They should not have bought the phone if they wanted to use it on other carriers. I believe that it was disclosed that the phone only works with AT&T in the first place.

Hmm, there goes your entire case, bud... newsflash: users aren't required to download firmware updates.

Monopolies sucks, and are illegal in the US, I don't understand how cell phones can be made exclusive to some markets, and not others. I hope Apple loses and shuts up about it. Then again, I don't support Apple, but I love to see them burn in any way possible.

Hi, I'm a Linux PC, not a Window PC, and we pwn your Apple A$$es

$1.2 billion in damages! What damages?!?

Holman and Rivello are idiots. Everyone knew from the get go you weren't allowed any other carrier except for AT&T, so they should have just done what normal people do...hold out till that changes. Its not the first time that something like this has happened. Give it some time and Apple would eventually cave in and make deals with the other carriers. Not only that, but the price of the phone would have come down too. Hmmmmm, sounds a bit familiar, didn't they lower the price of the 8gb iPhone not to long ago? People like them are stupid idiots and are the ones that do this lawsuit crap for their own personal gain.

I don't own a iPhone, i have a LG8300. I never intend to own an iPhone due to the cost of the phone and AT&T being the carrier. I don't own a single apple item, not even an iPod But this stuff about how Apple is evil and hurting the consumers rights because they are tied to AT&T is just plain stupid.

They designed the hardware and software of this device. They sold it with a user agreement. They should NEVER even consider writing any updates for the iPhone that don't strickly follow thier own design reference for compatablility. They shouldn't do one single thing to try to make thier updates work with any hacks.

You don't see people up in arms and filing class action suits over Dish Network doing updates to prevent users from hacking thier services or screaming they should be able to use thier equipment with another provider.

You don't see suits over the Xbox 360 being tied to xbox live and not being able to connect to the Playstation 3 network and play thier games. Or people suing over being banned from Xbox Live for hacking thier Xbox.

People will say "thats not the same thing!" but really it is. You buy a product to do what its advertised to do. If its not advertised then you are in no way entitled to it. To the contrary, if you try to do something the device was not designed for then you are entitled to nothing....no money from a lawsuit...no tech support ....no warrenty.....zip.

Didn't everyone who bought an iPhone have to agree to a contract with AT&T? wouldn't that contract have something in it to state that not using the phone for originally designed purposes (hacking it) would either void any warranty or not be supported. That would mean to me that if any updates bricked the phone because I hacked it, it would be my fault for hacking the phone. If the update works correctly on an unaltered phone, then I say it's the consumer's fault for hacking the phone.

I would figure most hackers would count on any hacks not lasting forever or survive some updates. That would just be an invitation to try to hack the phone again, not sue because of an update that bricked a hacked phone.

Come on, these lawyers are getting rediculous. People need to start sewing lawyers for just being lawyers.

There are several forums were people are discussing this case, and it looks like 99% of the comments are in favor of Apple. Too bad these misguided readers are in the wrong.

I do believe that a part of the hated DMCA states that cell phones cannot be locked to work with only a specific carrier; the end-user has the right to unlock the phone to work on any network. Naturally, the wireless companies make a shitload of cash with all of the unlocking fees, but that's the price that some people are willing to pay.

The bottom line is that Apple and Stevie Jack-off are so full of themselves and use worse business practices than Billy Boy Gates. The whole way Apple ties and locks everything together is why their PC market share is so tiny and why you don't see the gaming options available to PC users.

And speaking of users, talk about your sorry-state of humanity there. Trash talk Apple and watch them descend on you like vultures on a rotting carcass. Apple, to them, can do no wrong, and it is absolute heresey to claim otherwise.

And isn't it funny how Apple still can't seem to figure out how to make non-exploding batteries and electrical connectors?

Now, I hate trial lawyers too, but I hope these people succeed but are forced to turn their winnings over to some worthwhile cause instead of in their pockets.

Finally, a lot of people in these other forums are trying to say that because they can't fit an oil filter for a Ford onto a M-B, then they ought to be sued for that. Wrong again.

Prior to the 60s or 70s, car manufactures were routinely voiding warranties if the car owner used a third-party replacement part instead of OEM. Congress stepped-in and said that they couldn't do that and made it illegal to void warranties on those grounds.

Moreover, the invalidity of those reader's flimsy arguements is further demonstrated in that even in Ford's truck line-up, there might be several different types of oil filters; a filter for a 1999 F-150 may not work with the 2000 model year version. Regardless, if the owner needs to replace the filter, he or she can use a geniune Ford part or go to Wal*Mart. Ford didn't stop them or try to lock them in. And as a side note, I don't hear those morons calling for AMD to sue Intel because Intel's motherboards won't work with AMD CPU's and vice versa.

Apple, on the otherhand, is deliberately locking users to one network and is actively working on means to block further unlocking. This is against the DMCA, as noted earlier.

Did I read that Apple sold like a million of those iPhones or something like that? That reminds me of a quote a computer science professor gave to his classes:

"If a million people believe in a dumb idea [or product- ED], it's still a dumb idea."

How is it illegal for a company to offer a product that only works with a certain service? It's not like the iPhone is the only phone out there, don't like the ToS? Then don't buy their phone or use AT&T. Man some people are stupid...

Lets all go sue companies for billions of dollars and see how many innovative people we can put out of business for no other reason that the fact that we didn't like the product we bought.

Next we should all go to the middle east and sue the dictators there for violating human rights! It's bound to work; after they see how ruthlessly we teat our own, they will resign in fear.

First, Apple was stupid for doing this. It's just going to be a rediculously huge headache business wise. However I do understand that they might get it from both ends though. They are probably contractually obligated by AT&T to do this sort of thing since they signed on to be the only carrier supporting the iPhone. It still escapes me why in the WORLD Apple would do this. On the other hand they are alienating a large group of people that just wanted their product and that will undoubtedly hurt them in the end.

My next point is, please explain to me why these two morons that filed this lawsuit should receive over a BILLION dollars because of this! Apple by NO MEANS has to support their product when it is being used in a fashion other than it's intended use. Yes it is VERY lame of them to do what they've done, but in the end I sincerely hope this lawsuit, like many of the other rediculous lawsuits regarding this product, is thrown out.

Apple probably should have forgon the huge amount of money they no doubt received from AT&T for having an exclusive contract in exchange for longer term gains and better press. This decision is just gonna end up biting them bad.

