low-end devices.

And before you say leave AT&T, what if they are the only provider that offers the best coverage? No sense in leaving to get a better device, only to get worse coverage and/or monthly prices.
 
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think the merit lies in the lack of disclosure of the 5 year Apple/ATT Agreement. They were selling 2 year contracts that were actually 5 year contracts, If you decided to keep your Iphone. The "exclusivity" of the Iphone may end up hurting Apple in this case, because someone made the point of the EVO being on sprint and Sprint only, However with Apple, its not just the hardware, its the software as well, Android covers a lot of networks on a lot of phones, so there is arguement for lack of monopoly in the fact that Android phone hardware maybe different, but a lot of them share a lot of similar functionality. It really all depends on how granular the Courts/Prosecution see the competitive market. Is the "Iphone" in itself a competive Market? I don't think so, But I guess we will see.

I'm no antitrust lawyer though, so this is purely my perspective. It will effect a lot of us on how this plays out though.
 
j-sta said:
except you don't pay for Internet Explorer, along with purchasing Windows. IE is an application bundled with Windows. So there is quite a difference.
Click to expand...

"It's called an analogy, and sometimes it gets a little thick... like most of the people around here..." :D
 
kdw1975 said:
This is ridiculous. If you don't like the product then don't buy it. Are they going to go after GM next for only offering Onstar on GM vehicles?
Click to expand...

I like the product, its a good phone. However i hate AT&T with a passion and will never give them 1 cent of my money (directly). Therefore, Its gonna be the Evo 4g for me
 
But the point is that no one is forced to buy ATT's service or Apples product. You can buy either one or neither. When Burger King signs a deal to be the exclusive seller of some collectible glasses do people get mad that McDonalds doesn't have them?

I don't see any monopoly here.
 
kdw1975 said:
But the point is that no one is forced to buy ATT's service or Apples product. You can buy either one or neither. When Burger King signs a deal to be the exclusive seller of some collectible glasses do people get mad that McDonalds doesn't have them?
Click to expand...

Probably lol. You would be amazed what people get mad about
 
Don't get me wrong - I think the cellphone market in America is absolute junk, and the vendor tie-ins that lock specific phones to specific networks are crap. But I don't think it should be illegal. It's their business and they can run it as they want. If you sign a contract, well, that is your own fault.

If they stated that the phones are locked for two years only then that is a valid complaint, however my understanding was always that the phones were exclusive to AT&T. (I have a 3GS).
 
Look at it this way, it's the $100 rebate that Apple purchasers would have got if they bought a dingleberry.
 
kdw1975 said:
This is ridiculous. If you don't like the product then don't buy it. Are they going to go after GM next for only offering Onstar on GM vehicles?
Click to expand...
If you don't like Windows, then don't buy it.
Funny how that works, eh?

I'd agree with that, though. This crap is stupid, but since this is the world we play in: Apple isn't above everyone else.


The problem with the iPhone as well is that Apple makes you use their $hit to develop on. How fast do you think lawsuits would roll in if Microsoft only let you develop for Windows 8 if you bought Visual Studio???? Monopoly, much?

j-sta said:
nobody knew it was tied to AT&T for 5 years, when it was originally released. And even then, the only way anybody found out it was for 5 years, is due to some supposed paperwork that was turned in to the court in regards to another lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Here's why this matters to Average Joe:

"I run along and buy an unlocked iPhone for $600. Great! I'm not tied to ATT, this is why I buy it unlocked! OK, now I know that ATT sucks, so now I'm going to leave ATT and go to TMobile. Oh, wait!!!! I can't!!!!!!! Now neither ATT nor Apple will unlock the phone for me to use elsewhere, so now I'm forced back to ATT"


Fact of the matter is that they are not disclosing that you can't use the phone elsewhere...

That's where the monopoly comes into play. I have no way of seeing how ATT/Apple could possibly win this one.
Yes, it was an innocent oversight, IMO. But they could have remedied it by allowing it to be unlocked if your contract is up (like they do on all other phones).
 
Rizen said:
Don't get me wrong - I think the cellphone market in America is absolute junk, and the vendor tie-ins that lock specific phones to specific networks are crap. But I don't think it should be illegal. It's their business and they can run it as they want. If you sign a contract, well, that is your own fault.
Click to expand...

But this even applies for OUT OF CONTRACT devices.

Your contract is only two years. ATT/Apple had a 5 year deal...
 
They could remedy this by simply disclosing it to people...
Downside to this is it could result in all phones being forever locked to particular carriers. That might not be a bad thing, except then the device becomes more of a "rented" device than one you own. If you buy a device: it's yours. If you can only use it on ATT forever, then they should give it to you for free since it'll only run off ATT's network forever.
I really don't see ATT willing to "rent" devices like that (Because if they didn't they'd be back in court explaining why a device someone purchased isn't theirs to do with what they want), either.

