MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Oct 07, 08 - 04:00 pm Comment from: Willie G

5 years? what is that all about, my AT&T;contract expressly states 2 years, not 5. The 5 year exclusivity arrangement was between Apple and AT&T;. I mean, I guess one could offer that people who want an iPhone would then be forced to stay with AT&T;for as long as the exclusivity remains, but no one HAS to have an iPhone.

Next thing you know, XBox games will have to play on Wii and PS3.

Oct 07, 08 - 04:05 pm Comment from: pocketRocket

You have just gotta be kidding me - just when I had kidded myself that Apple were perfect.

Yes naughty Apple for 5 year tie-ins, but the other two come on. All mobile phones have a software administration program on the PC and Apple provides iTunes on OS X and XP / Vista to provide the same level of administration - against the law - I don't think so! Disabling locked phones, well that was a risk that most people unconsciously knew about - just didn't want to admit it out loud.

Oct 07, 08 - 04:08 pm Comment from: Jay-Z

I believe there is a law in the U.S. that requires carriers to unlock cell phones after contractual obligations have been met, meaning that you could take your iPhone to any GSM carrier after 2 years. Can anyone confirm this is the case?

@Willie G

Your contract is for 2 years. That is correct. But The Apple/ATT iPhone deal is for 5 years. SO, after your two years are up you are free to buy another phone and leave ATT, but you are not free to take your iPhone with you. That Voids the warranty and breaks the user license. Your iPhone is stuck with ATT for at least 5 years.

Oct 07, 08 - 04:10 pm Comment from: TowerTone

I was going to say something funny, but....

@ Willie (continued)

But by then, you will probably want the new iPhone xG anyways.

Oct 07, 08 - 04:17 pm Comment from: Demon

No one really knows what the contract between Apple and AT&T;is or even how long the contract is. The Judge didn't say anything. The Judge just ruled on the motion to dismiss. Which allows the discovery phase to start.

Oct 07, 08 - 04:21 pm Comment from: Macintosh

@Demon,

Didn't Steve Jobs say it was for 5 years in the January 2007 keynote where he first introduced the iPhone?

So where is it illegal to have an exclusive agreement to sell somthing? Its NOT.

not only that, but you cant force APPLE to support anything unless THEY SET the terms. You cant take the iphone jailbrake it then have it overheat and melt and expect them to fix it. and you cant expect them to support software updates on a network THEY DONT WANT TO.

you cant force a product maker to do what YOU WANT. They set the terms, if you dont like them DONT BUY IT.

END OF STORY. STOP WHINING!

Oct 07, 08 - 04:23 pm Comment from: ken1w

So Apple may be "forced" to back out of its exclusivity arrangement with AT&T;, for which AT&T;is probably paying a very high cost. And Apple will have a Verizon version of the iPhone, waiting the in wings. I'm sure Apple has enough clout this time around to motivate Verizon to make whatever concessions are needed. This is no-lose for Apple...

Bradner is a idiot. The judge merely chose not to dismiss. All that means is the case continues.

Most likely, this is some kooky, 9th Circuit left-wing judge refusing to apply the law or previous court precedent. Apple should appeal this. BTW, the Supreme Court spends (wastes) much of its time overruling the 9th circuit for its crazy rulings.
With respect to policy, this ruling is deeply misguided. Apple and ATT think their current deal is in their joint interest and they relied on its terms to bring a great product to consumers. Obviously, consumers AGREE because they're buying iPhones by the bucket. If the current arrangement gets disallowed, Apple or ATT will pass any additional costs on to the consumer. Thanks a lot, judge!!!

Oct 07, 08 - 04:28 pm Comment from: theloniousMac

Oh Darn.

Oct 07, 08 - 04:28 pm Comment from: Macintosh

@yeahOK,

RE: "So where is it illegal to have an exclusive agreement to sell somthing? Its NOT."


Please read post from "dallas" above.

Oct 07, 08 - 04:46 pm Comment from: Demon

@ Macintosh

I'm not sure.
But, even if he had said that AT&T;and Apple had signed a 5 year exclusive deal. The devil is in the details as to what exactly that means. As far as I know no one has seen the contract outside of Apple and AT&T;executives and attorneys. The iPhone hasn't been out long enough for anyone's contract with AT&T;to end. So, at the end of your contract is your iPhone still going to be locked to AT&T;? No one can say. But, the my guess is your iPhone would be unlocked from AT&T;if you requested it.
My guess in the contract is much less binding and restrictive then everyone makes out like it is. More of a handshake deal then a long negotiated contract.
The Facts are Apple when to all the carries to get them to agree to sell and support the iPhone. Only AT&T;agreed that's why I think it's more of a handshake deal then a long negotiated contract.

