ATT/Apple Sued for phone damages
IPhone owners will get their day in court
Thursday, October 11, 2007 by HG_Eliminator | Discussion: Internet
It seems Damaged IPhone owners will get their Day in court. Two class action lawsuits have been filed against ATT and Apple,In San Jose ,Calif, one state and one federal. The law suit claims they engaged in illegal monopolistic behavior. (sounds like something I said when this whole fiasco started).
With millions sold and possibly thousands damaged...this could really Hit the Two power houses hard. Could IPhone owners get vindication? Could this mean the end of big business forcing restrictions on their customers to keep them locked in? its a wait and see game now...
Heres the full story
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21230559/?gt1=10450
With millions sold and possibly thousands damaged...this could really Hit the Two power houses hard. Could IPhone owners get vindication? Could this mean the end of big business forcing restrictions on their customers to keep them locked in? its a wait and see game now...
Heres the full story
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21230559/?gt1=10450
Bichur
Reply #2 Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:08 AM
Reply #2 Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:08 AM
I'm not sure what kind of chance the lawsuit has. 
Wikipedia:
In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
In all the areas where the phone was sold, everyone had an opportunity not to purchase it - they could have bought something else and gone with another carrier. Most monopoly suits that win usually deal with crowding out competition so you have no choice. Ma Bell went through this before.
Wikipedia:
In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
In all the areas where the phone was sold, everyone had an opportunity not to purchase it - they could have bought something else and gone with another carrier. Most monopoly suits that win usually deal with crowding out competition so you have no choice. Ma Bell went through this before.
Jythier
Reply #3 Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:39 AM
Reply #3 Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:39 AM
Apple intentionally disabled the phones that consumers had bought. That's conversion, as far as I can tell. Of course, the phone owners converted Apple's intellectual property first. So I don't really see anything there.
As for whether that's a fair business practice or not, I don't think disabling the phones is fair. I think allowing only one network is fair.
As for whether that's a fair business practice or not, I don't think disabling the phones is fair. I think allowing only one network is fair.
Astyanax
Reply #4 Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:50 AM
AT&T has gotten really messed up previously for being a monopoly in the USA. It doesn't surprise me that they'd go back to acting as they used to. They where a monopoly hen and they are now.
They had to, I bet it was part of their contract with AT&T.
Reply #4 Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:50 AM
I'm not sure what kind of chance the lawsuit has.
Wikipedia:
In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
Wikipedia:
In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
AT&T has gotten really messed up previously for being a monopoly in the USA. It doesn't surprise me that they'd go back to acting as they used to. They where a monopoly hen and they are now.
Apple intentionally disabled the phones that consumers had bought. That's conversion, as far as I can tell. Of course, the phone owners converted Apple's intellectual property first. So I don't really see anything there.
They had to, I bet it was part of their contract with AT&T.
Bichur
Reply #5 Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:40 AM
It would be stupid not to.
but part of a monopoly is: was the iphone the only phone avaiable? was AT&T the only provider avaiable? not really whether this phone only comes with this carrier. if you have other phones and carriers available how can you claim monopoly since you have a choice?
i don't have one, haven't read a contract for one... i am curious if it mentions what's to happen when your provider time runs it's course.. does it mention anywhere that at that time you can take it in and either: renew or have it unlocked so you can switch? does it mention being allowed to unlock if you full pay your provider contract coverage? things like that.
personally I think the iphone/at&t should be considered tough titties. there were other phone/carrier choices available and they signed a contract.
can I sue MS/Stardock because dreams won't run on the system of my choice? They are partners and therefore must be in monopolistic cahoots to force me to use Vista Ultimate.
Reply #5 Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:40 AM
I bet it was part of their contract with AT&T
It would be stupid not to.
but part of a monopoly is: was the iphone the only phone avaiable? was AT&T the only provider avaiable? not really whether this phone only comes with this carrier. if you have other phones and carriers available how can you claim monopoly since you have a choice?
i don't have one, haven't read a contract for one... i am curious if it mentions what's to happen when your provider time runs it's course.. does it mention anywhere that at that time you can take it in and either: renew or have it unlocked so you can switch? does it mention being allowed to unlock if you full pay your provider contract coverage? things like that.
personally I think the iphone/at&t should be considered tough titties. there were other phone/carrier choices available and they signed a contract.
can I sue MS/Stardock because dreams won't run on the system of my choice? They are partners and therefore must be in monopolistic cahoots to force me to use Vista Ultimate.
