

Judge OKs iPhone class action against Apple, AT&T - eplanit
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gfyDQCdkZXsZNTgnX2TERmFrZx7AD9GT46I00

======
brianobush
I was waiting for this day to come. I personally am against lawsuits and such,
since they usually are only good for the lawyers. However, the idea of network
lock-in is too restrictive. I think the platform lock-in is user's choice
though - they knew that when they bought an iphone. I guess you could argue
the same for the network.

------
dpatru
The lesson here seems to be that if you innovate you can count on the US
justice system to punish you. More than any other company, Apple has improved
the state of the art in cell phones for US consumers. Now they are getting
sued because they didn't improve it even more. Reminds me of Samuel Johnson's
description of a critic:

"Criticism is a study by which men grow important and formidable at a very
small expense. The power of invention has been conferred by nature upon few,
and the labour of learning those sciences which by mere labour be obtained is
too great to be willingly endured; but every man can exert such judgment as he
has upon the works of others; and he whom nature has made weak, and idleness
keeps ignorant, may yet support his vanity by the name of a critick." Johnson:
Idler #60 (June 9, 1759)

~~~
Sidnicious
Apple had to develop a process to unlock iPhones when they started selling
internationally. Not permitting it in the USA, when unlocking phones after a
period of time is the standard, is not lack of innovation, it's a step back.

Providing no way to install applications outside the App Store (and actively
working to stop jailbreaking), while rejecting applications that compete with
Apple or AT&T (Google Voice, Grooveshark, Podcaster, MailWrangler, etc.)?
That's a great way to present like a monopoly, regardless of whether Apple is
one at this time.

~~~
xenophanes
The app store is a _feature_ , not a bug. Or maybe I and Apple are wrong, but
why should it be illegal to make a product the way you think is best? If
Apple's doing it wrong, someone else can outcompete them.

Apple thinks a free-for-all app store would make the product worse. Smart
people take both sides of the issue. Why should the courts get involved?

As for locking, yeah it sucks. Presumably it's AT&T's idea since it doesn't
benefit Apple. But anyway, if you don't like it, don't buy it. You knew what
you were signing up for. It's not like Apple has a monopoly on cell phones.
Again I don't see any place in this for the legal system.

~~~
dablya
They are arguing that in fact people did NOT know what they were getting into.
People were signing up for 2 year contracts with AT&T while Apple had a 5 year
exclusivity contract with AT&T. Meaning people were locking themselves into 5
year commitments without realizing it.

------
sriram_sun
I don't think the lawsuit will succeed. Apple was not a monopoly. People had
the option to choose both the service provider and the handset.

~~~
achille
Most networks allow their phones to be unlocked after two years for this very
reason. Even AT&T will give you an unlock code for other Motorola, Nokia
phones once the two year obligation is fulfilled.

------
dablya
At least it's not over the antenna...

