Let me get this straight...you broke your toy and now you want those bad meanies pay because you are a moron. Once again the U.S. system of litigation allows people to blame someone else for their own stupidity!

... under the DMCA for Apple to prevent you from unlocking your phone. DMCA is federal law, and no contract can supercede it.

And under the Magnuson-Moss act, Apple must provide warranty service for iPhones that have been unlocked, since unlocking them is perfectly legal under DMCA.

Seriously, people. Having your hacked iPhone broken is not the the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1964. If you think it is you have a seriously skewed view of the world.

If you hack your iPhone and violated the terms of service, Apple cannot be held responsible. Say, for example, that you downloaded a hacked firmware into your DVD drive on your iMac. Then Apple sends down an update that breaks your DVD drive. YOU altered the drive's firmware with code that screwed it up.. Do you blame Apple for that? No, you blame yourself. iPhone hacking is just like that.

I can't figure out what all the bitching is about. The iPhone is great. Sure, I wish the data speed were faster, but I knew that going in. All cell phone carriers stink, AT&T just happens to be the biggest stinker of the four big ones.

reasons. This is like throwing mud at the wall and hoping some sticks-- yes, a typical lawyer approach. People were warned by Apple NOT to hack and NOT to upgrade. How much clearer can it be. It is almost certain that Apple and ATT lawyers looked at this pretty carefully and my own lawyer friends looked at the contract I signed and can't see any big holes.

Where there might be some solid ground, is in the ATT policy of unlocking phones after 90 days. making the iPhone an exception, means that ATT had better have a good reason to deny this one group of its customers a service it extends to al others, in good standing.

Also, I think that the international roaming issue is one where the company is very vulnerable, since it is possible in many- and in some countries-- most cases, to get phones unlocked within a short time of purchase, if not AT the time. Now, normally, one can hear ATT saying that US citizens have the right to unlock the iPhone, as they do, but ATT doesn't have to do it for you. That creates the exception concept above and thus makes ATT's action inconsistent.

Moreover by denying international travelers a choice and thus be locked into ONE non-competitive service, it seems to me that this might be their Achilles heel.

I was in favour of supporting ATT's position originally because of the risk they have taken but ATT needs to make the system fair for all iPhone users so that their plans and terms are comparable to all other phone carriers users. ATT-- just be fair.

I am not in sympathy with or feel inclined to help the people who have bought an iPhone in the US to make it work overseas and who have problems with it. But the US customer needs ATT's fullest support and not be seen as vermin for wanting a fair use of the iPhone.

No one is taking away your freedom, you have the freedom not to install the update, you have the freedom to give up your warranty sould you choose to alter the product as supplied.

Amazing...the stupid hackers disregard the contract, willingly do something Apple forbids and then feel like asking for money...s**** you all, suckers...grow up and get a life, please.

If the iPhone did NOT allow for such hacked, illegal interventions, you SHOULD NOT have done them, period.

Even a 5-year old baby lawyer should be able to defend Apple against such frivolous claims. What pisses me off most is the utter lack of responsibility for a person's own acts. It's like opening a TV box and getting a shock even though the company clearly warned the user against such stupidity. Again, American people...GET A LIFE AND GET RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU DO; stop looking for excuses to your own illicit behavior.

It's not unlocked phone that is the problem. You changed the phone's software. So you are out of luck.

If Apple does not provide the service to unlock the phone. It does not mean you are free to go out there and do it yourself.

If you had problem with that. then you shouldn't have purchased the phone.

People like this will not get my sympathy.

What provisions of the DMCA are violated, by what provisions of the apple contract?

Seems to me, Apple is not actually saying they are preventing people from hacking their phones, they are warning them in advance, that if they do something unsupported, then Apple can not be held responsible for any damage or incompatibilities that may result when future updates occur to supported phones.

They're not hunting down the people with hacked phones, they are providing an "update" to their software to add new features and even warning you in advance that the hacks may, when combined with the update, render the phone unusable.

If I do something dumb, under the covers of a Windows XP computer, and this prevents XP from installing, or prevents future updates or security patches, seems to me that's my fault, not Microsoft's. Even if Microsoft didn't explicitly warn me in advance. . .

And Apple DID warn us in advance.

I'd be shocked if the DMCA renders this behavior on Apple's part illegal.

If the federal law you mentioned is true, then that is not how it should be dealt with; instead, a lawsuit should have been placed to reverse ATT decision to keep the phone locked. Hacking the phone with using forbidden software is a solution without merit.

Apple did give iPhone owners sufficient warnings, but only the ones who happen to browse Apple and iPhone sites regularly. However, it is common-sense that modifying your iPhone using nono software is a nono.

than modded game consoles that have been "broken" by updates? Weren't some folks getting locked out of xBox Live because of modded units? Gone are the days of offline, standalone hardware; everything you have nowadays is plugged in so you better get used to it...

...that had their toy taken away by mommy, after they broke it repeatedly, act the same way.

The lack of ability of some people to take responsibility for their actions is still baffling, especially the lenghts they are willing to go to, in order to evade having to take any responsibility.

*APPLE* did not brick your iPhone, Moron-Boy, *YOU* did it yourself, after having been given repeated warnings by Apple (and everyone else under the sun) of what the consequences would/could be.

I'd say it's time for people to act like adults, and take responsibility, and just admit they messed up, but that's just wishful thinking in the case of morons with the emotional maturity of 5 year olds...