So who knows what the result of this will be.
 
This is interesting because I had thought Monopoly lawsuits are brought against companies by the government on behalf of the people. I guess we will have to study the wording of the complaint. I would say the complaint on the surface, is frivolous and completely without merit as there is no monopoly. The iPhone is merely a device in a class of devices of which there are many compeititors.
 
TexUs said:
But this even applies for OUT OF CONTRACT devices.

Your contract is only two years. ATT/Apple had a 5 year deal...
Click to expand...
Yes, but when I purchased the phone I knew the only carrier it would work on is AT&T. How would you (you used generally here) not know this? This would be like if I went to buy a HTC Evo 4G and then filed a lawsuit that says I can't use it with AT&T. It's a Sprint phone..
 
Rizen said:
Yes, but when I purchased the phone I knew the only carrier it would work on is AT&T. How would you (you used generally here) not know this? This would be like if I went to buy a HTC Evo 4G and then filed a lawsuit that says I can't use it with AT&T. It's a Sprint phone..
Click to expand...

except that you could use the device on any carrier that uses CDMA, EV-DO Rev. A, WiMAX frequencies. It's, of course, frequency-locked, but not carrier-locked (is it?)

With AT&T and the iPhone, it doesn't matter. The phone will always be locked to the carrier, not necessarily the frequency. So even if there's another carrier that uses the same frequencies as AT&T, you still can't use them because the device is carrier-locked.

There is a huge difference between hardware-limitations and carrier-enduced software-limitations
 
j-sta said:
except that you could use the device on any carrier that uses CDMA, EV-DO Rev. A, WiMAX frequencies. It's, of course, frequency-locked, but not carrier-locked (is it?)

With AT&T and the iPhone, it doesn't matter. The phone will always be locked to the carrier, not necessarily the frequency. So even if there's another carrier that uses the same frequencies as AT&T, you still can't use them because the device is carrier-locked.

There is a huge difference between hardware-limitations and carrier-enduced software-limitations
Click to expand...

Exactly.

It comes down to the fact that people bought a product that is artificially locked to one particular company.

How did you not know that, you could argue? Well, you and I would. Average Consumer has no idea though.
 
IMHO the are a few damning issues here:

1) While the period of vendor lock to AT&T may be disputable (I can certainly see how some people reasonably expected that to end with their contracts) the fact that, of all the phones that AT&T provides the IPhones are the Only ones that AT&T refuses to unlock at the end of the contract. What is even more problematic is that unlocking it yourself is most likely a DCMA violation.

2) Apple's entire App Store is extremely problematic. The fact that they allow or refuse to allow apps, in many cases with no apparent rhyme or reason (although attempting to sell an app that provides better functionality then apples own products is a clear no no, anticompetetive in the extreme I think). Add in preventing use of various development tools, remote app deleetion, firmware upgrades designed soley to prevent people from using Their Phones as they desire, etc... all strike me as pretty darn anti-competetive.

From a personal point of view ... I am totally in agreement with the idea that exclusive bundling should be outlawed, not just for phones but for all products; for example computers and Windows/OSX is an example.
 
kingsack said:
From a personal point of view ... I am totally in agreement with the idea that exclusive bundling should be outlawed, not just for phones but for all products; for example computers and Windows/OSX is an example.
Click to expand...

You can't run out to the store to buy OS X. And even if you did, the sys requirements tell you it's gotta be a Mac.

All ATT needs to do is either decide if they want to lock all phones (which again opens up more issues) or if this is declared illegal then it's simple: after two years are up or you buy out of contract, the phone should be able to become unlocked.
 
No I mean Exactly what I have said. You can indeed buy a copy of OSX at retail, for example here:

http://www.amazon.com/Mac-version-1...4916?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1278960214&sr=8-1

Having obtained this item you should be able to install and use it on any hardware you might desire. Apple may, quite reasonably, have no responsibility whatsoever to support such a use but I do have an axe to grind with taking active measures soley to prevent them. Microsoft has run afoul of this behavior in the past as well.

