• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • 'Bricked' iPhone Owners Demand Source Code in Lawsuit


    According to a story in Computerworld, plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Apple going back to October 2007 asked the judge on Wednesday to order the company to release the source code to iPhone firmware update 1.1.1. The plaintiffs claim that the update was specifically designed to "brick," or render inoperable, any iPhone that had been unlocked.

    The lawsuit alleges that Apple and AT&T violated state and federal antitrust laws by entering into a multi-year exclusive contract naming AT&T as the sole carrier in the United States, and preventing users from being able to unlock their phones for use on other networks. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against Apple to prevent the company from selling the iPhone with any software lock. They also want to force Apple to honor warranty service to users of unlocked iPhones and to allow iPhone users to get their phone service through other carriers than AT&T.

    The lawsuit was originally filed after iPhone firmware release 1.1.1 permanently disabled many unlocked first-generation iPhones. When users of unlocked phones began the install, they received the following message:

    Warning: Apple has discovered that some of the unauthorized unlocking programs available on the Internet may cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software. If you have modified your iPhone's software, applying this software update may result in your iPhone becoming permanently inoperable.
    The plaintiffs are asking to be given access to the iPhone 1.1.1 source code in order to figure out whether all iPhones were given the same update, or if the upgrade was specifically designed to disable some or all unlocked iPhones. According to their motion to the judge: "Unless Plaintiffs are given access to Version 1.1.1 source code, their ability to prove the size and scope of the Class affected by Version 1.1.1 will be severely compromised and unfairly prejudiced."

    The plaintiffs are also trying to make the case a class-action lawsuit. If the judge grants that request - indicating that he believes that the plaintiffs represent a much larger group of people that have suffered a common injury - other iPhone users would be able to join the lawsuit.

    image via Rehashed News
    This article was originally published in forum thread: 'Bricked' iPhone Owners Demand Source Code in Lawsuit started by Paul Daniel Ash View original post
    Comments 34 Comments
    1. plcrules's Avatar
      plcrules -
      i dont c how 1.1.1 source code has anything 2 do with us now on 3.0
      can some1 explain it?
    1. movalwebmaster's Avatar
      movalwebmaster -
      sounds like a good case
    1. mikerlx's Avatar
      mikerlx -
      What was the first fw for the iphone? When was unlocking the iphone first available?
    1. The Maestro's Avatar
      The Maestro -
      This mans working for unlockers I thank him
    1. vaughnhenry2's Avatar
      vaughnhenry2 -
      It has nothing to do with anyone that has 3.0 unless they own a phone was bricked when they upgraded from 1.1
    1. matthew1111's Avatar
      matthew1111 -
      Even though I love someone bringing this to court, isin't this a little late? We're already on 3.1.2 FW...
    1. Limegrntaln's Avatar
      Limegrntaln -
      People will sue for anything. I cant believe the things people go through over a cellular telephone. You would think it was a pacemaker.
    1. mondo's Avatar
      mondo -
      Its not about the firmware. Its about the fact that phones were bricked because they were unlocked. They are saying it was done maliciously and Apple is saying it wasn't. What I don't understand is if you were warned then why did you go through with it? It doesn't seem to me like Apple was keeping it a secret that the firmware may brick your phone. Someone correct me if I am talking out my arse.
    1. vanik08's Avatar
      vanik08 -
      its not too late...just cuz were on 3.0 dosn't mean what they did was right, dont be so narrow minded ppl, this lawsuits awsome and i hope they win

      Quote Originally Posted by mondo View Post
      Its not about the firmware. Its about the fact that phones were bricked because they were unlocked. They are saying it was done maliciously and Apple is saying it wasn't. What I don't understand is if you were warned then why did you go through with it? It doesn't seem to me like Apple was keeping it a secret that the firmware may brick your phone. Someone correct me if I am talking out my arse.
      exactly, not about the firmware
    1. cranie's Avatar
      cranie -
      Also let's not forget how long some things take to come to trial.
    1. exNavy's Avatar
      exNavy -
      They forgot to ask for a free lunch and a sundae for all those in the lawsuit as well.

      Morons.
    1. robbpell's Avatar
      robbpell -
      Quote Originally Posted by mikerlx View Post
      What was the first fw for the iphone? When was unlocking the iphone first available?
      the first firmware was 1.0 then 1.0.1 - 1.0.2 - 2.0 - 2.0.1 - 2.0.2 - 2.1 - 2.2 - 2.2.1 - 3.0 - 3.0.1 - 3.1 - 3.1.2
      i believe all firmwares have been unlocked in one form or another.
    1. Limegrntaln's Avatar
      Limegrntaln -
      Still a stupid lawsuit. If the phone wasnt unlocked by official unlocked software, then it was an illegal unlocking. If it was done legally it wouldnt be locked out.
    1. rhekt's Avatar
      rhekt -
      hope the issue gets resolved
    1. thevmax's Avatar
      thevmax -
      I agree with vanik08.
      This could have ramifications down the road;
      Especially when you consider the way Apple has been rolling out the OS and Itunes updates this year
    1. Bluprint's Avatar
      Bluprint -
      unlocking your phone is NOT illegal morons, it voids your warranty like it states in your policy but IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.
    1. chris102192's Avatar
      chris102192 -
      People should just STFU about the fact that apple and at&t signed a multiple year contract with each other. like seriously if you are dying to have the iphone on a network besides att move out of the US. Get the F**K over it.

      As for this case. what are they really trying to prove. oooo we got the source code to firmware 1.1.1, what are you seriously going to do with it??
      The answer is, NOTHING!!!! most of the idiots who did bring this up were people who didnt know what they were doing when they unlocked their phones. and Updated to 1.1.1, yeah they physically update to 1.1.1, because these things dont just update themselves..

      Thats just my point of view on this subject. Get over the fact that apple is with at&t already. everyones tired of hearing you complain. I mean truly, if you dont want to be on AT&T's network, dont pursue an iphone. its that easy.
    1. bbillh77's Avatar
      bbillh77 -
      this could be good or bad if apple wins they will start bricking phones for sport if these guys win it will be best for the jb unlock community all we can do is wait and see
    1. evolasme's Avatar
      evolasme -
      I may not have anything to do with 3.1.2 but it could prevent the same thing happening again in future updates. i wouldn't put it past Apple that's for sure.
    1. realjaja's Avatar
      realjaja -
      i also think it has some relevance, although it is 1.x.... depending upon the ruling, apple may be prevented to do the 'selective' updating, etc on the new iPhone updates...

      asking for the source code, definitely will be the clincher, as it should point out if there was some kind of 'sniffer' of some sort to reference white/black lists before making inoperable.

      i've been JB/UL since 1.x, but never really experienced a real 'bricked' situation, there was always some 'way' to get it back into DFU and PWN or something the IPSW....

      i hope that the people win, so that apple can 'loosen' the chains a little... i mean whats the big deal - i think this is allowed because its a smartphone, if it was a laptop/desktop, there would be SERIOUS lawsuits... or maybe people wouldn't BUY them at ALL...