People are so stupid, if you dont want AT&T then dont buy the phone its that simple. People now think that everyone and everything should bow to them. "I want an Iphone on Tmobile so im gonna switch and then sue because i cant" waaaaaahhhhh

The Ipod's suck.. the Iphone's suck... Apple sucks... what else is new?

I will love to have a iphone with 3rd party apps and connected to any network I want, but if the maker tells me that I will void warranty if I unlock it or if I install 3rd party apps. They, why will I sue them? I really don't think this is going to work. Does any body sued Sky network for voiding pirated cards?

What is with people today! I am not a fan of Apple but this is crap. To sue because you cant use it with another service provider? Dont buy the phone in the first place; ITS JUST A PHONE!!! Apple has every right to sell their phone through a certain service provider, like the phone I have, the Samsung A950, its a Verizon only phone, but did I sue Samsung because I couldnt use it with another provider, no. If I was given the choice I would throw the case out of court, and fine the plantiffs for wasting everyones time (and in some cases money)!

And another thing, if you know ahead of time that the iPhone will only work with AT&T, why buy the phone in the first place? So you can sue later because you cant use another provider?

1.2 billion huh. I think Apple deserves it as unlocking the phone does no damage to it. Plenty of phones from other carriers are unlocked all the time and they are fine. This is just AT&T wanting to be the only one and Apple screwing the consumer over.

Only reason unlocking would damage the phone is due to the updates that Apple provide which cause the damage. They are doing it deliberately.

Personally Apple should have though about it when going with one carrier and the problems they would face.

To malicously damage an altered phone, only Apple would waste there time and money on something like this. I hope the judge uses this case to set a presidence to ban all phones like this.

this is the MOST asinine thing ever concieved. These idiots are clogging the system with useless lawsuits. Trial lawyers should be banned. These guys KNEW that the iphone was only available on att, and yet they bought one, voided their own warranty, then sue apple because apple didn't account for how their phone was hacked during a firmware update? Aside from that, there are hundreds. . HUNDREDS of phones out there that are only availble through one carrier - no one is suing them!! BAH!! Don't like att? ... DON'T BUY AN IPHONE!!! How much simpler can it get? Anyone who thinks apple intentionally 'bricked' their phone needs professional help for a paranoia complex. Apple has the right to maintain and update their software without regard to anyone's third-party-warranty-voiding-software hacks. Besides. . these idiots signed a contract when they bought the phone, don't they understand what a contract is? Obviously not! The best possible outcome would be for them to lose the suit and have to pay all of the legal costs.

You know, if they had bothered to read the license agreement they have agreed to, to activate the phone they would have saved allot on lawyer bills. It seems pretty straight forward to me. If I buy a Mustang then change the exhaust and flash the computer and add a new air intake, can I sue Ford for voiding my warranty if the car no longer runs?

Next they'll sue the weatherman on TV for being wrong LMAO!

I think this case will come down to "did Apple intentionally design the patch is such a way as to ruin a device someone purchased from them and is using it in a situation that is generally covered under fair use"

They can't win the lawsuit if it is based on the fact that Apple does not support switching networks or 3rd party apps, but I think there is plenty of ground for a lawsuit if Apple was going out of their way to ruin a product consumers bought from them.

The monatary value is a bit off, but it is clearly just a "teach them a lesson" value and not an actual damages value. It is likely high too as to accomodate more people joining in on the class action lawsuit. As a class action lawsuit I don't think the monatary value is every given just to the people involved.

It is probably also a high value to try to force the whole issue of phone locking up the courts to get a high court ruling. If the value was something reasonable like 500k/1Mil then it would likely be settled simply to keep the it from being forced to the higher courts.

Apple can have hacking remove the warranty, but once it is purchased a user should be able to do anything they want with the device. If it doesn't work after being hacked thats one thing, if Apple goes out of their way to destroy hacked phones then thats different. If they just made it so the hacked phone wouldn't work with their service then that would be ok too most likely.

Isn't it illegal to destroy or tamper with someone elses property?
Apple doesn't own the phones they sold, they have no right to intentionally destroy specific phones. They do have the right to deny service and void warranty, and if the bricking of the phones is just an coincidence, no harm done.
But if Apple intentionally bricked these phones, they're liable for vandalism and such.

I think Apple has EVERY right to restrict usage. "Thing ain't free." People have a right to make income fron their hard work.

Too all the people who are calling this a frivilous lawsuit, shut up!

FACT: The Iphone is a GSM based phone which must conform to the GSM standard which means it works with ANY GSM network.

FACT: The only way to keep the phone from operating at some level with any other GSM network is via software locks.

FACT: The copyright office made an official statement claiming that cellphone software locks were strictly protecting a 3rd party intrest and as such a company could not actively punish you for circumventing it. (I work in cell, I know this)

FACT: Since the phone has been cracked, Apple is no longer required to provide support for the product.

Apple released a firmware update that seems rather heavily to specifically brick phones which have been tampered with. According to my above fact about companies cannot actively punish you for circumventing software locks on cellphones, this means Apple has broken the law. They deserve to be sued. What should they have done? They should have simply checksummed the firmware, detected it was tampered, and refused to install the firmware update instead of purposely bricking the phone. The company is scum, no ifs, ands or buts about it. The users did not break the law, it is perfectly legal to unlock a cellphone. Apple is commiting nothing less than mass vandalism.

big mistake to try to disable those phones

I personally don't own a cell phone, so I might be wrong on all that follows.

From what I remember, didn't Motorola sell the RAZR through only one carrier for 6-12 months when it was released?

I also remember reading that this was what Apple & AT&T set up for the iPhone. So at some point in the future the phone would sell from other carriers.

The issue here is, I believe, while it was sold through one carriers retail channel the RAZR wasn't locked to that carrier, while the iPhone is.

If the DMCA says a cell phone cannot be locked to anyone carrier then there might be something to this case. But 1.2billion dollars!!! What are the lawyers smoking and I bet they are paying to much for it.

As for the 2 year contract required by AT&T for the iPhone, I heard that if your credit wasn't good enough for the AT&T contract at sign up, you could elect for a month to month deal. I think this would be more a case for a lawsuit then a hacked phone becoming disabled after an firmware/OS update.

Seriously, I hate these types of lawsuits. File it in the circular bin under frivolous.

