[PCWorld]

Post your comments for iPhone Lawsuit Seeks Over $1 Billion in Damages here

[fchiaravalli]

Perhaps Lucy Rivello should have selected another cell phone. She knew all along that the iPhone was connected directly to ONLY AT&T. I am tired of people filing frivolous lawsuits when they've known all along what the warranty said. Why don't these people select another cell phone that doesn't limit access to only one vendor?????? We would all like to have a choice of vendors and be able to add other software to the cell phone but we selected the iphone because of what we knew it was capable of doing. Perhaps apple will make changes in the future but for now, "GET A LIFE!!!!!"

[yearight3]

The ENTIRE world should've selected another cell phone, but once again the Apple Pavlovians stupidly followed the dangling carot. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU GET. A FOOL and their money are soon parted.

[dmpcworld]

This is a frivolous lawsuit.
You knew exactly what you were getting when you bought it.
Apple clearly states that it will only work with AT&T and that Apple software is the only software guaranteed to work on it.
Stop being ignorant and greedy.

[rgeiken]

If this lawsuit isn't thrown out of court by a Judge, they should impeach him or her. This has to be the most ridiculous suit I have seen recently. Apple spelled out all the terms and conditions of purchasing their phone, and no one has any reason to complain. 30 years ago a suit like that would have been laughed out of court, but not so sure today. Only a died in the wool democrat would like having a suit like this filed in court!!!!!!

[MildUser]

Sorry to say STUPID people do STUPID thing. If you dont like iPhone and AT & T, dont buy it and use it, STUPID. You might as well pass me the money and I can buy some nice clothes this Christmas season. STUPID!
What more can I say, STUPID!

[BBGerlach]

I think rgeiken the word you wanted to use is dyed in the wool. Died is the word saying what the republicans will do in the coming elections.

[rgeiken]

Dyed in the Wool or Died in the wool!!!!!! I think that most everybody got the meaning!!!! As far as the next elections, there is still about 12 months to go, and a whole lot can happen in that time!!!! No matter who gets in, it won't matter much to the "Average Joe" which is true of almost all elections. If you decide to vote Democratic, you better abandon this forum and go back to your "Crayons"!!!! By the way, what is your opinion on the question at hand, the i phone?

[rgreen4]

I agree. I do not own an iPhone, nor am I likely to anytime in the near future. Oh, yes it looks wonderfully functional, but I live in a more rural community, so there is not likely to be any wi-fi support anytime soon. I am however an AT&T customer and like my 3 year old phone. It was pointed out in another item about people in the NE who lived in areas not served by AT&T buying the phone in a neighboring state and using it on roam.

They admitted they knew that the contract signed at the time of the purchase precluded them using it for "extended" roaming and were at risk of having their service terminated, but they just had to have the phone. Yes, STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES.

If the standard contract in NE states the phone can only be used on AT&T networks, you can bet the ones in California do too. But then this is typical of California, sign the contract, ignore it, and then sue or cry on TV when it doesn't work out the way you want.

And anyone who had ever known anything about Apple, knows that only approved apps with work on Apple. It was true when the Apple II was released to the market, and it is true today - one of the reasons I don't have any Apple products, despite their hype.

This case should be thrown out, and the two parties originating the suit should be charged for the Court time wasted, but then there is a reason they filed it in San Francisco, a community not known for common sense. SF has a nickname on the truckers channel I won't repeat here, but LA's is "Shakytown"

[smax013]

rgreen4 said:

And anyone who had ever known anything about Apple, knows that only approved apps with work on Apple. It was true when the Apple II was released to the market, and it is true today - one of the reasons I don't have any Apple products, despite their hype.

Ummmm...not true if you where inferring that such a policy exists for Macs. There a LOTS of programs that run on Macs that are not "approved" by Apple. In fact, to my knowledge, Apple does NOT run a "certified for Mac OS X" program like Micro$oft has for Windoze.