The court didn't rule anything about AT&T;and Apple's agreement or business practices. What the court "ruled" was that Apple and AT&T;'s motion to dismiss the charges did not meet the standards; in other words, there may be some issue of law or fact that supports the plaintiff's claims and that needs to be litigated.

A motion to dismiss is basically Apple and AT&T;telling the court that the plaintiff's claims have no merit or legal claims whatsoever, and that therefore there is nothing to litigate, so the claims should be dismissed.

In this case, the judge decided that there is at least enough of a question that the claims should be litigated, which permits both sides to fully present their cases. At this point, no evidence has even been presented.

Nothing to see here, people. Move along.

"The Facts are Apple when to all the carries to get them to agree to sell and support the iPhone. Only AT&T;agreed that's why I think it's more of a handshake deal then a long negotiated contract."

What?

Oct 07, 08 - 05:28 pm Comment from: ron

"greed that's why I think it's more of a handshake deal then a long negotiated contract."

greed that's why I think it's more of a handshake deal, then a long negotiated contract."

greed that's why I think it's more of a handshake deal than a long negotiated contract."

English? Words mean things.

Oct 07, 08 - 05:30 pm Comment from: ron

An 'a' or a comma really changes the meaning of the statement.

Oct 07, 08 - 05:47 pm Comment from: twilightmoon

Jay-Z that might be a state law thing, never heard of a national law about that.

Oct 07, 08 - 06:22 pm Comment from: Predrag

Apple purportedly has 5-year agreement with AT&T for exclusive sale of the iPhone (which nobody has seen, but people somehow feel free to quote in their law suits!!!). The only thing this purported contract means is that T-Mobile can't sell iPhone (Verizon and Sprint are out of the game, they aren't GSM).

Nobody knows what happens to your iPhone when your 2 years expire. If you buy any phone from AT&T or T-Mobile, they will let you unlock it if you ask (and if you're eligible). There is nothing that indicates AT&T wouldn't do the same for iPhone when the two years are up.

As for the US law, some two years ago, an exemption to the DMCA was adopted that allows people to unlock their phones. Under original DMCA, unlocking was unlawful, since it was circumventing software locks. This law does NOT require carriers to tell you how to unlock your phones. Nor does it require them to support that phone once you unlock it, if they explicitly stated in your contract that they won't support phones that you unlocked without their approval.

It seems that nobody here understood what happened. This wasn't a trial. Apple asked the judge to throw out this case, because it's ridiculous. Judge refused and now, they are going to trial, which Apple will undoubtedly win easily.

I'm glad I don't *really* need an iPhone, given the lock-in to AT&T;and associated monthlies. Hopefully, my new iPod Touch (delivery expected Thursday) will meet my needs for a long time.

Again, the details of the Apple-AT&T;agreement have NEVER been made public. It is only wild speculation that the two companies have a five-year, exclusive deal. This summer (in July), a news report did indicate that Apple and AT&T;signed a contract extension for one additional year, but again, no details were made public.

I believe the original deal likely was for two years (through July 2009), as that is the standard that AT&T;has used in the past when locking up exclusive phones (like the Motorola Razr). This matches customer contract terms. This summer's one-year contract extension (through July 2010) also suggests that an initial two-year agreement probably is accurate. With the release of the iPhone 3G, it seems logical that AT&T;needed an additional year of exclusivity to be able to sell new two-year, 3G contracts.

Mystery solved!

Oct 07, 08 - 07:15 pm Comment from: Anonymous©

The whole 5 year thing is still unconfirmed, and that reporter that first announced it, stated the Apple-ATT agreement had been extended a 3rd year to 2010, when the iPhone 3G launched. So, the reporter who originally stated that the deal was for 5 years, is the same reporter who this summer said the deal was extended a year, to 3 years. Strange.

Oct 07, 08 - 07:19 pm Comment from: Predrag

In other words, Apple has every legal right to exclusively sell iPhone through AT&T. Just like Verizon is selling some Samsung knock-off, and Sprint is selling its own LG version of an iPhone knock-off. They are all just as exclusive as the iPhone on AT&T.

They also have every legal right to control the way users will get applications for their phone. They also have every legal right to control system software updates and prevent user modification.

i am happy if this exclusive deal with AT&T;ends... Apple wins out anyway, if they include T-Mobile. They have better service where i live and in many metropolitans. So, in that case the only loser would be AT&T;.

