Filed under: Bad Apple, iPhone
Man to sue over 1.1.1 iBricking
ComputerWorld reports that Timothy Smith, an iPhone owner in California, plans to sue Apple for violating antitrust law. His claim rests on the fact that Apple forces consumers to use AT&T as their sole wireless carrier and that the 1.1.1 update bricked phones that were unlocked for other carriers. This sole agreement with AT&T is, according to his suit, anticompetitive, forcing customers to pay more for their phones and for the cell phone service than they would in a competitive market. The suit goes on to add that Apple knew that the probable result of the update would brick unlocked iPhones.
If you're feeling in a litigious mood or if you just want to rubberneck to see what the fuss is about, check out this website set up by the Law Offices of Van Smith and Fernandez. It's got some spiffy photos at the top with a guy on a phone (it's probably not an iPhone) and a couple of lawyers talking (probably neither Van Smith or Fernandez).
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Ross said 4:13PM on 10-08-2007
This is the best news I have heard since my phone was bricked by Apple. My favorite part is that this isn't for money but rather that Apple(ATT) has to start following the law and allowing users to unlock their phones and allow them to remain unlocked. The only thing I don't like about it is that this is going to be only against Apple not ATT which is the real culprit for making Apple do it. I really hope that this lawsuit not only goes all the way to trial but it gets a big WIN so that companies like ATT and others will stop messing with their customers' property and allow them to do what they want!
Reply
Charles said 4:16PM on 10-08-2007
"Apple forces you to use AT&T": Sure. Of course, Apple doesn't force you to use their phone. You knew what you were in for.
"Apple knew about the bricking" I don't think they would deny that--in fact, the famously warned everyone that the software might result in bricks. A critical question is, did they design the software to brick unlocked phones.
(And, by "brick," I mean totally damage the phone beyond repair, not merely disable some any unofficial functionality)
I can sympathize that enthusiasts are getting shafted, but I think Apple has been up front about everything.
Reply
Charles said 4:16PM on 10-08-2007
"Apple forces you to use AT&T": Sure. Of course, Apple doesn't force you to use their phone. You knew what you were in for.
"Apple knew about the bricking" I don't think they would deny that--in fact, the famously warned everyone that the software might result in bricks. A critical question is, did they design the software to brick unlocked phones.
(And, by "brick," I mean totally damage the phone beyond repair, not merely disable some any unofficial functionality)
I can sympathize that enthusiasts are getting shafted, but I think Apple has been up front about everything.
Reply
EBone said 4:21PM on 10-08-2007
Nobody foreces anyone to buy an iPhone, so that point is moot. The cell phone market is not a limited provider market, like electricity and water, so anti-trust really doesn't attach.
You can't force Chevrolet to sell Hondas if they don't want to. You can't insist that T-Mobile provide service for an iPhone if they have no contract to do so, no matter how you went around the software license agreement that came with the phone.
Reply
Michael Schmitt said 4:24PM on 10-08-2007
I'm glad to see that Rob (post 1) understands that it is ATT Wireless (formerly Cingular [ugh!])that is forcing the issue here, and not Apple. I'm guessing that Apple would LOVE to be able to sell the iPhone to ANY carrier as the current ATT setup is holding them back from selling the iPhone freely. Now, about the "knowingly bricking iPhones" part of the suit... I haven't really come up with an opinion about it either way as I am waiting for iPhone 2.0 to come out... Apple's first generation of everything they make always have juuuuuuust enough glitches to them that I am willing to put off buying Apple Product 1.0 for the "I'm first factor" and getting Apple Product 2.0 for the "it's gonna work" factor.
Reply
krye said 4:32PM on 10-08-2007
Give me a break. Another one looking to cash in. If you bought an iPhone, you knew that you were locked into AT&T. If you bought it with the intent of unlocking it, then serves you right! Apple told you that 1.1.1 would mess it up. So you were warned.
Reply
GrossGreg said 4:34PM on 10-08-2007
Hmm...looks like I can finally sue Microsoft because the Xbox 360 doesn't play PS3 games...or because I knowingly voided the warranty by modding it.
What a dumb lawsuit.
Reply
Darryl Yee said 4:38PM on 10-08-2007
along the same lines as comment #4: if I buy a brand new chevy and mod the engine to the point where it doesn't run anymore, I can't expect chevrolet to honor the warranty. also, there are quite a few phones that are initially exclusive to certain carriers.
Reply
Ian said 4:40PM on 10-08-2007
@4 "Nobody foreces anyone to buy an iPhone, so that point is moot."
I agree with you, but that doesn't mean this guy won't take it to the mat and possibly win. Take MS for example: Nobody is forcing you to use the built in media center or browser (or the OS itself for that matter), yet the European courts have slapped them down for it time and again.