Gideon MacLeish
Reply #6 Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:47 AM
Except when you do not live in the service area for that network, meaning even if you wanted the product, you can't purchase it, because to you it is just a fancy paperweight!
Reply #6 Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:47 AM
I think allowing only one network is fair.
Except when you do not live in the service area for that network, meaning even if you wanted the product, you can't purchase it, because to you it is just a fancy paperweight!
Island Dog
Reply #7 Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:50 AM
Reply #7 Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:50 AM
Everyone was aware that the iPhone was tied to AT&T, just as other phones are tied to certain carriers. Consumers do have a choice, go with another phone/carrier.
What's next? Maybe someone can sue Microsoft for not allowing PS3 games to be played on the 360.
What's next? Maybe someone can sue Microsoft for not allowing PS3 games to be played on the 360.
Gideon MacLeish
Reply #8 Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:00 PM
Reply #8 Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:00 PM
I just think it's a rotten deal, that's all.
But a rotten deal doesn't make for lawsuit material, I agree.
In all likelihood, even if we were in AT&T's service area, I w\likely would not have purchased the iPhone. But I would have liked to have had that option.
But a rotten deal doesn't make for lawsuit material, I agree.
In all likelihood, even if we were in AT&T's service area, I w\likely would not have purchased the iPhone. But I would have liked to have had that option.
Jythier
Reply #9 Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:48 PM
Reply #9 Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:48 PM
Service not guaranteed, Gid! 
The only difference between the iPhone and other phones is the 'i'. Marketing. Branding. The Apple brand is bigger than the ATT brand. The phone was overhyped so much that people wanted the phone more than the service.
What Apple should have done was create a phone suitable for any network, and sell that, and let the cell phone companies figure it out. But they didn't, and now there's a controversy, but it's just the branding.
The only difference between the iPhone and other phones is the 'i'. Marketing. Branding. The Apple brand is bigger than the ATT brand. The phone was overhyped so much that people wanted the phone more than the service.
What Apple should have done was create a phone suitable for any network, and sell that, and let the cell phone companies figure it out. But they didn't, and now there's a controversy, but it's just the branding.
HG_Eliminator
Reply #10 Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:01 PM
To me this does not look like just a case of a company making a game to go with its console..IMO it looks like companies banding together to lock out the competition and create a monopoly.
it's called brand banding and there should be a law against, if there isn't...Brand banding is when 2 companies or so get together to try to force customers buying one product in to only using their specified conjoining products when there are available alternative choices..
Example: A car maker makes a totally hot car that looks and has features no other has..goes to extreme measures creating hype to get the consumers all excited. Then they organize a contract that only allows purchasers to buy from the gas stations they specify,tire manufacturers they specify,car washes they specify. etc .. you get the idea...
Even tho there are plenty of alternative gas stations,car washes and tire makers..and you don't have to alter the car to use them.
1 or more companies conspiring to lock out competition or force ably deny customers from using competitors services. should be against the law. (and possibly is) this would be tantamount to Price fixing by gas stations, trying to squash the smaller competitors.
not to mention since when were contracts legal and binding if they are unconstitutional ? if a contract violates the inherent freedom of choice. isn't the contract null and void? im not saying these contracts are, A lawyer could answer this better.
not to mention how many people have to buy a new and branded version of the same phone when ever they want to switch providers, why because the service provider's require it? like the phone mfgs are going to complain, every time you switch services, wa la you have to buy a new phone and more $ for the mfgs...
Adding a specific function to a product is not illegal.Neither is another company supporting it..
BUT if stardock and MS got together and added in ther EULA that when you buy Vista you MUST only use Stardock apps to skin it.. well then they have conspired to lock out the competition. essentially locking avedesk,litestep,etc out of the market....and create a Gui skinning monopoly.
see the difference?
Reply #10 Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:01 PM
To me this does not look like just a case of a company making a game to go with its console..IMO it looks like companies banding together to lock out the competition and create a monopoly.
it's called brand banding and there should be a law against, if there isn't...Brand banding is when 2 companies or so get together to try to force customers buying one product in to only using their specified conjoining products when there are available alternative choices..
Example: A car maker makes a totally hot car that looks and has features no other has..goes to extreme measures creating hype to get the consumers all excited. Then they organize a contract that only allows purchasers to buy from the gas stations they specify,tire manufacturers they specify,car washes they specify. etc .. you get the idea...
