1. evilhunter101's Avatar
    Looks like another class action lawsuit against AT&T and Apple just caught some ground to stand on. I think the only real gain to be had is us learning exactly when AT&T's exclusivity ends.

    If you'll recall, the argument is that iPhone customers signed up for a two-year contract without being told that AT&T had an exclusive for five years -- thus in reality being held to the carrier for an additional three years without recourse. Sure, that sounds a little silly, but if you bought the first-gen iPhone and wanted to stick with the platform it's the truth -- discounting the fact, of course, that no one's required to buy another Phone after two years, and even then you have to sign a new contract.
    iPhone AT&T exclusivity lawsuit granted class-action certification, every AT&T iPhone customer included -- Engadget

    EDIT: An old court order I dug up shows the basics of the argument. I'm sure its changed a bit since then so take with grain of salt please. The part the original link is referring to is the 2nd line on the 3rd page. Once again, I am not taking sides just throwing it out there. Link
    Last edited by evilhunter101; 07-11-10 at 04:02 AM.
    07-11-10 03:33 AM
  2. crackvegas78's Avatar
    So what about VZW and the Droid series of phones. Or Sprint and the EVO 4G for that matter. Heck VZW has had an exclusive on the Storm since it came out and I don't see them getting sued. It's all BS if you ask me.
    07-11-10 03:44 AM
  3. evilhunter101's Avatar
    So what about VZW and the Droid series of phones. Or Sprint and the EVO 4G for that matter. Heck VZW has had an exclusive on the Storm since it came out and I don't see them getting sued. It's all BS if you ask me.
    I'm not saying it isn't BS or I agree with it, I'm just throwing it out there for you guys to see.

    As for the Evo and the Droid series though, AT&T still gets some Android phones so that wouldn't stand or at least would be much harder to find solid ground for. However, I would think you could make a case regarding the Storm series but it isn't nearly as popular as the iPhone is so I don't see it happening.
    07-11-10 03:49 AM
  4. sivan's Avatar
    Say you bought an iPhone in 2007 and believed AT&T's exclusivity would be over by the time your contract is up. You invest in the iPhone "platform", buying apps etc. Then you have to stay with AT&T to keep using the "platform", regardless if it's the same phone or a new one.

    In contrast, you can invest in the BlackBerry "platform", but when your contract is up, buy a BB from a different carrier and your investment is preserved.

    Pretty flimsy case as that investment in the platform is hard to define and quantify, but it's different between the iPhone and the Storm.
    07-11-10 04:23 AM
  5. mas3222's Avatar
    People will sue whatever they can and lawyers are happy to jump. When you buy a phone that's exclusive to a carrier you should realize that if you want to jump to a different carrier you may never see that phone again. And when it comes to keeping apps and such on that platform they should remember that not long ago you couldn't even keep your ringtones if you switched to a different phone even on the same carrier.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-11-10 04:46 AM
  6. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    The only way that suit would stand up in court would be if Apple advertised something other than what they delivered. I don't recall Apple ever promising, or even insinuating, that their device would be useable on any other carrier. It's common knowledge that iPhones only work on an exclusive network. Anyone entering into a contract with Apple/AT&T is fully aware of this.

    The Engadget article twists semantics to get a rise out of its readers (nothing new to Engadget). Engadget (as well as BGR) is really nothing but crappy journalism for geeks who don't know any better.
    Last edited by rmjones101; 07-11-10 at 05:23 AM.
    07-11-10 05:20 AM
  7. Duvi's Avatar
    07-11-10 10:54 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD