iPhone Class Action

[timbo]

https://www.appleiphonelawsuit.com/

If you are a California resident interested in participating as a class representative in an iPhone class action lawsuit against Apple Inc., please contact the Law Office of Damian R. Fernandez immediately if one or more of the categories below applies. You can read the complaint filed against Apple here.

You own an iPhone and you want to transfer to a wireless carrier other than AT&T. You fall into this category even if you did not unlock your iPhone or have your iPhone disabled by an iPhone update.

Your iPhone was disabled, malfunctioned, or you had third-party applications erased after you downloaded iPhone update 1.1.1.

You contacted Apple to repair your iPhone and Apple refused to honor your warranty because you did any one the following: (1) unlocked your iPhone, or (2) installed a third party application.

You incurred a cancellation fee from your previous wireless carrier when you transferred to AT&T’s wireless service.

You incurred roaming charges while travelling abroad with your iPhone.

You purchased a third-party warranty at extra cost for your iPhone because of Apple’s released statement that it will not honor warranties on unlocked iPhones.

You do not have to be in all of these categories, just one or more than one.

A small number of consumers may file a class action lawsuit, representing all consumers that purchased the iPhone. A class action suit can provide a powerful and effective means for consumers to compel a corporation to acknowledge its legal responsibilities and provide just compensation to the class members.


Please click here to submit a complaint about your iPhone. We will review your claim without charge or obligation and in confidence.

[aziatiklover]

damn it I'm in texas

[timbo]

damn it I'm in texas

The class action is know open to a states!!

I am the lead Class Rep. My lawer just told me he wants every iphone custumer in the US to feel free to join.

[NVMY4N]

crazy, interested in the outcome.

[yowiphone]

i wonder whats gonna hapeen

[macinfosys]

What a joke!

[ijustin]

Yeah.....good luck on that one

[zoidberg md]

let's see... If you win your lawyer gets a couple mil. In court costs, and I get 10 free songs from iTunes......

Sign me up.

[one1]

Yeah it's bs to the victs in these class action ls's

[kikcaffine]

It seems pretty ******** to me, all apple has to say is that the new software increased reliabilty by rewriting a few lines of code, the same ones that happened to be the ones that would allow unlocks.

[aziatiklover]

ok I guess just sign me up and see

[Jimbo]

Lame.

[EmoRebellion]

You incurred a cancellation fee from your previous wireless carrier when you transferred to AT&T’s wireless service.

I had a cancellation fee when I canceled my Verizon contract to port to ATT, but what does that have to do with the suit? I actually paid the ETF x3 when I ported my 5 lines over...

[iphonejeff]

5 lines?

[DoerrFan]

Hey why not, sign me up.

[CrossBow]

Here's a twist to this.

What if Apple planned it all allong.

- Apple is new to the mobile phone biz, and is not sure how it will work out. Entering to a whole new market, especially given the past (Newton), carries with it huge risk.
- Apple plans a major software, hardware and industrial design effort, all costing large sums of money.
- Looking for a carrier, and to offset some of the risk, they look for an "insurance policy".
- In exchange for $$$ and a carrier, they enter into an agreement with AT&T that they know is likely to be shot down in court.
- iPhone sells well - there is clear demand for the product with or without AT&T. Insurance policy no longer needed.
- To give the appearance of adhering to the contract, and to purposely draw a lawsuit, they agressively fight the unlockers - even to the point of knowingly damaging people's private property.

^ Past | Future v

- Judge rules Apple's action, and the deal with AT&T illegal. Apple gets out of agreement with AT&T.
- The judge rules they have to fix or replace a handful of people's phones. Cost to Apple is unmeasureably small.
- Apple releases a firmware update that unbricks and unlocks phones.
- Apple releases an SDK - Brags that there are already dozens of apps available for the iPhone at the time of the press release.
- Apple gets free press, Solves the problem of selling iPhones world wide, makes Americans aware of GSM's abilities to easily go from one provider to another, and comes out looking like the good guy -- Just a victim of AT&T, which the world (at least the US) is already convinced is evil.

Apple knows exactly what it is doing from a legal standpoint. Concider Steve Job's blatant use of the trademark "iPhone" during the famous keynote when he knew full well that at the time, it belonged to someone else.

...

[zoidberg md]

actually really not a bad thought. The only thing apple will have to do is spin the bad press. And hope the negative press doesn't cost them more sales.

[Jimbo]

Oh noes! I hope Timbo's lawyers don't see this...

http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick

Gosh, it was the hack that bricked the phone after all. Who'd have guessed?


Roaming charges? Please... AT&T makes this very clear on their plans, there's info on their site, it's in the contract, etc.

Cancellation fees? There's a joke, folks agree to that any time they sign up for a plan elsewhere, that's the whole point of a contract. Leave your lawyer without going to trial, Timbo, see if they don't expect some cancellation fees from you...

3rd party warranty, see above about bricked phones.

This is going to be a laugh fest if it makes it as far as going to court...

[CrossBow]

Jimbo,

To put it simply, you're wrong. For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct about the bug in the free unlockers.

1. Some people have been refused warranty service for a hardware issue if they have unlocked - i.e. a bad touch screen. By your logic, anytime I install software with a bug in it, the manufacture can refuse to warrant the hardware. Let's say I buy a PC, then I install Firefox. Firefox then comes out with a bug fix. This proves I installed buggy software (the earlier version of Firefox) on my PC. Now the powersupply fails. By your logic, the manufacture is no longer obligated to fix my hardware issue.

2. Apple could have (and still can) come up with an update that did not brick unlocked phones (or would unbrick them), but it would have required them to 1. Put more development time into their update. 2. Possibly Include keys in the update that would be of assistance to more bb modding/ re-unlocking. 3. Violate their (possibly illegal) tying agreement with AT&T.

3. Phones with the unlock worked fine at the time of the unlock. They failed at the time of the update.

4. Apple has admitted knowing prior to the update being released that it would damage people's personal property, yet they released it anyway, and were openly hostile towards people who legally unlocked their phones.

5. The non-free unlockers, as far as we know, did a "proper" unlock. i.e. without the bug you mention. Those folks have had their phones re-locked due to Application Processor code. Essentially bricking them (as phones) if they choose to use a WSP other than AT&T. Again, federal law (DMCA) has a specific section, specifically stating that unlocking is legal.

[Happy Noodle Boy]

I don't see the point in all this. Some of the decisions behind the iPhone (locked, no 3rd party) may not make sense in our phone market, but it's their device and they may well do whatever they want with it. It's in their terms of services and by buying one you are agreeing to those terms.

If you don't like it... don't buy it. It's very simple, really.