As a foreigner it is really funny to see how crazy
Americans can be by sueing Companies when they do not like the product. AT&T and Apple made an exclusive contract for the Iphone which in my opinion not forbidden. Within this exclusivity belongs an AT&T sim-card. So if somebody hacks the
software and Apple reacts with a software-update
to regain the exclusivity who is wrong. Apple who
has contract or people who hacks. BTW. The hacker(s)can face lawsuit too. Every author who writes
software and this software is brought onto the market, wether it is on CD/DVD book or installed on
flashrom, has a copyright. So changing without
notification or without written permission by the Author is an illegal act. So anyone who buys or copy the changed software is a thief and should therefor not cry if the Author changes his own
software/program.

The cost of the phone was not subsidised by AT&T, you had to pay 100% of the full retail value and you did not have to activate the service. This is the reason why it is illegal for apple to mandate that you update the phone so it cannot be used outside of the AT&T service.
Any item that you purchase can be used in any manner that you wish, just as long as it is not illegal and what apple is doing is trying to become a monopoly, which is against the law.

A $1.2 BILLION case where lawyers are trying to steal someone else's hard earned money because they can't read the terms of the iPhone any better than their clients.

a class action lawsuit is not just for these two guys if the case is won... the remaining (after lawyer fees, by the way, a BIG portion) funds will be given to ALL those people who are qualified in the same situation.

I'm amazed at how much pro-apple sentiment there is. Frankly, they aren't being treated to the same standards that other companies would be held to. People treat them as if they're an elevated, godly force incapable of wrong. How can it be certain that they bought the iPhone through AT&T and had to agree to a service plan? There are other channels online, like ebay. I guarantee that if Microsoft pulled this stunt they would NEVER hear the end of it. Apple stated that they did this because an unlocked phone could be damaged by third party apps? Correct me if I'm wrong, but completely bricking the phone via the firmware update seems to be the most damaging thing that could happen to your phone. When they defended their actions, they cited the possible damage third party apps could cause, which is ludicrous. Did you once hear them say these users breached their license agreement? Or that they broke the law? Even if they did break their license agreement, and in that policy it states they have the right to sap your phone, what gives them the authority to do that? That could easily be struck down as anticompetitive behavior that they simply have no right to do.

In response to the Post made by Chris...

The DMCA states:

"The following is exempted from the prohibition against circumvention of access-control technology

Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handset
to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is
accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone
communication network."

Which means, it is not illegal to unlock a cell phone. That's ALL it means. The manufactures can issues updates and new firmware till their hearts content and it is not illegal. From a legal standpoint Apple shouldn't lose the case unless the jury wants to set a precedent...

Anywho, Apple should have made it available for all networks. They would have made more $ that way...

Apple is NOT being sued because they won't allow the iphone to work on other networks. They are being sued because they used a required firmware update to disable phones that werent on AT&T's network.

Mistake #1 was giving the contract to At&T, should have been an 'open source' mentality and Apple should not have tried to get that service contract piece of the pie.
Mistake #2 was the $100 rebate, should have split their stock down to $100 and offered the rebate as a 1-share certificate with a 'purchase more stock' ability. The early adopter's loyalty/equity could have been Apple's greatest asset for reducing the risk of new product introductions.
Mistake #3 is battling the hackers. The new paradigm is 'empower your enemies'. Did you hear that Joe Lieberman?
Mistake #4 is the stupid 25 meg updates every 10 minutes to I-tunes etc.

I see that my earlier post made it on. Good.

After reading these comments on the board, I see that a lot of people are still missing the point about this whole thing. Apple is in violation with the DMCA when it prevents owners of the iPhone from unlocking it and using it on another carrier. Worse is that they are actively blocking those phones which were unlocked.

This has nothing to do with XBoxes working only on XBox live and not PS3 networks.

And just because there is a contract doesn't mean that it's 100% legal and binding; contracts get voided all of the time for illegal clauses.

As for the 1.2 billion USD, who knows how much is being claimed for damages versus what they are asking as punitive. Remember, damges are the actual damages you suffer and punitive is when the company is financially punished for their bad behavior. With a company like Apple, you have to ask for the moon (though you won't get it), because anything less is small potatoes to them. Microsoft could have zero revenue for 8 years or so, pay all of their workers, pay like a billion dollar a year fine for whatever, and they would still have cash on hand. Think about that for a moment.

And as a personal note, I wish a lot of you would take some classes other than gaming or computer-related and acutally learn about the world and the syntax and structure of the English language.

Apple has tones of money. Anyways the iPhone is a very good phone. My brother has one in Canada and it isn't released yet. So he has to use a different company because AT@T isn't in Canada. Plus he is only paying $40 per month with unlimited text and phone to 5 or 6 different people. iPhone is good and is not just a phone.

It's nice to know that a few of us are reading what's out there.

True, the DMCA allows the unlocking of cell phones if the sole purpose is to be able to lawfully use it on another carrier. That's the right of every user.

However, my point is that Apple is actively trying to restrict those rights by disabling any phone that was unlocked and not on AT&T's network. That is not legal. Therefore, they lose.

From what I've read, virtually *all* 3rd party programs (including unlocks) exploit a buffer overrun in the pre-1.1.1 firmware. You don't have to be a programmer to realize that it's a bad idea to leave such an avenue open. Apple can reasonably claim they were patching a well known security risk frequently used by malicious hackers. It just happens to, unfortunately, disable useful apps as well.

As well, making the update *optional*, which it was, and providing advanced warning about the likelihood of harm to devices with an unsupported configuration hardly makes the case for *active* effort on their part to disable someone's phone.

A breach had been made and unable to take action in the court rooms they took action on a software front, good for them.

You're wrong. Hacking a Dish or Xbox 360 is NOT THE SAME as hacking an Iphone. You are flat out stealing channels or pirating games in the above examples. Are you hurting anyone by putting 3rd party apps on your iphone? "Stealing" business away from AT&T perhaps?

In the case of someone using their dish equipment with another provider, I've never heard of that but I'm assuming that people lease the equipment don't they? Also, who complains about wanting to play Xbox games on the PS network? That's just a stupid example.

I have to admit ignorance to the specifics on the firmware update and to the hacks involved, since I do not now and will not ever, own a product from Apple.

My comments were based on more general issues and Apple's own track record of locking hardware and software. What will they do with future firmware updates will be interesting. Perhaps being put on notice with these lawsuits will force them to back off.

