http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/ Engadget Mobile Comments for http://www.engadgetmobile.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadgetmobile.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/
As for the bricked iPhones and whether Apple sufficiently warned users that unlocking or installing 3rd party software would damage the phone and/or voice their warranty is another matter. I don't follow iPhone news that close to know specific details, but a claim could be had with that issue and fair use and lack of warnings. ]]>Oct 8th 2007 5:05PMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/Oct 8th 2007 5:22PMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/
Screw around with your phone (and I use the word "phone" loosely in this case) if you wanna fanbois, but if you break it, well, that's your fault now, isn't it?]]>Oct 8th 2007 5:42PMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/Toyota still replaced the battery.

But they made him take out the switch.

http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=36277&hl=hybrid+battery]]>Oct 8th 2007 9:02PMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/Oct 8th 2007 5:45PMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/Oct 8th 2007 6:19PMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/
Seriously? I have no words. These are the reasons why Apple and other big companies create terms and conditions for people to read and agree too! No one FORCED this moron to 1)Buy and iPhone; 2)Agree to the T/C that stated he'd use it with AT&T; 3)Agree to the T/C that stated if he put non-Apple approved stuff on his phone, it could brick his phone; 4)Plug his phone into iTunes and continue with the update EVEN AFTER ITUNES WARNED HIM HIS PHONE MIGHT BE RENDERED USELESS.

This has to be one of the most obnoxious wastes of our legals systems. What. a. loser.]]>Oct 8th 2007 7:19PMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/Oct 8th 2007 8:31PMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/
Did you miss the part in the user agreement that said the phone was "subject to AT&T credit approval"? That means that when you buy and activate the iPhone, you agree to only use it with AT&T. Those are the terms you agreed to. You can't agree to those terms then turn around and try to activate it with whomever you want. You're in violation of the terms and conditions that Apple and AT&T agreed to. If you don't want the phone on AT&T, then don't buy an iPhone. But that's the agreement. If you don't like the terms a company presents you, turn around and walk away.

This is so clear, so black and white, it's ridiculous. ]]>Oct 8th 2007 9:33PMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/
All the ensuing arguments in either direction are tightly woven in an iron-clad contract that the end user signed upon purchase. Just because the phone is GSM capable, doesnt mean it HAS to work with any GSM network. If, for some STRANGE reason, this actually goes in this guys favor, you realize how many similar suits will pop up against every single phone company, as far as exclusivity to a network goes.

Sprint users (in theory) could sue LG for the lack of the exact "enV" model not available to their network even though the phone supports the type of network they are on (granted similar models are on their way for spring)- and verizon users could sue HTC/Audiovox/Starcomm for the lack of 6800 presence on their network, despite being available for EVERY other CDMA network in north america.

What it boils down to-- the guy has a brick. He's mad, And he's trying to find every loophole he can to get it fixed, despite statements specifically showing otherwise.

If he's trying the antitrust card-- what he fails to realize is apple's involvement with the iPhone and other carries. Apple offered this phone to carriers before launch, and many of them passed on it ( http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/29/verizon-passed-up-apple-iphone-deal/ )

This will be a short case... and many of the readers here know it]]>Oct 8th 2007 10:08PMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/and Im talking about YOU VERIZON AND AT&T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]]>Oct 9th 2007 2:48AMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/Oct 9th 2007 7:17AMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/
Everyone bitching about Apple seems to forget about those pesky terms and conditions that they signed to. You know, that little non-committal/optional part that said using the phone means you MUST use it on AT&T and that third party apps might brick your sh*t.

...we don't really HAVE to pay attention to contracts we sign, do we? What a drag.]]>Oct 9th 2007 8:08AMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/Oct 9th 2007 9:55AMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/
My problem is with the people who DIDN'T heed the warning Apple presented and are now expecting Apple to hand them the moon and the stars. Apple tried to warn them! Anyone with enough cellular phone know-how (enough to hack a phone/activate it with another carrier/etc.) should have known this would happen. I just don't have any sympathy for them. ]]>Oct 9th 2007 12:56PMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/
Anyways rofl at all the people that bricked their IPhone's trying to get it to do what true smartphones have done for the better part of the past decade. Knowing that they paid an extra $200 to be the first ones to brick it brings an even bigger smile to my face. Seeing their lawyers lose miserably in court is just the icing on the cake. ]]>Oct 9th 2007 4:19PMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/
Sure, you have every right to not like the closed nature of Apple's software. But when one agrees to T/C's and decides that they don't have to agree to them, I don't feel sorry for you. ]]>Oct 9th 2007 6:07PMhttp://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/10/08/apple-hit-with-class-action-antitrust-lawsuit-over-bricked-iphon/
"So you think the US marketplace will bear the full cost of mobile devices? Would you pay $550 for a Piece of Crap RAZR? No carrier is going to give you a free phone without the benefit of the lock."

What are you smoking? the locking does not affect the carriers true bottom line of the phone cost, after all locked or not I am stuck on 2 year (or other length) contract with the carrier and so they get their money, locking the phone just makes it more difficult for me to switch and keep my old phone. That is where I consider device locking (and crippling) unethical (and I believe should be illegal).]]>Oct 15th 2007 8:35PM