Now, Apple has taken a much harder approach with the iPhone, which I frankly think is stupid...and is part of the reason why they are finally backing down and supposedly releasing a SDK kit for the iPhone soon. Thus, they will have an "officially" sanctioned way to use third party apps on the iPhone soon.



Now, as to the item at hand, at face value, many of these iPhone lawsuits seem stupid. As pointed out, many of these items where KNOWN issues that people could easily have known about prior to purchasing the iPhone. Thus, it would appear that such lawsuits should potentially be merit-less. I will note, however, that I personally don't know with precise detail all the details of the lawsuit...and as such, there maybe something of merit in them (and the news article is a little short on the details). The one definitely interesting part of the article was the claim in the lawsuit that Apple intentionally wrote the iPhone update to cripple iPhones that had been hacked/modified. If so, then they might have merit (I believe that there are provisions in the DCMA law that specifically allow such "unlocking" of cell phones and at least by implication might make it a "no-no" for a company to interfere with someone's ability to do such unlocking...i.e. iBricking someone's iPhone might not be permitted)...but it will be interesting to see if they can PROVE that claim.

[RastaMon]

I can't see the lawsuit getting very far, especially since (former) members of the iPhone Dev Team have publicly admitted that it was their flawed code, and not malicious intentions on the part of Apple, that caused the unlocked iPhones to be bricked.

I also have a hard time feeling sorry for the owners of the bricked phones, since they knew that unlocking their iPhone was an unsupported hack. Unsupported hacks are often broken by future updates to the hacked code. If losing use of their phones was too great a risk, they shouldn't have hacked them. Don't gamble if you can't afford to lose.

On the other hand, after reading the iPhone warranty a few times, I can find nothing in it that states the warranty is voided by installation of unauthorized software unless the hardware is damaged as result of that software. Firmware is not hardware. Just about every state in the US has legislation that effectively creates an implied warranty that if a company sells a product, the customer has a reasonable expectation that that product work as advertised. Warranties implied by law always trump manufacturers' warranty limitations and restrictions. Apple may not have a responsibility to make sure US customers can unlock their iPhones for other carriers, but they do have a legal responsibility to make sure that iPhones (without hardware damage) will work on an AT&T network.

From what I have read, while there was only minor functionality change with the update, the underlying code underwent significant change. I think Apple has planned all along to release an SDK for the iPhone, but they wanted to wait until they had worked some bugs out of the code first. This was the first version of Apple's first phone. I don't believe Jobs or Apple were so naive as to believe the code would be bug free. Remember Cheetah? I also believe Apple would be more than happy to let users use the iPhone on other networks, but breaking into the telecommunications market required them to partner with an existing telecom company. As that partner, it is AT&T who is standing in the way of using the iPhone with other carriers. I seriously doubt the monthly payments Apple receives from AT&T are worth more than the lost market share of people who would buy iPhones if they could use a carrier other than AT&T.

[RastaMon]

{quote}And anyone who had ever known anything about Apple, knows that only approved apps with [sic] work on Apple.{quote}

Talk about FUD! Anyone who knows anything about Apple knows that your statement is not true. Considering Automator, AppleScript, four different *nix shells, and Xcode Tools all ship with every new Mac (starting Friday a few more developer tools will be added to the package), I don't think one can claim with any kind of accuracy that Apple only allows approved apps to run on Apple products. If anything, Apple encourages third party application development.

[MildUser]

Your're right on target Mr Lawyer and Mr Technocrat. We should let lawyers defend some worthy causes rather than some STUPID commercial rights. Let business alone. The markets will know how to discipline them. Let the techno innovators alone. They have their pride and competitve spirit. Let the consumers alone. They are smart people with choices to spend their money. Let the government deal with the errant businesses should they flout the laws. Complain if you must if products made are not what they claimed to be. Use the right forum. Going to court and make headlines is not the answer. However, if one does have some other ulterior motives, do as one pleases. Sue until the companies concerned are bankrupted and enrich the lawyers along the way. Or one might be the victim of bankcruptcy oneself. It one's democratic choice, right? Cheers.