I don't think most of you guys understand what they are suing about... They are pretty much accusing Apple and AT&T of monopolizing the usage of the iphone...since the phone only works for AT&T, AT&T can charge anything they wanted and there wouldn't be any competition. People unlocking the iphone aren't getting free service, they are still paying a company, outside of AT&T, something plus Apple is making money off people buying the phone... Apple could solve this problem by simply making their phone available to all major phone companies...I mean I am not a financial wizards or anything, but I am pretty sure Apple would make more money.

A little inexperienced; making little mistakes here and there, and now the wolves are out!

All over the net people are stating how locking the iphone was a violation of the DMCA, I've read the entire DMCA and the provisions people quote and they are dead wrong. First off the entire law is to protect copyright holders rights (BTW I thing it’s a terrible law for most people and removes rights given to us through Supreme Court decisions buts that another story). The section people site is merely an exclusion clause that allows software to be reverse engineered to allow connection to a legal telecommunications service. This merely says the "hacks" themselves are not a violation of the DMCA THATS IT. It in no way no how says it’s illegal to lock a phone. The car parts example is a terrible example as the 3rd party parts are exact replacements and do not change any functionality. A better example is a "bricked" motherboard after a bad bios flash. here even though the company supplied the new bios it clearly warns flash at your own risk and if something goes wrong you have to pay for a new bios chip (if you do not have a flash programmer or a motherboard with dual bios). This type of case has gone to court and the plaintiffs have lost with the courts citing their responsibility for the actions and that they were given fair and clear warnings that the actions could cause harm. True most of these cases did not have high priced lawyers arguing the cases but their is precedent. Now did Apple violate any local (state) consumer protection laws), possibly, but I am willing to bet in the user agreement it has a "not warrantee for any specific purpose clause" so in theory the phone is physically functional (the electronics work) but the software is no longer good for phone service. This has already been addressed by the hackers (although I believe it just returns the firmware to a pre-flashed version. Apple does not have to support hacked phones and their updates do not have to support them. The good news you can hack the iphone legally the bad news you lose Apple support of the firmware (Hardware warrantees are still in effect)

The rest of the world utilizes unlocked cell phones. It is our monopolistic (and illegal) system that has created this issue. Plaintiffs should win on the merits for the reason Chris stated. The 1.2B is warranted if the class is large enough. For those who don't know, a class action suit is one where there are a few named plaintiffs, and many unnamed. Their identities are known, but you don't put all of their names in the case heading. A lot of people have been affected by this, so I am sure they have plenty of unnamed plaintiffs on board (hell, I would be on board as I want one, but I refuse to use AT&T).

We have just been waiting for someone to come along and sue about this so that the system will open up. You guys should be thanking those who brought the suit as they will help increase competition, thus driving down the cost of service. Currently, providers can keep prices higher as they know they are the only one that provides a certain type of phone. If they no longer have that ability, prices should drop.

I understand your POV about the (hated)DMCA merely allows for the unlocking of the phone. I never intended to imply or infer that Apple and/or AT&T have to provide support for unlocked phones.

What my basic point is that unlocking is allowed. Any attempts to write firmware "updates" that are really most likely intended to disable those phones is illegal.

In this country, provided you meet certain requirements, you has the right to vote. If some group or individual, whether private or government, tries to block you from voting, then they are in violation of the law. An interesting case of this was that during a national congressional election a few cycles ago, minority groups were claiming voter disenfranchisement when the highway patrol setup roadblocks in certain minority-majority areas under the auspices of checking for proof of insurance and valid driver's licenses. The minorities were claiming that the highway patrol was intimidating them into not voting while the cops were saying that this was a public safety exercise. I don't know the results of the case (probably thrown out), but you can see the similarities.

I still haven't updated mine yet and I don't have to but when third party apps are back on I will. Those guys are idiots stupid litigious society.

First. The point of the law suit is to force Apples hand. Of course the amount is extreme. It has to be in order to force Apple to change.
Second. You can buy the phone and never connect it to a service, you are not obligated to connect it to AT&T, you could use it as a paperweight if you wanted to.
Third. Forcing you to use AT&T is illegal. Your are allowed to switch carriers and keep your number. You probably could make a case for it somewhere in there.
Fourth. Just because a company makes you sign something saying such, does not make it so. Companies pull that kind of stunt all the time.
Fifth. They choose AT&T. I would never pick AT&T or Verizon, because of there recent activities in sharing personal information without a warrant. I am all for security, but you will get a warrant first.

OK, even just a BILLION dollars is a little much, I agree. These people deserve all the ridicule and humiliation they receive from this whole ordeal, and I hope it's plentyful. So on the one hand I would like to see them to lose their ASSES just for being so STUPID and GREEDY. However I also hate people telling me what to do. And Apple with their overpriced garbage and crappy business policies. So this makes it hard to root for them also. Didn't we already have this whole discussion a few years ago in the "court system" about whether the consumer has the "right" to use whatever carrier they want with their mobile phones? And didn't the court say YES, THEY DO? So why would Apple even consider locking this phone to one carrier unless that carrier was planning on making it well worth their while, which goes back to Apple's F@#$ed up business practices. Car manufacturers don't tell you what brand of gas or oil you have to put in their cars do they? TV makers aren't going to tell you to only use their TV's with Direct TV are they? So why is this right for anyone else?

In the end, I hope the court rules against Apple because they need to learn a lesson, but like someone else said, the court should make the money go to something more worthwhile than just a couple of idiots looking for their free ride for life. Reimburse them for the price of their iPhone, along with everyone else that bought one (cause I'm suuuurrrre that's what these clowns had planned to do anyway), and don't let them two greedy bastards touch the rest.

why did apple even bother to disable the unlocked iphones? their business "exclusivity" deal with att only mandated that the iphones be locked to att initially and that they will not sell iphones to people to activate with tmobile or the like.

That stops people from filing frivolous lawsuits. I'm no apple fan but..... when people agree to a contract willingly and I'm absolutely positive that no one had a gun pointed to their head when the signed said contract with AT&T that says in it that that the iPhone only works with AT&T. This is shenanigans pure and simple. There are alternatives to the iPhone that work on other networks that are better and go for about the same price. This is about trying to make a quick buck at shareholders expense.

It was stated from day 1 that the IPhone would be meant for use on AT&T ONLY. If they didn't like then they shouldnt have bought it. Anybody who defends these people are just as dumb as they are. "Gee, I bought it knowing the situation, tried to modify it with applications not written or sanctioned by Apple and I broke it, so that's Apple's fault". Apple should counter for costs involved in defending against this crap.