Reply
Sean R said 4:43PM on 10-08-2007
Go Daddy sucks! And I agree with the law suite.
Reply
Johnny Thrash said 4:46PM on 10-08-2007
Thank you Mr. Smith for the free publicity.
Reply
wythrol said 4:47PM on 10-08-2007
How much of a grass chomping backward thinking fuck-nuckle do you have to be to ignore every single warning that trying to hack the iPhone to work on a third party carrier may result in the iPhone not working.
How much of a grass chomping backward thinking fuck-nuckle with a below average GED and a 10 year night school law degree do you have to be to think you can take on a a multi billion dollar company with a private army of lawyers that warned you that hacking the fecking iPhone would break all terms and conditions.
Reply
Will said 4:48PM on 10-08-2007
What baffles me is this assumption that Apple hasn't done their homework on this. That all of this is coming as a "surprise" to them.
But somehow thinking that Apple (and AT&T) and their VERY robust legal department(s) haven't worked through all of these scenarios and basically have answers for them is folly. They knew all of this coming in to this fight.
Good luck on the lawsuit, Apple has lawyers on salary, this guy gets to pay them by the hour.
Reply
unteins said 4:51PM on 10-08-2007
I think the lawsuit will be able to demonstrate that Apple is bricking the phones by design, not by accident.
It is very simple to demostrate through a simple mental exercise.
1) The unlock is done purely through software.
2) The software to do it is freely available with source code.
3) Apple could see what the hackers have done to unlock.
4) Using that information, Apple can detect the presence of the unlock.
5) Apple can modify the phone.
6) The phone's IMEI is reset to the factory setting, thus, breaking the iPhone.
Since the unlock is done by flashing a part of the iPhone, Apple could have just as easily flashed that part of the iPhone to be the same as a factory stock 1.1.1 iPhone, which is now shipping.
Instead, the IMEI is changed and the iPhone is done as a phone. You can be the judge of what's really going on.
Reply
unteins said 4:55PM on 10-08-2007
Apple didn't warn people about the bricking until it was too late. Many people had already performed the unlock.
I don't understand why Apple didn't use 1.1.1 to simply return everyone to locked down status and then tell people don't ever do that again or else.
Reply
jay said 5:08PM on 10-08-2007
Personally, I would like to see Apple lose on this. I don't believe for one minute that it is only ATT that has forced this restriction. Apple has proved over the course of time to be very restrictive and they blame others for it.
Bad show. This loss could open the iPhone for the rest of us. Well, one can hope.
Reply
jonathan ober said 5:22PM on 10-08-2007
I didn't try modding my iPhone, and I don't plan too. I don't need something playing NES games, a different contract, or third-party apps. I never have that much time out on the road, so I could care less. I think that people are being too picky about what their iPhone should be able to do. You void the designed products warranty, you shouldn't cry lawyer. Gosh! It's a phone, an iPod, a camera, a Web Browser, yada yada, that's what Apple said it was, and that's what it is, end of story.
You want NES ROMS (illegal or legal) to play, then buy an NES at a garage sale or EB Games...
I like the idea of the iPhone using web 2.0 apps, it's easier and who doesn't have wireless or a phone signal at all times? I do.
Besides, web apps are the way of the future.
Reply
Digdug said 5:44PM on 10-08-2007
"I think the lawsuit will be able to demonstrate that Apple is bricking the phones by design, not by accident."
Are you kidding? Discover is a powerful legal tool, but how in HELL do you think that they will obtain anything more than a print-out of a middle finger? Source code is propriety trade secret.
Further, absent proof that the code actively sought the "fingerprint" of an unlocked phone, Apple can defend that any an all code was meant to improve functionality and any bricking was a result of unauthorized modification (read: A fouling up) of the operating system. And you know what? This is what I really think happened.
Reply
punkassjim said 5:58PM on 10-08-2007
Thank you, #4 (Ebone), for being the first person to actually recognize that anti-trust laws don't apply here. How can anyone assert that Apple is being anti-competitive or monopolistic? The truth is, they're being _successfully competitive_. There's plenty of competition in the marketplace, and the truth of the matter is even the phones that look way better on paper just don't stack up to the iPhone, in reality. But who or what is stopping the competing companies from delivering something better or cheaper? No one and nothing.
I think Apple _could_ have put more effort into avoiding the circumstances that caused unlocked iPhones to fail. But I will not, for one second, assert that they _should_ have. You hack your phone, you break the license agreement, and you want to continue getting free feature upgrades? Sorry, it's called accountability for your actions.
I want to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, if reverting an iPhone paperweight back to a working 1.0.2 device, can be done. Anyone point me to that info? Thanks in advance.
Reply
David S said 6:09PM on 10-08-2007
What a bunch of nonsense.
To quote Airplane, "They bought theuh tickets, they knew what they wuh getting into..."
Reply