[rgreen4]

I will admit my Apple experience is at arms length (plus the ten foot pole, having never had occasion to use one). However, before Steve Jobs left the company, there were many complaints about just that. There was even an article in a micro-computer mag in the late 80's about the steps developers had to take to get their software approved for the Apple. The horse may have been let out of the barn when Scully was in charge.

I knew when I put that in that if it was wrong, our resident Apple Guru would call me on it, but damn now Smax has found support. :^0

[rgreen4]

I realize that the concept of a legally binding contract is a foreign concept to certain groups. But it was well advertised that it would only work on AT&T and it is most likely in the contract. This case is also outrageous because the worst damage the two plaintiffs could have incurred is a total of $1,200. They are asking for a million times that, and considering the fact that there have only been 1 million phones sold, they are asking 2 million times the cost of one phone in damages.

As Forest Gump said "Stupid is as Stupid does."

Almost as stupid as the notice I received today about the Seagate lawsuit. Which hinges on whether a Kilobyte is 1,000 bytes, or 1,024 bytes. Depends on whether you are using base 10 or 16. That difference has been known since before DOS and the IBM PC. But apparently when you advance that concept to a Gigabyte, you wind up 7 Megabytes short if its 1024 vs 1000.

[RastaMon]

{quote}Which hinges on whether a Kilobyte is 1,000 bytes, or 1,024 bytes. Depends on whether you are using base 10 or 16.{quote}

A Kilobyte (kB) is, by definition, 10^3 (aka 1000) bytes.

A Kibibyte (KiB) is, by definition, 2^10 (aka 1024) bytes.

See also: IEEE 1541

Surprisingly enough, it is the marketing departments that have this one correct. Programmers are are all too often using the term kilobyte incorrectly.

[SolarEagle]

Once I buy something I don't give a rats butt about what it was it's mine now and if I want to do something to it I will but to design software to break something I PAID for screw u 2 Just think if your car company said if you want this car this model is for home use only you can NOT lend it, sell it or repair it unless you kiss r ase and you must use our current brand of gas only! failure to do so will cause the car to lock up and we will charge you with breach of contract and fine you $10,000 plus recovery fees.

just about every freedom you have
some one fought for!
and the only way to keep them is to fight 4 them!

If IPOD wants to keep the phone asis then I should not have to pay 4 the f n thing!

[MildUser]

Yes, its all yours to do what you like! You can even burn it !! Please dont claim from the manufacturer, STUPID! Manufacturers got their rights, too. They can put whatever warranty conditions they feel like it (like your rights to do what you want after the products you buy!, fool). There's a limit, man. Dont cross the line. Once cross, your on your own. If you dont like the warranty conditions, dont buy. Simple decision rule. Buy a car from some one who allow you to modify their car with wings and let you fly like an bird, and if you crash, they allow you to claim compensation and pay for your funeral services, Ha, Ha. Go and see whether you can get such good bargain in town. I'll love buy that car, too. Thanks alot for the recommendation! Think about it friend. Please sue me if my advice is bad!

[Robinson]

Oh gosh, we trully need a reality check on the terms imposed to us as consumers by the OEM. Understand that we have some basic rights provided by law and some more provided by commond sence.

As of this date, legally as per federal law you are allowed to have your cellphone unlocked (this rule will be reviced soon).

Now, don't tell me that I loving a technology created under the laws of this country, because of a "higher interest" I will be limited to used it even if I correctly paid for it.

Stick arround for more.

[writemejamie]

fchiaravalli said something that completely contradicts himself:"....Perhaps apple will make changes in the future but for now, "GET A LIFE!!!!!" If apple, or any company for that matter, doesnt get any complaints or any decent fight back, why would they want to change what they are doing now? What these people are doing is fighting back saying, "Hey apple we don't like this...we want this changed.(Note that the company is dependent on the customer)" If nobody says anything about it, THINGS WILL NEVER BE CHANGED!! Anyway, I believe its at&t's fault. Its not apple doing this to the customer, its because they are in contract with att and they have to do pretty much what att wants. Of course att doesnt want customers using phones that would be used on other networks, because they lose business.