Verizon phones can only be used for Verizon. If they have a sims card which I assume they do it is in the phone.

I dont like the way how stragy between apple n atnt. but if you buying their product and they dont force you to update the firmware and you are stupid enought to crack it and reupdate it again. I dont think you desire to sue for a billion on a item that worth less then thousand. lawyers are evils.

The lawsuit is stupid because it will never win on the current argument. That being said, apple is so notorious for making sure that no one or company can use their hardware that a class action lawsuit is well over due. I don't think this lawsuit will win but I do hope that one will eventually set apple back a peg or two.

I guest that Apple are Gay Friendly but not Consumer Friendly. Make no mistake, Gay Friendly is very important to me and other LGBT. But consumer friendly will design can they keep their customer for their future product. I guest after the 1st Gen of iPhone, many of their customer won't even think about the next gene of iPhone for now.

Remember why Sony installed rootkits on cds? And those got transferred to the the Window's system. When someone tried to remove the rootkit, the system was all but out of commission. The only thing to do was reformat and reinstall. I have not heard of a lawsuit against Sony. And, that was a special deal that Microsoft made with them.

With the exception of open source software, anytime a person "hacks" the software for their purposes, they ARE breaking numerous laws. Chris (crazy lawsuit above) is most correct. Now I do not own a iPhone, nor will I for I do not like being boxed in. But for these people who bought an iPhone knowing the stipulations (similar to an EULA) can not cry fowl for being blocked. Heck, if Microsoft and Sony can do it, so can Apple and AT&T.

I believe there should be a law against locking phones to providers or disallowing 3rd party apps to be used on phones. If you pay for a phone - it is yours, you should be able to do whatever you want with it - WHATEVER YOU WANT.

In this case, the judge should rule legal costs and damages of $1000 (free phone) to each of the plaintiffs and rule that Apple not be allowed to lock their phone to a network, as it is not their right.

Really...these people should not be allowed to waste the earth's resources.

if you want to make your product for one carrier that's fine, the ones brave enough to hack the phone and void their warranty will reep the benifits, that's their choice. But, to later provide an update that cripples YOUR phone, prevents YOU from CHOOSING how you want to use the tool you bought with your money.... that's wrong and almost a breach of our human rights.

I don't own an iPhone or do I really care to own an iPhone, but I to give my two cents and try to clear some things up.
1) Apple is not creating a Monopoloy. There are other phones on the market but if you want the iPhone's functionality you have to buy an iPhone and use it on the AT&T network if you want Software and Hardware support. If Apple made the only cell phone on the market and tried to force other companies out of business if they made cell phones then yes Apple then created a monopoly.
2) It's true it is not illegal to unlock the iPhone and use it on another network, but on that note don't expect Apple not to take counter measures to keep that from happening. Apple and ATT&T are in business to make money and everytime someone unlocks their iPhone and switches it to another provider they lose project income. So why should Apple continue to update and make better a phone that they can no longer make money on.
3) The only illgal act would be if Apple made users download an update that would disable the unlocked phones. If the end user did not have an option not to download the software, then yes that is an illegal act. But if the end user knew their iPhone was unlocked and willingly downloaded the software then well, here's your brick. The only grey area would be if Apple did not annouce that the new software update would disable unlock phones, but considering Apple's attempt to tell users that unlocking the phone could damage it and viod it's warranty or service contract then it will really come down to how good the lawyers are and what mood the judge is in. More than likely this will be settled out of court for some smaller obscene ammount.

This is a joke and so is their lawsuit. 1.2 billions in damages, maybe the cost of the duration of the contract, but billions!

Lets face it, its up to apple who they release their handsets too. They are the designers of the phone, and you still have to pay your contract with AT & T, so i can't see the problem with using other carriers. They should do what others do, and just say you can unlock it for a network fee. Now thats what i call a business mind.

I don't agree with the lawsuit, or the network locks. But still if they didn't like it, bit of tough shit should have read the small print. They thought they were being cleaver, and got shafted

The rest of the world do not use unlocked handsets.

Nearly all UK handsets are sold with simlocks in place, NO 3G Handsets can be unlocked by anybody else but the provider. All other handsets can be taken down the local shop and they try to rip you off by charging you $20 for plugging in a device that takes 3 seconds and they get off a known auction site for $5.

to OD:
there is a law in texas which says that if you do something really stupid like void your iphone warranty and ask for money the court will throw out your case and charge you for wasting their time! ppl really should read what theyre signing!!

Since Steve Jobs returned to Apple, the company has been stronger and produces better products. Their profit has increased along with their stock price. They have become a true company of greed. No longer are they the "good guys" of the industry, No longer do they cre about their customer's desires. They apparently do not care about the law if it interferes with their profits.

Lawrence: What does it mean to be friendly to fags and lesbos? That the products from Apple are easily inserted to an orifice of your choice?

Sean: Sony WAS sued and lost (though I think they settled). However, the users got nearly squat and the lawyers got all of the $$, as usual.

As for the rest of (some) of you loons: In THIS country (I can care less about the UK, RoK, etc, it is PERFECTLY LEGAL to unlock any cellphone for the purpose of using it on another network. It is ILLEGAL for companies to take steps that prevent that from happening.

And...we all know lawyers suck serious ass, so I wish people would stop reiterating the same points over and over again. Come up with something original or don't write anything. And please use spell-check.

1. Many phones out there are tied to a unique carrier, yet nobody really cares about those phones as much as they do about the iPhone. For that only reason we don't see a class-action lawsuit against LG and Verizon over the stupid Chocolate.
2. You buy a phone knowing it works on a particular carrier. You purposely act against the T&C of the warranty. You download and install an OPTIONAL firmware update after having altered the firmware of the device. And when your phone breaks, you get pissed at someone besides your own stupid a$$. I'm sorry for being blunt, but you're an idiot.
3. 1.2B???? Sure, it's a class-action lawsuit, and a lot of people will reap the benefits, but a few will make good if they win...and that just seems like a number thought of by some leeches who want to stop working for the rest of their lives by obtaining money they don't deserve.
4. WTF, America??!? Stop it!! There's got to be other ways to channel your inner anger and stupidity, quit suing people for bull$hit reasons!!!
5. Some of the posters, good grammar and spelling never hurt anyone...

