Another iPhone lawsuit for Apple

Apple Inc. has once again become the target of a lawsuit over its iPhone. Specifically, the company is being sued for the exclusive tie between the iPhone and AT&T, and how Apple has chosen to enforce that lock. The iPhone v1.1.1 update literally disabled (iBricked) hacked or unlocked iPhone models, sparking outcry and bringing up the question of unlocking and the DMCA.

Timothy P. Smith and the legal team of M. Van Smith and Damian R. Fernandez filed for a class action lawsuit against Apple over the issues. The suit alleges that Apple violated antitrust laws by tying the iPhone to the AT&T provider network in the U.S., and disabling the unlocked phones of users who installed the update.

Smith's complaint acknowledges that Apple warned that the iPhone update could result in unlocked iPhones becoming "permanently inoperable," but it alleges that the company acted "in defiance and without sufficient consideration of consumers' rights" because the company "took no steps to issue an update with unlocked firmware or otherwise issue its update to prevent damage to unlocked iPhones."

Unlocking is considered a protected practice under exemptions made for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), protecting users from civil or criminal penalties from unlocking, but it does not provide protection against a company fighting against the unlocking in the way that Apple has done.

Source:
Yahoo (NewsFactor)

Written by: James Delahunty @ 8 Oct 2007 18:53

Advertisement - News comments available below the ad

21 comments

nanu-nanu

so a person had to choose to download the update? "If it ain't broke don't fix it" comes to mind. to bad for the ibricks....always think twice about an update.

8.10.2007 22:01 #1

dragnandy

pretty much. just dont upgrade if you have a hacked iphone. only people who would upgrade are clueless people who don't even know they're iphone is hacked. i dont think the upgrade has anything new also. like no fixed bugs or special features (except ibrick).

8.10.2007 22:30 #2

runar

Well, actually, if this would go through in court then it would be possible to sue MS for disabling a hacked Windows also...they don't even let you choose whether you want to update or not(yes, windows automagically updates even with auto-update turned off you know).

9.10.2007 01:26 #3

SuckRaven

Same comment applies to computers as to cell phones. Simply unplug the machine form your internet, and it will not be updated unless super secret Microsoft spies sneak silently into your room and install the update manually. If you need to surf the interwebs, use an older machine you don't really care about.

9.10.2007 06:50 #4

SuckRaven

9.10.2007 06:50 #5

simpsim1

Originally posted by SuckRaven: Same comment applies to computers as to cell phones. Simply unplug the machine form your internet, and it will not be updated unless super secret Microsoft spies sneak silently into your room and install the update manually. If you need to surf the interwebs, use an older machine you don't really care about.
...or for a simpler solution, disabling the service for Automatic Updates should do the trick. That way you don't have to disconnect your internet.

As for Apple, It's David Vs Goliath with regards to the Class Action Lawsuit. I hope that Mr Smith wins it hands down, although I fear that Apple will have a good go at trying to prevent him from doing that.

9.10.2007 08:41 #6

WierdName

What are you ignorant people talking about? I have been running hacked versions of Windows for, literally, years. It does not automatically update with them turned off. What brought you to that assumption anyways?

9.10.2007 11:18 #7

joe777

If you read the EULA you will find that Ms tell you that they WILL update files and whatnot without your permission, and I am certainly not talking about win updates. Some files in your win32 directory will change from time to time and reg entries. Remember your privacy is not at risk ( ROFL like hell) but you only own a licence key to use the O's, you dont even own the cd that it came on. So bearing that in mind they can do whatever they want with their O's.
Which reminds me I better go lock all the doors and windows tonight incase they try and sneak in Lol

9.10.2007 14:23 #8

WierdName

And where in the EULA does it say that? What line?

9.10.2007 14:27 #9

chaos_zzz

if ain't broken don't fix it, for example in simple life, you try to clean a tiny little scratch yo end up making a mess , apple has done wrong thought cuz if you already spended all that money the least you can get is freedom if some got hacked who cares you can disable people phones.. can you imagine those ppl that updated .. they must hate hate apple anyway i have s sony ericsson w900 and it's great :)

9.10.2007 15:47 #10

Gidgid

It's a different ball game, boys. It's one thing for microsoft to shut off an OS that is an illegal hack. Which, by the way, I've never seen happen. It's another thing entirely if they were to make your computer hardware unusable because you installed linux. That's what's happening here. Apple, instead of just fixing the hacks decided to disable the hardware for anyone that hacked. It's a scare tactic, and a bloody ridiculous one, at that.

10.10.2007 12:15 #11

joe777

Originally posted by WierdName: And where in the EULA does it say that? What line?Listen you ignorant little shit " their O's their rules " now you read the EULA and tell me I'm wrong? Not the other way around, Sukkel.

11.10.2007 14:25 #12

joe777

Originally posted by Gidgid: It's a different ball game, boys. It's one thing for microsoft to shut off an OS that is an illegal hack. Which, by the way, I've never seen happen. It's another thing entirely if they were to make your computer hardware unusable because you installed linux. That's what's happening here. Apple, instead of just fixing the hacks decided to disable the hardware for anyone that hacked. It's a scare tactic, and a bloody ridiculous one, at that.MS do block everything bar critical updates to blacklisted licence keys. When you want to D/L for eg. internet explorer?? or media player?? or something else then its a WGA check, and when you bypass that then you have to bypass it every time a new version of WGA comes out.
MS also own Cisco, who are not opensource friendly as with Linkseys who are owned by Cisco.
And 1 last point, when you are considering overclocking your system then dont forget that after 3 major strikes your O'S will not boot. As M'S sense that your using that O'S on multiple systems.
And and and Lol he he he I am not a gamer but what was it I read about M'S and the Xbox360 with modded firmware whilst playing online?

