Filed under: Apple Corporate, iPhone
Judge won't dismiss Apple/AT&T suit
Northern California District Judge James Ware rejected arguments for dismissal in a class-action case surrounding Apple and AT&T's exclusivity deal for the iPhone.
The lawsuit alleges Apple unfairly maintains exclusivity with AT&T, preventing owners from unlocking and jailbreaking their handsets. It also argues that both companies disguised some post-sale costs of ownership.
Ware dismissed Apple's and AT&T's requests for dismissal -- a normal, routine part of the lawsuit process -- ruling they either weren't lawfully arguable or they didn't address the nature of the lawsuit.
Apple said that since customers were still under the terms of their two-year contract, they couldn't legally argue the status of that contract: Ware said that wasn't true. The company also said that they have since added support for third-party applications, but Ware said that wasn't the whole story, since Apple knowingly limits access to certain areas where it has a "financial interest."
All parties in the case will next meet November 17, where the court will try to find out more information about the nature of the deal between Apple and AT&T, including the exact duration of their exclusivity agreement.
[Via Macsimum News and AppleInsider.]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Alex L. said 2:19PM on 10-06-2008
"The company also said that they have since added support for third-party applications"
Are they trying to use this to support their point? Or to counter it?
If anything, the Appstore is a perfect example of Apple having a heavy hand.
I want my old Apple back.
Reply
ars_workerbee said 2:34PM on 10-06-2008
The whole hullabaloo about the duplicate functionality complainsts is a farce. I saw this the other day, it pretty well deconstructs the argument with more information about it than I've seen anyone else base their complaining on:
http://etherkiller.tumblr.com/post/52826602/daring-fireball-the-fear
Reply
Kai Cherry said 9:01PM on 10-06-2008
Your comment is the Gold Standard of apologist nonsense...as well as the original piece.
-K
ars_workerbee said 11:57PM on 10-06-2008
Kai Cherry: I'm pretty much a fan of attacking people whenever I disagree with them, so great job. Maybe you should be a little more open to the fact that they're not out to get everyone, and especially after we saw Mr. Podcaster's true character (convenient minimal quoting from his rejection, abuse of the Ad Hoc distribution process), you should be a little more open to other ideas, and a little less quick to label someone an apologist.
alf said 3:35PM on 10-06-2008
there's definitely an discrepancy issue with att and apple when signing up for a new iphone. we bought two back in july, when the new 3G came out, and were told that there would be an $18 & $9 [we're on a two phone family plan] setup charge/new acct fee. in actuality, it was $36 & $26 sign up fee, which really p*ssed me off, b/c i felt like i was lied to by either the sales guy at the apple store [unless he really didn't know, in which case he should've never stated a price], or att pulling a fast one - as usual! needless to say, we paid both the $36 & $26 setup fees - reluctantly - not to mention the fact that they fail to tell you that your first bill will be in the n'hood of $350.
to say i'm angry and frustrated over this is an understatement. ironically, we just got the same surprises from both our gas and power co. too. the deceptive practices of big corps and the unannounced 'fees' they slip in and their 'advanced billing' nonsense, it's all just become par for the course when doing biz with a monopoly or big corporation. meanwhile, they propagate themselves with slick tv and print ads where they actually pretend to give a damn about you and your family - NOT!
Reply
alf said 3:37PM on 10-06-2008
*a, not an
Reply
Dave said 5:06PM on 10-06-2008
Frankly I think the judge is right on here. Some of Apple & AT&T's violations are pretty obvious here plus there is the moral component with respect to RESPECTING YOU CUSTOMERS.
I hate to say this but it would be the best thing in the world, for consumers, if Apple and partners where to loose big time here. This would lead to a rapid clean up of the cell phone industry in general.
They can come up with all the excuses in the world but the fact remains that they violate the law. It is actually sad that organizations like AT&T try to pass off these contracts as a favor to consumers. All one has to do is look at an iPod or Zune to realize that the devices don't cost all that nigh to build. I'm not against profit but really that is something the market needs to decide not a team up by two gigantic corps to screw over the consumer.
Dave
Reply
Reginald E Johnson said 10:05PM on 10-06-2008
This is just like comparing Apples to Oranges. If you like the IPhone but don't want to deal with ATT, don't buy it! No one is forcing you to buy it. Look at all the other touch screens out there, they work only with their prospective carriers. You don't see a Instrint on T-Mobile do you?
Reply
Duscrom said 2:53PM on 10-11-2008
There are a few things wrong with your argument.
With the Instinct, There are similar phones on other carriers. AND, Samsung makes headsets for the different carriers too. But beyond that, After a certain amount of time, that Instinct can be unlocked to work with other CDMA carriers (Not T-Mobile, BTW)
Do you see Blackberry's limited to one carrier? What about WinMo Smart phones, HTC Phones, Nokia, Motorola, LG, Palm.. and so on. Things are kept competitive because either a) Most of these makers release similarly featured phones on multiple carriers, or there are similarly featured phones already on the carriers. IE Samsung Instinct vs LG Voyager. Or The Sprint Mogul vs. T-Mobile Wing vs AT&T Tilt vs Verizon VX6800.
iPhoneMilk said 7:05AM on 10-07-2008
wait wait wait... so let me get this straight... some of you are upset from hidden charges with a cel phone company??? *gasp* You don't say!!!
You people amaze me...
- On the topic at hand... what is this lawsuit REALLY for... i'm a little confused... how can Apple be sued for wanting their iPhone to be ATT exclusive.
Reply
sam said 7:34AM on 10-07-2008
Problem is contract term for Iphone. As per my understanding, I have to have AT&T in order to have Iphone working (legally) even though my contract is up. At&t wont allow me to use it on another network if I choose to opt out after my contract expires. At&t and Apple both wont give me option to let me use my phone as I please. And I paid the full price for it for the 1st generation. Talk about being pissed when I went through with Att and Apple. God bless hackers for giving us hope.
Reply
jbrown510 said 9:18PM on 10-07-2008
Just because something (exclusivity) was put in the contract doesn't mean that it is neccesarily legal. Cosumers do actually have legal rights that supercede any contract or licsense agreement, hence why the court is hearing the case. Personally I think apple/AT&T will win this casein the end because existing law on the subject is weak I'm spite if consumers winning against sprint and others regarding non-prorated termination fees. Consumers are going to need new legislation if they want to change these contract lock-ins. I think phone and cable companies though are seeing that coming and hence why they are offereing ridicoulously prices alternatives ie. Iphone's for $1000 without service. Legislation to be useful would need to specify that alternatives be rationally prices which gets very fuzzy and difficult to implement.
Reply
John E. said 10:14AM on 11-04-2008
I love to see how this is going to unfold.. and i think their should be more law suit in companies that locks a phone to them.. like verizon and blackberry storm. and so on...
Reply