There are a whole lot of silly comments. The damages are a result of a class action lawsuit. 1.3 billion of dead iphones. I don't know if that's the price of the damage but who can say? People that bought the phone retail, without a singular plan or contract, deserve to use their property however they see fit. Including using it with T-Mobile service. As for apple's update... they can force it because it can be downloaded to your phone via cell transmission. The only way to avoid it is to not use your phone EVER. Apple's decision to do this doesn't make sense. It doesn't benefit apple in any way. It generated a lot of bad press. And apple will lose customers because of it. Are they just being bullish or foolish? It certainly helps AT&T either way.

There have been a few comments about this lawsuit pointing out the amount of other phones out there that are "locked" to another carrier, so why is this any different.
The point is that this is NOT about the iphone being locked to a carrier, but the POSSIBLE fact that apple specifically designed an update to stop altered phones from working.
They are stuck in SOFTWARE world, where none of us own the software, only a licence to use it. Therefore we're not allowed to make any changes/copies etc.
BUT in the HARDWARE world, once we've bought something, it's OURS to do with what we will. If we want to alter it we can (just don't expect to update it). Above Apple says "Apple claimed that these "hacking adjustments" would harm it".. so what? If we want to we're allowed to harm our phone. It's our property. They can't tell us what we can and can't do with it. We haven't bought a licence to use the hardware, we've purchased the hardware. If we can get it to do something else than it was orginally designed for, then we're allowed to.
Ford can't stop us from buying one of their cars, taking the engine out and putting a Toyota engine in it. They can't stop us from buying a car designed for on-road use, then modifiying it for off-road use. And it would be wrong for them to FORCE us to receive a part for that car that would then make it stop working all together if we had modified it for off-road use.
We DO HOWEVER have to accept that if we modify it for off-road, then we've voided warranties and any future "updates" wouldn't work for our car.
It comes down to intent.

becasue there is a line in there somewhere that states you may not change carriers or something like that. and where the HELL do they get off with $1.2 BILLION Dollars in DAMAGES!!! give me a break!!! these people of this new generation need to be slapped in the face for being so benign and stupid! if you don't like the phone you have, get rid of it! get another! or sell it on ebay! hell, get a blackjack or palm or blackberry that's unlocked! they just want some fame! so let them have their fame, but with a bomb filled pie in the face!

I think people who claim that Apple does not have any right for network exclusivity should look at other phone manufacturers. Here in Canada there are numerous phones that are exclusively tied (permanent or timed) to certain service providers. It's been going on for years. People were forced to go with certain carriers if they wanted a specific phone bad enough. Why is Apple all of a sudden in the wrong for this?

Knowing Apple's extensive experience in the cellphone market, should we hold them to a much higher and unreasonable standard than all other cellphone manufacturers?

Additionally, it will be impossible to prove that Apple was malicious and that they intensionally bricked phones that were hacked knowing that one; the update was optional to all users, and two; there were clear warnings given to those with hacked units.

Which brings me to the sad conclusion that our legal and justice system is being clogged with thousands of these lawsuits that really only serve one group and that's the lawyers.

If Apple loses this case then my fears of us having a corrupt and ineffectual legal system would sadly be realized.

they would be getting sued, and all you people saying apple dont deserve to get sued would be going "Yay"

Apple have a track record of forcing their customers to use a specific service. This goes against customer freedom of choice. Apple charge 400$ for their phone, and then force the customer to use a specific service. why? what to apple gain for limiting consumer choice? nothing. why do they do it? cos they can. Should they be able to do it? NO.
Apple is the only phone manufacturer i know that denies consumers the right to choose the service they want. other manufacturers allow service providers to lock the phones they sell, but dont lock the phones themselves.

Apple have shot them selves in the foot, and deserve everything they get.

"If you are not a craftsman, you can become a teacher. If you can't teach, you can become a writer. If you can't write: sue somebody!!!"

From Tom's hardware

Only in America...... is everything bigger....

...stupid people should NOT be unlocking or buying unlocked iphones!

Even someone with half a brain would be smart enough to realize that updating the firmware could potentially screw something up on a hacked phone, so why install it right away?

Apple is not actively bricking unlocked phones... they are simply bricking the phones of people who are too stupid to own a hacked iphone!

Wow, if these two clowns win this one, i'm gonna sue Apple 'coz iTunes work only on the iTunes Store for a gabazillion dollars! =D

The law allows you to unlock it and Apple BROKE the phone ON PURPOSE.

Here's another example:
- You buy your iPhone on 01-01-2007.
- You got yourself a 1 year warranty and 2 year contract.
- Time passes by and it is now 02-02-2008. 13 months has passed and your warranty is gone.
- Apple come with a software upgrade and it bricks your iPhone. Only affects those iphones that went to ?????.com

Result: Apple broke your iPhone... Apple most pay for it.

SAME HAPPENS WITH UNLOCKING. It is completely legal to unlock the phone. Apple PURPOSELY BRICKED the phone with the updates. It was NOT the hack that brick it... it was the UPDATE that was DESIGNED to brick the phone.

Therefore Apple must pay for the damages.

Note: I think it is silly that you can legally hack the phone, still that's the law

re: 'so a company can't protect itself'

actually, bricking phones that connect to networks other than at&t seems like the company is not protecting itself, but another company. one company protecting another from competition...

the word 'cartel' comes to mind.

(cartels are illegal, blessman)

If Apple and AT&T went to the effort to design their own proprietary SIM card or such, then they deserver to recoup the money spent on this research. They used existing SIM card technology which was originally designed to encapsulate the users info such that he could easily move to other equipment or providers.

There are other carriers that have exclusive phones from other phone companies; Ie, Sprint and Palm Centro. Apple and AT&T are not the only ones that exclusive contracts for a phone. If he wins against AT&T and Apple,

if apple maliciously bricked people's iphones I say they need to pay.

if in the nature of updating the phones they get bricked because of being hacked or using 3rd party software whatever that is one thing. however, if apple is intentionally bricking the phones of customers who aren't going along with their plans then I say they should pay big time.

I think that Microsoft and Apple release updates regularly to intentionally stop hacking. Microsoft has been doing it for their phones, why wouldn't Apple? They write a program that they don't want to be hacked.... they will try to change it constantly to keep this from happening. Only difference in this case is that the owner wanted to hack it, not some "bad guy". Intentionally stopping the hack ing is a common prctice for OS makers.

With Bill Gates giving away billions of his fortune to charity, the "Evil Empire" crown now goes to Apple and Steve Jobs. Jobs benefits from the back dating of stock options and is now doing what everyone was so pissed at Microsoft for doing.