11.10.2007 14:40 #13

simpsim1

Originally posted by joe777: Listen you ignorant little s*** " their O's their rules " now you read the EULA and tell me I'm wrong? Not the other way around, S*****.
I don't know about ignorant, but that post is certainly arrogant and frankly not worthy of a decent reply.

For the benefit of those who want to know (And we're straying dangerously off-topic here) I took the liberty of reading the EULA from MS Vista. It says next to points about updates that these can be turned off if the user wishes (Although as I said, you have to disable them in Services to stop them completely).

More of concern to those with illegal copies is this portion...

Quote:The software will from time to time validate the software, update or require download of the
validation feature of the software. Validation verifies that the software has been activated and
is properly licensed. Validation also permits you to use certain features of the software or to
obtain additional benefits. For more information, see
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=39157.

During a validation check, the software will send information about the software and the device
to Microsoft....Which basically says that your PC will periodically send your key to MS for verification, along with the IP address of the offending machine.

Back on-topic, looking at the I-Phone/AT&T EULA gives some startling facts, the main one being that there is no actual clause to say that you cannot "Unlock" the phone, although there are some veiled points about reverse engineering blah blah blah.

There's a lot of stuff to read through but the link below gives one take on the whole saga.

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/453/

11.10.2007 15:07 #14

joe777

Oh that was it YOUR BANNED and effectively your online gamming experience is bricked.
Come folks M's have shares in apple. Have you never seen the movie Pirates Of Silicone Valley? They are all in the same circle's.

Edit: or as they say in Scotland "they are all pissing in the same pot"

11.10.2007 15:11 #15

WierdName

Originally posted by joe777: Listen you ignorant little s*** " their O's their rules " now you read the EULA and tell me I'm wrong? Not the other way around, S*****.You were the one presenting the argument, you should have provided the evidence.

Originally posted by simpsim1: I don't know about ignorant, but that post is certainly arrogant and frankly not worthy of a decent reply.

For the benefit of those who want to know (And we're straying dangerously off-topic here) I took the liberty of reading the EULA from MS Vista. It says next to points about updates that these can be turned off if the user wishes (Although as I said, you have to disable them in Services to stop them completely).

More of concern to those with illegal copies is this portion...

Quote:The software will from time to time validate the software, update or require download of the
validation feature of the software. Validation verifies that the software has been activated and
is properly licensed. Validation also permits you to use certain features of the software or to
obtain additional benefits. For more information, see
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=39157.

During a validation check, the software will send information about the software and the device
to Microsoft....Which basically says that your PC will periodically send your key to MS for verification, along with the IP address of the offending machine.

Back on-topic, looking at the I-Phone/AT&T EULA gives some startling facts, the main one being that there is no actual clause to say that you cannot "Unlock" the phone, although there are some veiled points about reverse engineering blah blah blah.

There's a lot of stuff to read through but the link below gives one take on the whole saga.

" target="_blank">http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/453/

I was not being arrogant, my first post sounded that way because I'm getting sick of the people that through out baseless accusations against people, companies, products, etc. My second post was just asking where the line was that said they would update the OS without user permission. Now that someone has actually posted where it says that, in this case you, I'll take a look.

As for that bit on the phone, that could be used against Apple. However, it is probable that they reversed engineered the code to find out how to unlock it.

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected expected and therefore mean your expecting the expected which was the unexpected until you expected it?
Opinions are immunities to being told we're wrong.

11.10.2007 15:36 #16

joe777

Maybe people are pissed off, with other folks that are not entirely sure of what they are speaking about. Maybe just maybe, I was telling you, that there is information, that you are not aware of and that you should not shoot your mouth off without the knowledge to back it up my friend. Say what you have to say (in reply of this) and the 2 of us can get back on topic.

I must say I think ah hyjacked the thread, sorry peeps.

11.10.2007 16:14 #17

WierdName

Originally posted by joe777: Say what you have to say (in reply of this)Alright then, I have been a little short lately and you sounded like you were popping off with a baseless opinion. I have been running hacked Windows OSes for a long time and haven't noticed any changes or anything (Windows OS programs or others) trying to access the internet though a my special setup. When you threw out that claim without a link or reference to some evidence, I considered you to be one of the annoying masses. Now since I could care less, I'm outta here.

11.10.2007 16:58 #18

joe777

Peace brother.

11.10.2007 17:11 #19

simpsim1

Thread is finished if we can't even stick to the topic. I'm definately done with this one.

My opinions come with no warranty whatsoever, but are totally open-source, so you can reverse engineer or decompile them as you see fit. All other rights reserved.

12.10.2007 13:57 #20

borhan9

It was only a matter of time before this was going to happen you can not make a phone exclusive to one phone company its just anti competitive.

21.10.2007 17:30 #21

AfterDawn: News