Even tho there are plenty of alternative gas stations,car washes and tire makers..and you don't have to alter the car to use them.
1 or more companies conspiring to lock out competition or force ably deny customers from using competitors services. should be against the law. (and possibly is) this would be tantamount to Price fixing by gas stations, trying to squash the smaller competitors.
not to mention since when were contracts legal and binding if they are unconstitutional ? if a contract violates the inherent freedom of choice. isn't the contract null and void? im not saying these contracts are, A lawyer could answer this better.
not to mention how many people have to buy a new and branded version of the same phone when ever they want to switch providers, why because the service provider's require it? like the phone mfgs are going to complain, every time you switch services, wa la you have to buy a new phone and more $ for the mfgs...
can I sue MS/Stardock because dreams won't run on the system of my choice? They are partners and therefore must be in monopolistic cahoots to force me to use Vista Ultimate.
Adding a specific function to a product is not illegal.Neither is another company supporting it..
BUT if stardock and MS got together and added in ther EULA that when you buy Vista you MUST only use Stardock apps to skin it.. well then they have conspired to lock out the competition. essentially locking avedesk,litestep,etc out of the market....and create a Gui skinning monopoly.
see the difference?
Philly0381
Reply #11 Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:04 PM
Reply #11 Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:04 PM
Everything said here points to one very specific principal, Buyer Beware.
HG_Eliminator
Reply #12 Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:10 PM
Reply #12 Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:10 PM
on the point of the phones were altered this will probably be the defining factor. BUT if the phones are physically capable of being used by different service providers. is it legal for the mfgs and providers to intentionally lock them out to begin with?
HG_Eliminator
Reply #13 Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:09 PM
Reply #13 Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:09 PM
would it be ok for a PC MFG to add in a contract to buy the PC that you must use only the OS supplied? even when theres alternative OS's out there? IMO no.
now some will say well you dont have to buy that brand of PC, true but if they are allowed to do it then others will follow suit,soon enough there will only be a few choices as all the CO's start brand banding together..
if you buy a phone , as long as you pay off your contractual obligation to the originating provider you should be able to use the Hardware how ever you wish. with any provider you wish.
I guarantee you if MS got together with PC mfg's and set up a deal like this..
@#$ would hit the fan...
when ever a CO is allowed to try and lock out the competition and or limit customer choices.. we all loose...
now some will say well you dont have to buy that brand of PC, true but if they are allowed to do it then others will follow suit,soon enough there will only be a few choices as all the CO's start brand banding together..
if you buy a phone , as long as you pay off your contractual obligation to the originating provider you should be able to use the Hardware how ever you wish. with any provider you wish.
I guarantee you if MS got together with PC mfg's and set up a deal like this..
@#$ would hit the fan...
when ever a CO is allowed to try and lock out the competition and or limit customer choices.. we all loose...
NightTrainthedark
Reply #14 Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:11 PM
Reply #14 Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:11 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why Apple got into bed with AT@T.
Moderateman
Reply #15 Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:43 PM
silly answer time.
because the A in A T and T got lonely so now it's A A T and T
Reply #15 Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:43 PM
(Citizen)Night TrainOctober 11, 2007 20:11:45
I'm still trying to figure out why Apple got into bed with AT@T.
silly answer time.
because the A in A T and T got lonely so now it's A A T and T
Bichur
Reply #16 Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:45 PM
well yeah, but it was the best I could come up with since I was running late for work
but I still don't see any issue for a class action suit other than to line some legal pockets (they are the only ones who ever truly win)
Reply #16 Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:45 PM
see the difference?
well yeah, but it was the best I could come up with since I was running late for work
but I still don't see any issue for a class action suit other than to line some legal pockets (they are the only ones who ever truly win)
Everyone was aware that the iPhone was tied to AT&T, just as other phones are tied to certain carriers. Consumers do have a choice, go with another phone/carrier.
Everything said here points to one very specific principal, Buyer Beware.
I just think it's a rotten deal, that's all.
But a rotten deal doesn't make for lawsuit material, I agree.
But a rotten deal doesn't make for lawsuit material, I agree.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:32 AM
IPhone owners will get their day in court
It was only a matter of time...hopefully the result is positive for the little guys...er, consumers. I'd love to see this being tied to 'propriety' gone once and for all...that maybe consumers could put OS-X on their PC's (and have Stardock products skin it) if they so desired.