1 apple did not go after ppl and brick their phones just because they HACKED it
the update pluged holes in the buffer that the HACKS exploited to unlock the device and alter the programming
the bricking was from the fact that when the hole was pluged the software that was running to get around the locks bricked the device not the apple patch, the HACK bricked the phone

2 there is no way the monoply on the Iphone is a monoply in the sence that it is the same as the sidekick on t-moble and xbox on xbox live
and yes they are vallid examples. the only reason that ppl are up in arms about the iphone is that it is all the hype right now

3 there might be a good reason that the iphone is not being unlocked BY AT&T with some smart phones the data channel will be locked to a network regardless of the carrier it is on
to go back to the sidekick as an example if you have one you cannot even go to andther contrys tmobile service as if you have a t-mobile US sidekick t-mobile us will have to pay for your net use and if you HACK it you can go to another network but tmobile us is still paying for your use and they are loosing money on you having done that

4 the act of using HACKS to unlock a phone is illegal to legaly unlock a device you must get the unlock code from the service provider that the device came from to have any garenty that your device will not fail from it

5 if you are using HACKED things software and hardware then you should know that updates might kill what you have
if you have a video game HACKED version then the updates you can download might not take or it might kill your game
if you have a hacked Xbox they die faster and that is a fact
so if you HACKED your phone and did not get it unlocked through the proper channels and you updated it then the fact that your hacked device failed from the HACK and PATCH not working with eachother is YOUR FAULT

6 all you claiming that this is a tactic that is going after unlocked phones are wrong
the patch FIXED SECURITY HOLES but the fact that the HACK sat in thoes holes and when the holes were fixed it did a number on the os and renderd functionality ALTERED BY THE HACK usless is not an attack
and for thoes of you who think that apple shouldnt have put out the update well that would be like saying that and software souldnt be updated and that we should allow hackers to get at what ever they can
so you are asking for information openness and i like that as much as the next guy but to leave holes open after they are found well do you like you credit .... so do hackers. and if the holes in software are left open you are giving an open invite. no one complains about windows patches fixing holes so spyware is stoped

7 for all of the comments about apple exclucivaty
its not illegal for apple to make products that work well with other approved and supported products
in a MS inviroment you have to get drivers for almost anythig
in a apple inviroment you plug it in and if it had the mac logo on the box it goes
apply saying no 3rd party apps well its thers to say that as the os being used is not open source or free to devlopers simmilar to the Blackberry os
if you wanted freedom of applications get an MS Mobile device

8 dont even try to think that for a moment that apple cares that you HACKED you iphone and is trying to get you cause now you have a brick from the last update
all the HACKS that are from the various pages that offer ways to unlock your iphone say that it may make your device unuseable
and if you are that ofended that now you have a brick well going after apple is not the guy to attack. its the HACKER the came up with the HACK but they dont have that much money and have posted that you HACK you device AT YOUR OWN RISK

Apple was stupid to make the iPhone exclusive, and the lawyers are stupid for suing over this.... I doubt they will win.

Apple sucks. They are overpriced and over rated. I hope they lose this case. They are the worst company on earth besides Microsoft

The question is very simple. Why apple is the only company that is so conservative about its products? Answer is simple because that's the way they do business. Hackers are helping this exploitation end.
So why do they think they can simply hire a good attorney and write a very good agreement statement while we are buying their phone? because they are sure their monopolizing intention can be hidden behind this protection walls of bureaucracy.We all know what they are doing. They know what they are doing. We better wake and let them know that our eyes are wide open.

I get the idea some of you aren't really reading here. Some people have the idea that the updates are optional, but it clearly says in the article "users are required to download" the new firmware.

Some of you are writing "Here in Canada this, Here in the UK that", but so what? Your laws don't apply to us. Rob, why are you so worried about this clogging your legal system, YOU'RE IN CANADA!

Like I already said (and others here too), the US courts already decided a person has the right to use their phone on whatever carrier they wish. I don't care if there's anything in the contract about only using one carrier, Apple can't legally prevent someone from using another, PERIOD. If they are forcing users to download firmware that they know will cause the unlocked phones to not work, that's exactly what they are doing. That doesn't mean they can't get away with it through some loophole or whatever, and just because someone gets away with something still doesn't make it right.

Here's another analogy:
AMD probably doesn't want me to be overclocking my processor, I'm pretty sure it says somewhere in the license that overclocking the chip will void the warranty. Has that stopped me from tweaking a piece of hardware that I bought with my hard earned money, NO! I realize my warranty is voided but I did it anyway, like many others have. Now imagine that there was a some update I (and everyone else with an AMD) was REQUIRED to download and it made mine and everyone elses overclocked CPU's useless. Try thinking about that for a couple minutes and see if your head doesn't want to explode. Some heads would freaking ROLL.

I think the laws concerning software are a little less clear. As far as I'm concerned when I buy software I should be entitled to use it or modify it however I choose, as long as it's not used for illegal purposes (copyright infringement, etc..). I should be able to install my games on 10 PC's if I own that many (but I can't always and that sucks), I can't play them all at once after all. Nobody's going to tell me I can't mod or install addons to a game I own. I feel the same about the iPhone. When you buy one, part of what you are paying is for software because it doesn't write itself. If I had an iPhone, I should be allowed to do anything I want to customize the hardware or software to my liking, as long as it's not an illegal activity, without the fear of it being turned into an expensive paperweight. Whether that means unlocking the carrier, changing the battery, putting a larger hard drive in it, or installing a program Apple hasn't expressly "approved of". As long as I realize Apple isn't going to support it there's nothing wrong with it.

Sorry for my rant. I don't even own one and I never will, even if they gave it to me. I mean come on people, most people couldn't drive for crap even if they threw their phones off a cliff (I know, you're all saying "NOOOT MEEE!" SUUURRREEE!). Do we really need more idiots driving around trying to look at their freaking MySpace pages and watching Youtube?

If a phone, like the Iphone say on the box, and in the paperwork, that they are only manufactured to work on 1 network, that is all the are garanteed to work on.
If you buy a LG Chocolate and hack it to use on say AT&T, good for you. But if it quits working for any reason, be it firmware update, or cause you shorted it out with bad wiring, IT IS NOT COVERED.
This is the same as modding a game system. If you in any way change the internals or inital programming not complying with manufacture spec., it is your loss.
I dont see what there is to argue about. Anyone who bought a iPhone and didnt want to use AT&T, knew this could happen. This is the same company that when your iPod battery dies, they send you back a refurb iPod instead of the 1 you sent in. It just makes sence they dont want to deal with warrentying other peoples handywork.

