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.

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!!!!!!

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.

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"

---

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.

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.

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.

---