Oct 07, 08 - 07:46 pm Comment from: rahrens

There is a difference between your phone being "locked" to ATT, and YOU being under contract WITH ATT for cell phone service.

Your contract means you will pay a monthly charge for access to their network. That is a legal, contractual thing that is time limited.

Your phone being "locked" means that it will only work with that network. That is a physical, technical thing that can be undone by ATT.

I bought my 3G on the first day it was available. At the end of July, beginning of August, we went to Germany. As part of buying the necessary data and phone packages so my phone would work there without astronomical roaming charges, I asked the ATT rep I spoke to if it could be unlocked.

He replied that after 3 months, for a small fee, about $30, it could be unlocked so I could insert a prepaid SIM card from a German carrier whenever I went overseas.

Of course, my ATT contract would still be in force when I got back and I could reinsert m ATT SIM and continue until the end of the contract.

Gee, folks, this isn't rocket science.

Sure, Apple has a contract to produce iPhones that only work with ATT right out of the box, for some period we haven't nailed down yet.

But the Apple/ATT contract does not limit YOU once your contract with ATT ends.

You are then free to go and contract with T Mobile, the only other carrier that it will work with in the US.

Just don't expect visual voicemail to work at T Mobile.

Oct 07, 08 - 08:01 pm Comment from: BC Kelly

Awwww, skip the jPhone stuff - rest of you go nutz


But intonation and inflection, cut me off a piece of that


I THOUGHT you were going to Chicago

I thought YOU were going to Chicago

I thought you were going to CHICAGO



Just be damn careful how you do stuff like that in Japan or China





BC

God Bless the litigious USA!! No wonder this country is so screwed financially.

The fact that AT&T;has been busted for this kind of anti competitive practice before makes it easy for judge. I thought the lawsuit was about anti-trust or the restriction of consumers to have a choice of cellular service not phone hardware. That would make the partnership exclusive and anti-competitive.

Oct 07, 08 - 10:16 pm Comment from: rahrens

Oh, come on, plenty of carriers have phones that are exclusive to just them. THAT'S not illegal!

Oct 08, 08 - 01:57 am Comment from: Swordmaker

Judge Ware has created, out of whole cloth, a single producer, single product monopoly. (Isn't that what a PATENT is all about???) He is finding that Apple is abusing its monopoly position in the "iPhone" market... ignoring that it is merely a competing product in the overall "smart phone" market, which is a sub-market of the overall cellular phone market.

He apparently is basing this on a case in which another idiot judge ruled that Xerox could not prohibit third party repair parts from being installed in their copiers without voiding the warranty.

I could as easily argue that Dishnetwork's receivers are single producer monopoly products in the "Dishnetwork receiver" market and that Dishnetwork is abusing its monopoly position be requiring owners to use their receivers with Dishnetwork's satellite entertainment system and impermissibly excluding customers from receiving and watching DirecTV content on their receivers and that such a prohibition is a violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act. For some reason, DirecTV won't let Dishnetwork customers get their content either... There's a class action just waiting here for some enterprising shyster...

Knowing AT&T;, i.e., the old SWB folks, the idea of an exclusive deal was their idea not Apple's.

Apple, at the time was simply looking for a carrier... any carrier!

Lucky for Apple, there're going to come out of this looking like the injured party!

The courts will in do course break the deal with AT&T;, Apple will then unlock all the iPhones, make a pile of money and leave the court laughting all the way to the bank!

Chalk up another win for Apple Legal department!

And yes there will be a fast resolution to this case!

Oct 08, 08 - 08:13 am Comment from: ElderNorm

Just wondering if there are any actual lawyers (or people that will admit to being a lawyer ) in the group? We are just guessing here. Which in the case of lawyers may be actually better than the actual "legal" effort. LOL

(Ben Franklin was right...... "First we shoot all the la......." )

Just a thought.
en

effing brilliant...You think Apple consul had a clause in the contract for AT&T;to cover any anti-trust litigation fees that might arise?

Give AT&T;everything they want on exclusitivity, and if it's challenged, make them pay and we make even more boatloads of cash.

Inquiring minds would like to know,

"He is finding that Apple is abusing its monopoly position in the 'iPhone' market... "

So RIM can be sued because their Blackberry email is tied to their own servers, or require purchasing hardware that is exclusively available from RIM.

Thank God! Praise the Lord and Pass The Pancakes, at least the US has ONE recession proof industry! Go Lawyers!!!!