Apple Sued Over iPhone Bricking

An anonymous reader writes "The week's debate over the iPhone 1.1.1 has finally resulted in legal action. InfoWeek reports that on Friday, California resident Timothy Smith sued Apple in a class-action case in Santa Clara County Superior court. The suit was filed by Damian Fernandez, the lawyer who's been soliciting plaintiffs all week for a case against Apple. The suit doesn't ask for a specific dollar amount, but seeks an injunction against Apple, which prevents it from selling the iPhone with any software lock. It also asks that Apple be enjoined from denying warranty service to users of unlocked iPhone, and from requiring iPhone users to get their phone service through AT&T."

OfCOM

[SimonTheSoundMan]

I just can't wait for OfCOM to get their hands on Apple when the iPhone launches in the UK. I know I will be the first to complete a complaints for to them on the day of the release.

Re:OfCOM

[RDW]

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in other EU countries where unlocking must legally be provided on request, or where it's banned altogether, e.g.:

http://www.unlockiphone.info/2007/07/iphones-in-france-law-says-they-must-be.html [unlockiphone.info]

Will Apple be prepared to allow unlocked phones in these countries (presumably leading to a free European market in officially unlocked phones), or will they choose to lose sales and not sell where they can't enforce a lockdown and get the revenue that goes with it?

Apple's gonna win, as they should, if they fight

[sirwired]

Apple bricking the phone is not illegal, nor should it be. When Apple sold the phone, they were crystal clear that its only supported use was with AT&T and Apple-approved apps. Those that disagree with the policy should not have bought the phone.

Now, if Apple was suing folks for unlocking the phone, that would have been something else (and certainly brings to the forefront debates on shrinkwrap, reverse engineering rights, etc.) but they have not. The proper response to this bricking is another hack, not a lawsuit.

Apple is also perfectly within their rights to not give warranty service to those that modded their phone. The Magnuson-Moss Act only provides protection to those whose aftermarket bits did not cause the phone to die. If these folks had not modded their phone, the update would not have killed it. The act was meant to protect those that say, bought ordinary aftermarket headphones... automatically denying warranty service for THAT would be a blatant violation of the Act. For folks that would avail themselves of the Act, even a liberal interpretation would mean they would have to prove that Apple's update deliberately disabled the phone. Given how many things that can go wrong with code updates, I would be surprised if Apple simply just did not test on an unlocked phone, and the process just happens to brick the thing. Apple probably bricked many legit phones during their testing process until they got the bugs worked out...

SirWired

iPhone in Europe

[d3m0nCr4t]

I wonder how Apple will sell their iPhone in Europe. It is forbidden by the European consumer laws to sell a phone where you force users to a certain provider. I'm really curious.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution?

http://www.openmoko.org/ [openmoko.org]

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[s4ltyd0g]

So If I void my warranty, that gives Apple the right to break my phone?

Re:Watch them lose the case....

[MikeBabcock]

Speaking of re-purchase, I'm thoroughly annoyed, having just got a new phone from the same provider as my last one, that I have to repurchase the games I downloaded to my last phone. Same phone number, same contract and everything, but I'd have to repurchase the games to get them onto my new phone. That makes just /so/ much sense.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the very least Apple should allow people to wipe everything and begin anew.

And that is my understanding of exactly what the update does. It doesn't "brick" the phone, it resets it to an out-of-box unregistered state. If the phone has already been registered with AT&T and if that account is still active, it's trivial to reattach it.

Re:Stupid lawsuit again...?

[kybur]

I reject the bad car analogy. a) Buy a new BMW. b) Hack the ECU (engine control unit) computer and reload it with your own software. What do you think the BMW service center is going to to with your warrantee (and your blown engine) if they figure out what you did? Suppose the tweaks you made work, and some how a software update from the mechanic works too, but the combination is fatal to the engine. Should this be covered by warrantee?

Apple probably wants this

[imadork]

Am I the only person who thinks that Apple probably does not mind this lawsuit? Apple doesn't seem like the company who would want to sell service tied to one provider anyway, they would either want to sell devices that work with any provider or provide the service themselves. They were likely forced to lock the phones as a condition of getting on anyone's network, and starting their own network is impossible until more spectrum gets auctioned off. I'll bet that Apple was counting on a reaction like this, and has a provision buried in their contract with AT&T that says if a court forces them to unlock the phones, they can do so without invalidating their access to the network and AT&T can't complain.

I Filed an FCC Complaint

[OS24Ever]

I got bored and one site recommended filing a FCC complaint so I did, saying that they wouldn't unlock my phones after 90 days of service like their other phones.

I got a call from the office of the president for AT&T. Unfortunately I was downstairs celebrating my daughters birthday so haven't been able to talk to them to see what happens, but I was pretty dang surprised.

Re:Bloody idiots.

[bigstrat2003]

If your phone gets bricked by an Apple update after you've unlocked it, then it's entirely you fault. No-one else's.

Not if, as people have claimed, Apple deliberately caused the update to do that. This would be difficult to prove, but I really don't put it past Apple, so it's possible. If Apple deliberately bricked people's phones, they should pay.

In addition, I hope this suit goes through even IF Apple didn't deliberately brick people's phones, as it could help move the cause of mandated unlocking forward.

You've learned valuable lesson here - don't mess with things you don't understand. You immediately voided your warranty, again something you were fully aware that you'd be doing

As someone else pointed out, the warranty should not be void for all things because you messed with the software. If the solder on the circuit board turns to dust, that's poor workmanship, has nothing to do with the software, and should be covered regardless of any software modifications you've made.

Re:Apple probably wants this

[Anonymous Coward]

I posted a comment to this article right when it appeared and it took until just before reading your comment to realize that this is exactly what Apple wants. Apple said they were going to change the landscape of the cell phone business in America (U.S.), and that is exactly what they are going to do. Having courts rule that locking is illegal, or the legislature passing laws to effect the same, levels the playing field. A level playing field is precisely what the newcomer wants, especially when they are trying to sell a product on its merits not the price cut a (soon to be illegal) tie-in can garner.

Re:OfCOM

[MindStalker]

The iPhone price is not subsidized the reason its locked to AT&T is because AT&T had to enhance their network to support it and they demanded a tie in for that.

Re:OfCOM

[wealthychef]

Yes, their "enhanced" network causes me nothing but joy over the slow EDGE speeds and the crappy phone quality and the lousy customer service. I really am thinking of going back to the Palm and Verizon, even though switching back would cost a bundle.