Disclaimer - I am neither an Apple Hater nor Fanboy. I have only one apple device, an IPod and am quite fond of it. Apple phones, tablets, desktops and laptobs all fail in the area of value for money IMHO but that is a personal choice. I simply hold a personal opinion that items I purchase should be usable in Any way I desire. This includes hardware, software or anything else for that matter, once purchased the items is Mine (including the BS psuedo liscensing that some business are trying to foist off). They can support me or not as they so desire via the terms and conditions thereof but actively preventing me from using it as I see fit should be illegal, at least in so far as they are not required to impose such limits by law.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
And, once again, that requirement is more then sufficient to relieve them of any responsibility for support and liability. That does not mean I agree that they should be allowed to take active measures to prevent me from using it for a different purpose :D
 
Rizen said:
Don't get me wrong - I think the cellphone market in America is absolute junk, and the vendor tie-ins that lock specific phones to specific networks are crap. But I don't think it should be illegal. It's their business and they can run it as they want. If you sign a contract, well, that is your own fault.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here and am thus torn. The following piss me off to no end:
  • Most handsets have carrier specific software that limits features and you ahve to pay monthle fees to unlock them (Like AT&T's voice dialing)
  • The fact that handset costs are built into the service fee, but if I buy my own handset without a discount, I still pay the same monthly fees.
  • The fact that handsets are locked to specific networks.

I have no problem with two year contracts, but my contracts should be for fungible voice and data only, allowing me to pick the hardware (performing with all the features the manufacturer of that hardware intended) freely, and run whatever software I choose on said hardware.

The current situation is sortof like if broadband sellers charged $200 / month but gave you a free computer every year. You could only run the software and access the websites that the broadband ISP approved of, and if you want to use the DVD drive thats already in the computer, you have to pay an additioinal $20 per month. Buying (or building) your own computer would be highly discouraged and you'd still have to pay the astronomically high broadband fees, justified by the fact that they are covering the cost of a computer that you are not taking advantage of.

I think we can all disagree that the lack of freedom above would drive us batty! But why do we accept this in cellphones?

That being said, I am a true beleiever in the free market, and feel that private people and companies should have the freedom to run their businesses as they please (within reason).

One might be able to argue that the current situation is caused by lack of competition, but I don't think that is the case. In most U.S. markets there are at least 3-4 major cellphone carriers.

I chuck it up to the fact that the average american consumer doesn't care. They are ignorant and non-technical and don't know what they are missing. Fat and apathetic. And thus the freedoms I would like to see in the cellphone market don't offer a sufficient competitive edge for a competitior to come in and take over the market with.

In Italy - for instnace - the two year contract and discounted handset is virtually unheard of, cause consumers would never accept it. It's sad that a country which can't even manufacture a reliable car or keep a stable government for more than a couple of years at a time has so much more educated and demanding consumers than we do. :rolleyes:
 
Zarathustra[H];1035935745 said:
The current situation is sortof like if broadband sellers charged $200 / month but gave you a free computer every year. You could only run the software and access the websites that the broadband ISP approved of, and if you want to use the DVD drive thats already in the computer, you have to pay an additioinal $20 per month. Buying (or building) your own computer would be highly discouraged and you'd still have to pay the astronomically high broadband fees, justified by the fact that they are covering the cost of a computer that you are not taking advantage of.
Click to expand...

Oh wait... This might actually happen if we can't save net neutrality...
 
kingsack said:
And, once again, that requirement is more then sufficient to relieve them of any responsibility for support and liability. That does not mean I agree that they should be allowed to take active measures to prevent me from using it for a different purpose :D
Click to expand...
Their software... Live with it. That's my stance on it. I really don't care what the hell they do as long as they tell you ahead of time.

Zarathustra[H];1035935745 said:
I agree with you here and am thus torn. The following piss me off to no end:
  • Most handsets have carrier specific software that limits features and you ahve to pay monthle fees to unlock them (Like AT&T's voice dialing)
  • The fact that handset costs are built into the service fee, but if I buy my own handset without a discount, I still pay the same monthly fees.
  • The fact that handsets are locked to specific networks.
Click to expand...
1) On an Android-like platform... Not an issue as you can install what you want.
2) PITA, but actually on TMobile, you can pay about $20 less per month without a contract. AFAIK they're the only one that does this. I love they do that.
3) That has never really been an issue... It sucks that they do it but you have always been able to request them to unlock it before.

Zarathustra[H];1035935745 said:
I have no problem with two year contracts, but my contracts should be for fungible voice and data only, allowing me to pick the hardware (performing with all the features the manufacturer of that hardware intended) freely, and run whatever software I choose on said hardware.
Click to expand...
Except since you haven't "paid back" the cost of the phone yet, it's understandable... Kindof a gray area IMO, but I do agree you'd have a point without a contract.

Zarathustra[H];1035935745 said:
I chuck it up to the fact that the average american consumer doesn't care.
Click to expand...
BINGO.

Most people have never compared carriers for costs.

Most people have no idea text messaging they happily pay $20 for doesn't even cost $0.25.

So, the carriers have exploited that. What has SHOCKED me is the fact that no carrier has decided to offer free texting... They'd get an influx of users immediately. They must figure they'd lose more money a month on texting plans (that people happily pay) than gain revenue by users switching over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top