First, yes, a owner has a legal right to unlock the phone provided they intent to use it legally on another network. Selling/buying the unlocked phone is not protected. However, I do not believe that upgrading the firmware was REQUIRED to continue using the phone as a phone on another network. Therefore, if I was apple, I would defend by saying that they did not REQUIRE users to upgrade the firware to continue phone service. They only required the upgrade to those wanting to continue iPod service, which apple can control if they want to use apples service (iTunes).

As much as I hate apple, I don't think that this lawsuit will go to far.

well this is apple exercising monopolistic practices.

You are correct that they did not require it, but they also did not warn of this either. If they are going to do something that causes a problem like this, they should have warned customers. I think they will be forced to allow people to revert back to older firmware, maybe pay damages, who knows. I do think they will be found guilty of the accused charges.

Introducing it's first phone ever isn't necessarily monopolistic.

What if Apple's update wasn't intended to 'brick' the phones at all? What if, hypothetically speaking... they were updating THEIR software. In Apple's defense, they aren't obligated to support what they didn't do.

Do I think that having AT&T being the only provider and not letting people use the phone on any network? Yes. Do I think people should blame for 'bricking' their phones? Not necessarily. Like I said, I don't see how they are obligated to support software that is now not theirs.

This dude will never win. I can only see it going as far as Apple releasing an update that will restore the iPhone to it's original software and back on AT&T's network.

I don't think antitrust applies here. Antitrust implies anticompetitive practices which can only be implemented when there is COMPLETE control over an industry. Apple merely is offering one cell phone on one carrier, if people dont like it or the terms of use, then they shouldnt buy it.

I hope that Damian Fernandez's law practice goes out of business before the judge throws his case out of court so he cant represent any more frivolous suits.

if you don't like it, don't buy it.

I think it's the people who purchased the phone that are ticked after the update.

yes, they did warned the customers. couldn't anyone see it when apple issued 1st iphone update?

Isn't the iPhone eventually going to be available on the other networks? Plus it's a common practice to initially have a certain phone model only available on one network. The LG Chocolate comes to mind - only available on Verizon. People who unlock their phones are ignorant if they don't realize the risk that comes with doing so. Namely your phone probably won't work if a firmware update comes out, and if that's the case, you're going to have to use another phone until the hackers come out with a unlock revision that works with the update. You're modifying a piece of equipment from it's original state, so you shouldn't expect support from the manufacturer if it goes awry... let alone file a lawsuit!

Easy, don't buy one. Fixed.

While were at it, why doesn't this lawyer sue dell since we can not by a gateway at dell. This is crazy. If you modifiy almost any electrical device in any way it voids your warrant. Same here. I think it's ok for Apple to only use AT&T. It's their product and their business plan.

Don't other companies do this? Like when the RAZR first came out wasn't it exclusively on t-mobile? And where was the lawsuit then?

To a degree... lol
To lock someone into using a specific brand of service instead of service that you have previously built up loyalty with (much like AMD vs Intel). There again though, don't buy the phone. This will be a failed lawsuit, I believe (much like the AMD vs Intel antitrust lawsuit).

Paying Dell to not allow the competition in the door is anti-competitive and illegal. Additionally, it seems a large number of other countries have taken notice of the illegal activities of Intel and have decided to investigate.

Now in this car you MUST use petrol. I'm telling you up-front so there is no confusion.
You then buy this car and behind my back take it and convert it to run bio-diesel because it's cheaper. Fine.
I now offer a free DIY engine upgrade to ensure my car users get more mileage from your petrol engine. I warn people who have been messing about with their car, don't get this upgrade.
You carry on regardless and install this upgrade. Now your car won't work and you are suing me. What have you been taking?!!!

Ok, ALL other cell phone companies have firmware updates that don't screw around with unlocked phones. All my Sony Ericsson phones that I have owned were unlocked and updates didn't brick the phone. It is obvious that Apple intentionally bricked the phones that were unlock with their updates.

I don't like Apple but they're gonna win this one. It is though nice to see someone suing them over this. If you think about past Apple history you'll see lawsuits all over the place, but Apple making them. Do they learn by causing or by receiving lawsuits?

nobody would be defending them, whereas people here a defending apple when they have clearly used anti-trust practices.

Talk about double standards

and then it has to run on petrol (like phones run on their communications network). Not only does it need to run on petrol, it needs to run premium unleaded ONLY supplied by caltex. If caltex stations do not service your country, bad luck, wait till they work out another deal with a individual provider of fuel in your country. Caltex optimax is the same octane 98 as BP ultimate (min 98) and physically you can without problem fill up on ultimate.

however, if you do they will will notice when its in the garage getting serviced and they will instead destroy your ecu.

im also upfront about it

there are hundreds of cell phone models and carriers to choose from... the iphone isn't the only cell phone that exists... so it's not a monopoly... people should've known what they were getting into with the iphone since it's been pretty common knowledge... it's simple, just don't buy an iphone if you don't like the restrictions...

That is indeed the BEST advice.

We ALL know (or should know by now) that Jobs is even a bigger monopolist than Gates. Look at all the problems and accompained lawsuits Apple got from their own users.

