Why?

I also think the time frame is too short. However, I don't think there will be a lawsuit because of the backlash from the customers that would ensue. Numbers of iPhones that are not part of the AT&T network are around 1.7 million, probably a little high but still a significant number. If either company would sue, my money would be on AT&T.

What I think might also be a problem is the fact that they are already facing quite a few lawsuits against them. For them to deal with those AND set out on their own lawsuit against users would not be practical--at least not any time within 6 months. It's a short for me.

I don't think you can be so sure. It's Apple and AT&T we are talking about. They have plenty of lawyers and if it were a principle thing or just to save some face I think they could do it. The time frame that was mentioned I don't think would stop this prop. As soon as the lawsuit is filed the prop should be met.

Why would apple sue, an Iphone is bought either way?

They would sue because of Iphonesimfree.com and their "unlock and hack" and iPhone process. Its very easy(many of my friends have hacked their ipod touch) but the legality is questionable and i think Jobs and a team of talented lawyers(hes got money for this) could sue them within the time, but for now, im riding the downwards wave.

Because Apple makes something rediculous like $10/month for each iPhone signed up through AT&T. Revenue that Apple misses out on when the phone is unlocked and used elsewhere.

数据恢复
网站优化
钢管
心理咨询

tzbecca:

The preternatural arrisance of pictograms in this exchange might be construed as having some maleficent... and possibly sinister... implications. Not to force my ethnocentric predilictions upon you, but please make your posts in a format accessible to all. We like English.

If you find yourself frustrated into consulting lexicographic tomes to understand my meaning, please feel free to extrapolate those frustrations to the other posters in the forum. They, too, would like to understand what people write in this forum.

You knew this was coming . . .

I have copied the content of this thread to the old forum.

Please support the transition to the old (nicer) forums by making any further posts on this prop in the IPLAW thread here:

http://ppx.popsci.com/forum-archives/showthread.php?t=1538

Getting back to what I originally said... ATT or Apple would have a difficult task ahead of them if they wanted to sue.

From my earlier post: "The law that made it legal to unlock your phone was a change made to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Act originally made it illegal to circumvent digital controls on electronic media and systems (like DRM).

It's wording originally made it seem illegal to unlock phones, but an exemption made in 2006 makes it clear that it is now legal to use "Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----0...
"
Because the locking of cell phones is no longer protected by law (because the "locking" has been deleted from anything "copyright protected"), ATT or Apple would have to find a whole new basis to sue.

And there isn't any. Once you buy the phone, you can do what you want with it. Smash it. Sell it. Incorporate it into a phone-activated toaster for your own use.

The only way you can legally step over the line (or anyone supplying you with equipment or software could step over the line) is if you copied patented equipment or software and resold it as your own.

The copyright laws cover original works and are a legal defense against those who want to use those works for personal gain. They never should have covered the locking of cell phones, which is a business strategy and nothing more.

And I think it's pretty cool that cell-phone-locking is taking some lumps. Maybe we'll soon see an end to this ridiculous practice.

One reason unlocking the iPhone was relatively easy and popular is that Apple sold the phones and activation (including the 2 year contract) happened later. The 3G iPhone does away with the iTunes activation. All 3G iPhone contracts will be entered before the customer leaves the store. With this new method for controlling the iPhone, I don't see any reason for Apple or AT&T to use a legal aproach - especially just before the 3G iPhone launch.