I am not an apple fan. Hell, the only apple product I have is an iPod nano that I received as a gift. But that doesn't mean that I should bash apple blindly either.

Despite what the article says, everything points to the fact that the firmware update is OPTIONAL. In fact, there are clear warning for people to read prior to updating so that it goes smoothly. One of the warning even talks about possible issues with hacked or modified units.

Also, yes I am in Canada. And believe it or not, things aren't that different between here and the US. Even in our relatively small cell phone market here, we've seen for years phones being exclusive to certain networks. I find your insinuation that the US doesn’t have that issue, hard to believe. If anything I think it's a much bigger problem there than here and so again why should apple be in the wrong when every other, more established, cell phone manufacturer has been doing this for years?

And the legal system here closely follows what your system in the states does. We've seen a steep rise in BS lawsuits (such as this) recently here. And so it is sad to see that the system down there is sinking in them. And it affects all of us, whether North of the border or otherwise.

Wow...Politics and Religion in the same conversation.

C'mon people, this is America...we vote with our wallets. If you like a product, buy it and if you don't like it, don't. Yes, hardware is PURCHASED and not LICENSED, but firmware is SOFTWARE, not HARDWARE.

And to everyone who thinks this is an invalid case just because they agreed to the EULA, please review your 4th grade civics notes. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean it's automatically constitutional. That is what the courts are for (Checks & Balances anyone?). Two parties agreeing to something illegal or unconstitutional doesn't invalidate the law. And AFAIK, Anti-Trust and Fair Use laws were on the books long before Apple's iPhone EULA.

I'm no Apple lover or hater (I save those emotions for PEOPLE), but this case has too much 'meat on the bone' to ignore.

Creating a monopoly over a product or service is illegal in the United States. We as consumers should have the right to have competitive prices on all consumer goods, including SERVICES, PRODUCTS, and etc. Since Apple and AT&T have a no holds bar on this service/product, therefore its a monopoly and CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. THE END!

The creators of Grand Theft Auto had a deal with sony that their game would only be produced to work with playstations. I didn't sue Rockstar.

So apple has a monopoly on the cell phone market and AT&T has a monopoly on cell phone provider industry? With the iPhone. Let's a take a look. AT&T, T-mobile, Verizon, MetroPCS, Alltel, Helio, Sprint, and probably a few other's that I don't know all provide cell phone service. As far as manufacturer's go we have Samsung, Sony/Ericsson, Nokia, HTC (i.e. Cingular 8525 & Tilt/T-Mobile MDA & Wing), Motorola, Sharp (i.e. T-mobile Sidekick)and many more, none of which work with other carriers SIM cards out of the box. Any phone that does not come sim unlocked either needs to be unlocked by the carrier or via software. I know for a fact that T-mobile will unlock phones if you've been a customer for at least 60 days and your current on your bill all you have to do is ask them. They'll want to know why though, but they'll still do it. I don't know AT&T's policy but unless they specifically do it, using 3rd party software to unlock a phone normally voids the warranty.

Now if these people purchased the phone in order to unlock it and then use it on another carrier's service, once that process is completed, their warranty on the phone would be voided as they intentionally performed an act that probably violates the terms of use. The lawsuit is pretty much invalid and i hope they loose. It's a frivolous lawsuit by people that aren't really smart and just want to get money because they feel stupid now.

If apple launches the iPhone in its current state in France as it is about to do, expect them to cop a ~$1billion fine from the EU. All apples practices with bricking iPhones, not allowing a choice of carriers, not allowing third party batteries and replacements, not allowing third party software violate most countries antitrust laws. Apple pretend to be a fun loving friendly company but when you get down to it, theyre just as evil as any other big business.

GTA is software, so Rockstar has every right to limit its use. An iPhone is HARDWARE, like your Playstation. This situation is closer to: Limiting PS's to run only on Sony's LCD tv's, which is very very VERY illegal

Apple have a monopoly -- got any facts to back that up?

Appl are minority market share in mobile phones and mobile devices and minority market share in computers. The only majority (at 71%) market share they have are in personal audio players (not even video) and the highest online sales of music (iTunes).

Considering Microsoft have 85% Market share in the OS world -- who are you trying to kid that Apple are a monopoly??

There is NO law that says a PDA has to work with ALL communications companies. The reality of this story is that Apple first contact Verizon to see if they want to work out some deal with their iPhone. Verizon refused the deal, so Apple went to AT&T Cingular who accepted the deal. Now, that iPhone sales have well exceed 1 Million and AT&T are rolling in new customers, the other carriers are scrambling.

I think it is hilarious that Verizon told Apple to go stuff it and now are pissed because the iPhone was so successful and Verizon lost a ton of market share.

As for the lawsuit, good waste of money -- it clearly states when you buy the phone and first activate it what exactly you are agreeing to -- support for someone else's SIM is clearly not a part of that agreement.

Rob

Cellphone bands are licensed by our government for the convenience of we who OWN THEM,
the public citizenry.
The licensing also has the purpose of stimulating the US economy by allowing REASONABLE profit to allow development of this infrastructure.

Carriers and manufacturers have deliberately conspired to restrict the Public's use of these PUBLIC bands by
1) charging EXHORBITENT rates,
2) Requiring LENGTHY contracts which have NOTHING TO DO WITH COSTS,
and
3)Constructing barriers with NO OTHER PURPOSE
than to prevent purchase and use of devices from competitive sources.

This conspiracy INCONVENIENCES the American Public
and drains the US economy.
It is not tolerated with the other bands we license
and should not be tolerated with cellular.

The rest of the world is laughing at US.

Lawyers make me sick. So who is going to get the money? Divide it among other cell phone users? H3ll no...for themselves. So why would they sue for soooo much? Because they know they will not get the entire 1.2B but are hoping to settle for at least 10% of that...$120Mil is not bad.

They bought the iPhone knowing it was locked to AT&T. They have no case here.

The people bought it wanting to use thid party providers, which is something Apple did not intend for it to use. Apple is denying them the right to use the product as it was not intended. Do these idiots actually believe they have a case here?

I should be a judge so the legal system is less clogged by frivolous pathetic attempts at wealth.

(I am not rich, just so you know).