In the case of Apple users where WARNED that the iPhone would only wotk with AT&T. If you don't want that THEN DON'T BUY AN IPHONE (yet). Also when this upgrade came out Apple warned that it could damaged iphones that had been tampered with. So it's easy. If you had a tampered Iphone and Itunes asked you to upgrade the iphone the just click "NO"!!!How much of a brain do you need to figure that out?

So it's simple indeed. If you suspect a company of devious behaviour then DON'T buy stuff from it! If you dissagree with the products a certaim company produces, don't buy these products. In the case o/t iPhone an unlocked version WILL arrive after the deal with AT&T is over (somewhere next year probably). THEN will non-us consumers also be able to buy one. But for now don't forget that AT&T probably paid some part o/t development or manufacturing costs on this iPhone. They obviously want some garanteed revenue back. Locking the iPhone to AT&T is in that respect the best deal.

Cheers

@ Mike ..

You analogy is way off the mark.

A better analogy would be:

Ok - now that you have modified your car to run on bio-diesel, if you go into any repair shop in the world, they have been ordered to destroy your engine. Although they don't NEED to; they could perform whatever repairs you need and let you continue to use your modified car. But, we are a vindictive little pretentious company.

Apple did say downloading the update may brick your iphone. right before you update you have to agree to the tearms and it said it right in there.
Apple has nothing to worry about.

Didnt Apple send out a press release release about a day or two before the update came out that said any updates they release could possibly brick an unlocked iPhone? Maybe it was the day of the update or something. Ether way, when you alter your phone like that what do you expect? I hacked my HTC Hermes and put WM6 on there, unlocked it, and updated the firmware and radio with unapproved versions. I think if my WM6 breaks I will sue just ATT though because they just made it too easy.

Apple has built their business model on exclusivity. Apple users should be used to this by now. You can't buy an Apple PC from any other maker. Same deal with the iPhone. Apple made it. You bought it. You use it the way Apple intended it. Sony doesn't care what carrier you use the phone on. Apple wants total control. Maybe, as was proposed on the site where the article originated, Apple is trying to get out of their contract with AT&T. They are beginning to see the folly of their decision to go with only one carrier. I'm sure someone at Apple said, "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time..." What maroons!

Except that in Apple's case, it's really like saying that the "upgrade" to your car isn't necessary, but if you don't take it your bio fuel car will cease to move. Sure, it will still run, the engine, wheels, transmission, and everything else will be fine, but you just can't drive the car anymore. Have fun idling it in the driveway and listening to the stereo, following the gps that never moves cause you can't go anywhere, etc...

Well why not sue Apple for not selling MP3's through the Itunes store when they know my Zune only plays MP3's and WMA's. Oh and Can we sue Microsoft because they didn't include AAC as a playback format when they know full well I would like to use the Itunes store. I will be glad when they start making the people who do these lawsuits pay when they lose.

sic: "Although they don't NEED to; they could perform whatever repairs you need and let you continue to use your modified car. But, we are a vindictive little pretentious company."

Apple has been around from the early eighties with these practises and you guys, just found this out now????

What planet have you ppl been on the last decade or two?

That takes into account the fact that it was the idiot who hacked their phone, and then installed the *optional* update (despite warnings from both Apple and the updater itself), that is to blame for bricking their phone.

Alright, well if Apple warned the consumers of the firmware update, then they have nothing to worry about. Thinking about it again though, even if they didn't I don't see them being liable. People were modifying the product and not using it for its intended purpose. They probably won't get anything from the whole I-Brick thing, they will have to go after Apple for restricting the service to AT&T.

In that case, the people knew they were restricted to AT&T before they purchased the phone. I don't see anyone being able to get a dime out of Apple for this. If anything, they might release some firmware to flash the phones back to original.

What are these people thinking??? First off, if you hate apple so much, don't buy their stuff, don't buy their iPods, don't buy their computers, and PLEASE, PLEASE Don't buy their phones!

I love apple, they make great products, with great customer service, they are within every right to lock their phone with AT&T, I personally use AT&T but don't have an iPhone, why? BECAUSE THEY COST SO MUCH!

If your going to pay $500 for something, use it the way it was intended, don't mess around with it (against manufactures instructions) and then whine when the manufacturer fixes that bug!

Thing is there are plenty of different electronic products that can be unlocked and if you ever upgrade to the companies firmware after unlocking, it wont brick.

The PSP for example. If you unlock it with custom firmware but then decide to upgrade to Sonys firmware it wont brick. Only if you mess up the upgrade procedure.

Simple fact is that Apple caused the bricking and could have just set it to relock the phone instead.

And Ben, not all Apple products are great. The iPhone is just hype. The first iPods sucked and still do compared to Creative Labs and even the Zune in quality. And yes you can now build a Apple PC since they use Intel CPUs. In fact you can take the $2500 for the base Mac Pro and build a even better one, install Max OSZ and bam. Your very own personalized Mac.

Personally Apple isn't that great. They just know how to advertise everything to seem great. If I get a MP3 player I want to not have to have iTunes installed to get MP3s loaded to it. Dam controlling freaks if you ask me.

Well we are all sure that apple tries to exert monopolistic policy on customers. Well we also do have some power here. I would rather buy my music from amazon.com or some other web site rather than from apple itunes. Let us all unites and make itunes a failure