A US judge has ruled that a lawsuit against Apple and AT&T can go ahead, despite Apple's request to have the suit dismissed. The $1.2m suit alleges that Apple and AT&T knowingly sabotaged unlocked iPhone handsets with the release of the iPhone 1.1.1 software update. The suit claims that the companies violated US trade and copyright laws which had allowed users to alter their phones. The plaintiffs are suing both companies for violating federal antitrust laws.
View: The full story @ vnunet
Sounds a bit silly.
The lawsuite is because, 'normal' updates are checking for any changes and are deliberately bricking the handset.
This is different from if the update went wrong because you changed something. Apple and AT&T have created part of the up date to check if you're changed anything and then brick the handset.
It's like you taking your car to the garage and because you've put an new set of alloy wheels on it, the garage takes a lump hammer and pours sand into the oil department, turns around and says, "well, we saw you changed the wheels, so we've bricked your car."
Sounds a bit silly.
You don't understand. It is because they are sabotaging it due to the fact you decided to install custom firmware, not because your custom firmware just happens to brick it. The part they are suing over is the fact it is deliberate bricking, which is illegal.
This guy probably explains it better.
The lawsuite is because, 'normal' updates are checking for any changes and are deliberately bricking the handset.
This is different from if the update went wrong because you changed something. Apple and AT&T have created part of the up date to check if you're changed anything and then brick the handset.
It's like you taking your car to the garage and because you've put an new set of alloy wheels on it, the garage takes a lump hammer and pours sand into the oil department, turns around and says, "well, we saw you changed the wheels, so we've bricked your car."
The lawsuite is because, 'normal' updates are checking for any changes and are deliberately bricking the handset.
This is different from if the update went wrong because you changed something. Apple and AT&T have created part of the up date to check if you're changed anything and then brick the handset.
It's like you taking your car to the garage and because you've put an new set of alloy wheels on it, the garage takes a lump hammer and pours sand into the oil department, turns around and says, "well, we saw you changed the wheels, so we've bricked your car."
Can you find a source on this?
I am heavy in the unlocking scene and what we found had nothing to do with deliberate bricking. Apple closed the security holes used to unlock the phones and did standard re-imaging. Nothing malicious there.
The original Anysim unlock method damaged the seczone of the baseband that was not updated by Apple but was needed to operate the phone with the 1.1.1 firmware. Therefore if you ran Anysim and then updated...brick. It could be reviginized later, but it was not easy. It was not an intentional move by Apple, and Apple even tested the unlock with the update and warned users that it could damage their phones (they realized the the Anysim hack damaged the seczone).
That's the power of Apple iLogic: It makes sense because Apple says it does.
AT&T didn't release the firmware. Apple, however... DID.
You fail.
yeah, pity that the OS is not hardware but software, so in theory the hardware is yours (in fact it is) but you still only purchase the license for the software that is installed. Same with WinMo and the likes.
The difference there is that you have to agree to an EULA when you install software. I don't recall having to agree to an EULA for the software on a phone. Unless its somewhere in the crazy contract you are pretty much forced to sign to get cell service.
The difference there is that you have to agree to an EULA when you install software. I don't recall having to agree to an EULA for the software on a phone. Unless its somewhere in the crazy contract you are pretty much forced to sign to get cell service.
the EULA for the OS of the phone is in the package with the phone. its a piece of paper and generally does not even gets noticed. its not an electronic EULA you have to click 'agree' because its implicit the OS is bundled in a ROM in the phone, so you buy the phone, you agree to the eula.
That being said the customer did pay for the phone. He owns it and it is his property. Apple would have been well within their rights to deny updates but deliberately breaking the phone is just not fair. I hope they are fined enough so that they don't behave like this ever again.
I am not responsible for your computer, however if I send you some software that is designed to format your machine if it detects your using MS Office then it's illegal. (Even if you consented to run the software I sent you). Criminal damage with intent at the very least.
These guys sueing must have at least some case that has shown they have reasonable reason to believe Apple and AT&T deliberatly attempted to seek out and destroy the unlocked iPhones and that the bricks weren't just inconsequential.
Back when this all first happened I bought two separate "bricked" iphones off Craigslist because I know that any damage you do to a device via software is ALWAYS repairable given the right tools. 1.1.1 caused certain unlock methods to brick phones do to changes to the modem firmware (this is different then the phones firmware). Subsequent updates to the modem firmware completely overwrote the previous "bricked" one by doing nothing more than putting the phone in DFU mode and connecting it to itunes.
I made roughly $500 bucks reselling those phones. I'm willing to bet most of the owners in this lawsuit aren't smart enough to realize that newer tools can revive most bricked iphones.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.