Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:24 am

As with the non-user replaceable battery Apple made it perfectly clear that this was the way it was from day one. Unlike the battery suits which are of by and for greed, this one IMO is more likely to be due to severe stupidity.

This one will get tossed out with prejudice.

Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:53 am

Hmmmm.....

If he wanted to unlock the phone just to be able to use it overseas with a different SIM card, why did he buy three???

Sounds like he bought three so that he could sell the unlocked phones, thus making a profit. Isn't that part prohibited by the DMCA, hence why there are issues with the current crop of unlock groups trying to sell unlocked phones?

Important safety tip: If you are trying to set yourself up to start a lawsuit, don't do something stupid to give the other side something to poke at. Buying multiple phones and then complaining that they cannot be unlocked gives them an avenue to pursue regarding motives.

Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:12 am

He bought one for his wife and one for his college student daughter. How's that?

Interesting how many people here sit on their high horse and judge stupidity and sinister intentions.

It is possible that this guy is a lawyer, or likes to use the legal system to make a point. While we all expected that upon release, iPhone would be locked with AT&T, and most of us expected that neither AT&T nor Apple would provide unlock codes just for the asking, this second part was NEVER disclosed officially, by neither of the companies.

The guest above stated something that apparently most of readers here don't know: US GSM cell carriers WILL give you instructions to unlock your phone if you ask them. I have unlocked seven different phones over the past 6 years (some Omnipoint/Voicestream/T-Mobile, some Cingular/AT&T). I heard of some users being refused the request for the code, based on their payment history or length of contract. Vast majority get them without problems, though. In that sense iPhone is so far the ONLY exception.

Ordinary consumer who walks into an AT&T (or Apple) store and buys an iPhone doesn't have to know about Apple-AT&T's 5-year exclusive agreement; they have no way of knowing that they would not be allowed to unlock the phone later on. Unless this is disclosed somewhere in fine print (I doubt it), the case mentioned in the article just may have legs.

As for the 1-phone limit, that was only for the first days of launch. You can now walk into any store that sells them and buy six of them for the entire family, if you wish.

Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:21 am

Mr. Kliegerman is seeking an injunction to stop Apple from selling the iPhone in New York until it begins fully disclosing that the handset cannot be unlocked for use on other carrier networks.

And he wants a pony.

Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:34 am

Wait there, guest, you must be confusing things. There are no GSM phones that can work on CDMA networks. Therefore, iPhone will never work on Verizon's or Sprint's networks. Anyone who knows about the concept of SIM-lock knows this.

The main purpose of being able to remove the SIM lock on a GSM phone is to be able to use it overseas, with carriers where you would otherwise be roaming with you AT&T SIM. Using it with a non-AT&T SIM in the US would be mostly pointless, as roaming in the US is free. Unless you are in Vermont or Alaska (no AT&T coverage), your roaming and data is unlimited here.

Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:11 am

Yeah I love my iPhone. I only hate AT&T because the calls are garbled and hard to hear even when you have 5 lines of service. If I wasn't in a 2 year contract I'd be looking to unlock ASAP and go back to T-Mobile. It was nice being able to make calls where both parties could hear each other.

Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:04 pm

Perhaps I'm missing something, but the basis for the lawsuit doesn't seem to be that the phone is locked but that Apple did not fully disclose that fact before the complainant bought the iPhones. That would require looking at the information that comes with the iPhone and that is provided when someone activates the iPHone.

Some thoughts:

- The alleged damages include the large roaming fees he incurred. The guy is said to be a frequent traveler who knows that some phones can be unlocked for traveling. That doesn't happen automatically, apparently--one has to request it. Did he request that his iPhone be unlocked before he took it outside of the US? If he did, then wouldn't he have been told that it could not be unlocked? If he then took the iPhone, anyway, it would seem that he did so knowing that it would incur roaming charges. If he did not attempt to get the iPhone unlocked, why not, given that he had experience with other phones?

- He essentially says that the iPhone should have been "unlockable" because other GSM phones are. That sounds like a very weak argument, to me: "I just assumed, Your Honor," isn't a very strong position. (The old adage that "assume makes an ass out of you and me" would seem to apply.) Perhaps an attorney can give a better explanation.

vasic wrote:

It is possible that this guy is a lawyer, or likes to use the legal system to make a point. While we all expected that upon release, iPhone would be locked with AT&T, and most of us expected that neither AT&T nor Apple would provide unlock codes just for the asking, this second part was NEVER disclosed officially, by neither of the companies. ... Ordinary consumer who walks into an AT&T (or Apple) store and buys an iPhone doesn't have to know about Apple-AT&T's 5-year exclusive agreement; they have no way of knowing that they would not be allowed to unlock the phone later on. Unless this is disclosed somewhere in fine print (I doubt it), the case mentioned in the article just may have legs.

So? Is ATT is required to provide a service that is not in the contract nor required by law?