MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Nov 20, 09 - 03:34 pm Comment from: ericdano

You know, I don't get these lawsuits. What exactly is the purpose? To run the iPhone on Verizon? So you'll be able to either make a call, or data surf, but not both?

Lame

Nov 20, 09 - 03:35 pm Comment from: breeze

Probably sponsored by the same assholes that sponsored Pystar

Nov 20, 09 - 03:36 pm Comment from: Regular Reader

Uh huh. It never ends.

Nov 20, 09 - 03:39 pm Comment from: HMCIV

Version 1.1.1 huh? Like a successful joke, the trick to a successful lawsuit is the


timing.

I want Adobe to give me the source code for Photoshop because my hacked version stopped running properly. Should I get in touch with my lawyer?

MDN Magic Word: "book" (as in "Throw the book at these fools.")

Nov 20, 09 - 03:40 pm Comment from: Gregg Thurman

""Several days before iPhone 1.1.1 was released, Apple threatened to take action against users who had hacked their handsets, saying that doing so would 'violate their iPhone software license agreement and void their warranty,'" Keizer reports."

Ah, Psystar. The scope of that ruling makes this suit a big waste of time. The Psystar decision validated Apple's enduser license agreement.

This suit has no chance in hell of reversing that decision.

Nov 20, 09 - 03:42 pm Comment from: cptnkirk

Apple should just ask for a summary judgement as with Psyster. If the judge in this case is aware of the result in the other case how can he do anything but support Apple's EULA. End of case.

Get a fucking life...

Hmmm... Let's see the logic here: You like my PROPRIETARY product (say a game, CG movie, HR software). You want the ability to hack it event though it violates our purchase agreement and warranty. So you sue to get the source code (the tricks and trade secrets in a proprietary product). Yes, I'm sure all commercial companies will support such user privilege. If you hot-rod your engine and the car doesn't run anymore, I'm sure GM/Ford will spare no expense in helping you fix it up. Right...

ed
That would be T-Mobile most likely.

This is ridiculous they could only use the iPhone on ATT or T-Mobile anyway. And you still have to pay for service.

Gee, I wonder who is really behind this? I agree, Get a Life you losers and kiss my... too!

Nov 20, 09 - 04:05 pm Comment from: Think

Tort reform.

Need to start telling lawyer jokes again.

Scum of the earth.

Hmm, let's recast this: "Windows Genuine Advantage validation bricked my (allegedly) pirated copy of Windows. I demand the source code to Windows!"

waa waa waa . . . i bought your device, agreed to use it on the network you chose, i altered it so that i could do what i wanted, then i upgraded using your software and i want you to fix my problems . . .

Seriously??

Nov 20, 09 - 04:38 pm Comment from: Spudly

leaches...

Nov 20, 09 - 04:40 pm Comment from: Shado Control

Hahahahahahahaha

This will be sooo laughed out of court. I'll bet the judge won't have had such a good laugh in a looong time.

Seriously, if I've fulfilled my terms of the contract I had with AT&T;, my iPhone should be free and clear to use whatever GSM carrier I see fit. Give me the official unlock and I won't have to resort to jailbreaking to unlock it.

Nov 20, 09 - 05:37 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

After eating at KFC, I came down with food poisoning.

My only hope of winning my case? They must be forced to disclose their secret recipe of eleven herbs and spices.

Otherwise, how else are my lawyers able to determine beyond a reasonable doubt, what it is that made me sick?

Incorrect.

Your license with ATnT may have expired, but your agreement with Apple continues for as long as you intend to use Apple's product (the iPhone and its corresponding software).

For all of you jail-breakers: if you're going to unlock your iPhone, whatever. Illegal, but whatever...
but Apple didn't make you buy an iPhone, and Apple is therefor NOT required by law to help you unlock it.

BeyondtheTech said:
"Seriously, if I've fulfilled my terms of the contract I had with AT&T;, my iPhone should be free and clear to use whatever GSM carrier I see fit. Give me the official unlock and I won't have to resort to jailbreaking to unlock it."

Nov 20, 09 - 06:05 pm Comment from: MDmac

One thing that could stop all this, is to make it mandatory to identify the plaintiffs in the news story. Otherwise, how are we to know that the lawsuit or the article is real.

Nov 20, 09 - 06:11 pm Comment from: Spark

Narcissists. They are the bane of a decent society.

Nov 20, 09 - 06:53 pm Comment from: jjjj

ballmer must really be digging.

Correct me if I am wrong, but non of the iPhones were bricked for good, quickpawn or who ever came out with a new jail break,

Nov 20, 09 - 10:01 pm Comment from: DogGone

To stop frivolous lawsuits the plaintiff should pay the defendants lawyers costs. That will cut out most of this BS.

@ G4Dualie – Beautiful analogy!

Of course, now I'm hungry for some KFC…

Tying is not illegal in and of itself. if it was then it would have been cut down a long time ago thanks to T-Mobile and the Sidekick, Sprint and the Instinct etc.

Tying is only illegal when it is abusive. to be abusive it must be two unrelated items (a cell phone and a carrier are most definitely related since a phone is little good without service) tied in such a way that a strong market power for one item is used to prevent competition for the other. Example. Microsoft attempted to make the inclusion of IE and only IE a condition of an OEM license. A web browser and an operating system are not (according to the courts) related items. Microsoft was using their 90% market share for Windows to cut off competition from Netscape etc for IE. bad boys.

so even without the whole 'related item' issue you would have to show that either the iphone or ATT has an overwhelming market power and that the tying was shutting out all over phones/services. not likely to be a winning argument.

and then there is the not so little issue that hacking the iphone to unlock the sim is circumvention of an access system and thus a DMCA violation. had they filed the suit before they committed the crime the courts might be more friendly to them. double if they made the issue simply any company locking a device to a single carrier.

Nov 21, 09 - 09:02 am Comment from: Hm...

DogGone a scribe: To stop frivolous lawsuits the plaintiff should pay the defendants lawyers costs. That will cut out most of this BS.

How about the plaintiff and their law firm share the cost equally. Then these trolling lawyers will think twice before taking on crap cases. Right now, the lawyers can't lose: they get paid something either way. And that might also help bring down "East Texas" as the haven of frivolity.

Nov 21, 09 - 10:29 am Comment from: KingMel

There are many things that are broken about this country that are taking it into a downward spiral. A few key ones off of the top of my head...

#1 The substantial decline in the concept and application of personal responsibility
#2 The lack of accountability (personal or corporate)
#3 A culture that actively discourages and penalizes telling the truth (who admits guilt anymore)
#4 The increase in the attitude of entitlement
#5 The decrease in the overall work ethic
#6 An excessive desire to avoid risk, thereby also limiting the potential for reward

There are others, but this is a reasonable start.

Nov 23, 09 - 04:09 am Comment from: derekcurrie

What is odd about such lawsuits is that the judges have the power to throw invalid lawsuits out of court. Clearly this is another nonsense lawsuit that does not require extensive research. It is simply invalid and should have been thrown out.

The result would have been saving massive time and money for everyone concerned EXCEPT the prosecuting lawyers.

IMHO what we have going on is not sucking up to the lawyers by the judges, but instead incredibly ignorance of the field of technology law. I don't think the judges understand the basic concepts of a EULA. Thus we have all these lawsuits dangling on, in this case for years, when the entire issue could have ended within a day. This was most certainly the case with Psystar as well as this lunatic iPhone case.