I don't get the vindictive tone of some of the respondents here. For me, the primary issue is that an Apple official update destroyed their phones. Not an acceptable outcome. Apple must provide a viable restore function - simple as that. Is that wrong?

QED:

Otiswild spews: > (illegal)... under the DMCA for Apple to > prevent you from unlocking your phone.

Wrong - but you're too dumb to understand the difference between what you said, and "it is legal to attempt and successfully unlock your iPhone under the DMCA'. That does not enforce Apple *having* to unlock your iPhone. It simply means that attempts and R&D to unlock a mobile phone are exempted from the DMCA. A huge difference.

> And under the Magnuson-Moss act, Apple > must provide warranty service for iPhones > that have been unlocked, since unlocking them > is perfectly legal under DMCA

Again, incorrect regurgitations of soundbites by otiswild. Magnuson-Moss simply specifies that a manufacturer can not invalidate a warranty for the part of a product unaffected by other modifications by the customer. Thus, if your screen malfunctions on your bricked iPhone, or one of the buttons is broken, Apple has to honor that under warranty. If you modify the firmware, and this Apple firmware breaks, Apple is within their rights to invalidate your warranty if you demand a repair of your firmware.

Once again, a 5-year old moron high on too many twinkies spewing nonsense.

Oh, and by the way, clearly the mainstream consumer, and investors are really, really worried about little kids shaking their fist at Apple - Apple stock's at $156 and climbing!

I suppose it was inevitable. Look, if you modify your automobile, you can void the warranty. If you take apart your iBook and it doesn't work after you put it back together, you probably are not covered.

I don't see why that is not the same concept here. Apple has no idea what you did to your iPhone, why should they be expected to pick up the tab for your inept modding?

Lets say I have an iPhone (I don't) and I install an extra piece of SW on it, say an AIM client. Say the touch screen goes bad. If Apple denies you warranty on the touch screen because of the SW hack, then they are violating the law. The SW hack of adding an AIM client has nothing to do with the HW going bad in the touchscreen.

If however you open it up and solder chips in it or do whatever, they can refuse HW service if they have any sort of reasonable explanation that the HW mod you did broke the touch screen.

They can only refuse service for those things that were damaged by the user in their hacks and not unrelated things.

If an unlock mod iPhone that is then updated with Apple software becomes a brick, Apple may or may not be on the hook. Experts would have to dissect the dead phone and see what happened. If there was a willful action on Apple's part to detect the hack and disable the phone, they could be in trouble. If however, there is a valid technical reason for the side effect, ie the hack broke some piece of SW that is vital to the phone, Apple would be in the right. However, Apple should in all cases, perhaps for a small fee, restore the iPhone's software to original configuration -- it is only SW afterall and should be able to be reset.

IANAL AIDPOOTV

Everyone of these people bought the phone knowing what they were allowed to do or not do with the phone. If they didn't read the fine print too bad. So they s**** with the phone, violating the contract they agreed to and they want to sue. People like this make me sick. Leeches upon society. Take responsibility for your own action. Suck it up Bubba.

[I]I don't get the vindictive tone of some of the respondents here. For me, the primary issue is that an Apple official update destroyed their phones. Not an acceptable outcome. Apple must provide a viable restore function - simple as that. Is that wrong?[/I]

CORRECTION: An Apple official update destroyed their MODIFIED phones.

These people modified their phones in ways Apple never intended. Several different unlocking solutions were produced, each accomplishing the unlocking in different ways. Some even required a hardware modification.

There is NO WAY for Apple to support each and every possible permutation of their hardware and software modification. The modifications were not authorized by Apple so they shouldn't have to bend over backwards to test every possible configuration other than what is "official." If the updates broke an "official" configuration, THAT and ONLY THAT, is unacceptable.

You're ON YOUR OWN when using an UNSUPPORTED hack.

So I don't agree with people thinking b/c they broke their phone by doing something Apple said not to do entitles them to repair at Apple's expense. But, I can't wait for the product comes out of all this back and forth between Apple and hackers and disgruntled users when Apple can actually sell the iPhone through other providers, either that or AT&T actually offers a service in my area.

If you are a California resident and you believe you qualify to join in filing an iPhone class action lawsuit against Apple Inc., you should contact the California lawyers working on this at http://www.appleiphonelawsuit.com.

If you use the iPhone in a way that breaks the terms and conditions of usage then, you deserve what you get. I haven't hacked my iPhone at all and it has worked flawlessly since the day I got it.

The DCMA can be circumvented contractually, depending on the provisions in question. You bargain away certain property rights under Federal law for Apple's products and services, subject to limitations on service. Theoretically, it sounds like an exchange with consideration.

That said, I am not a big fan of contracts like this... How many of you have read the terms of your agreement, or tried to bargain on the terms? You can't, because it's a "take it or leave it" form contract. I am of the opinion that the form contract is a huge enemy of personal autonomy, freedom of contract, and bargaining power. Nonetheless, people are happy to swallow the terms of such contracts, lock, stock, and barrel.

I generally read these contracts and remove terms I don't like. With the Apple and AT&T agreements (there are 5 in total), I can't even do that, because they are electronic. Unlike the rest of you, I do find that troubling, since Apple isn't the only provider of goods and services that uses this method of contracting.

I hope the guy's lawsuit flies. I love Apple as much as the next person, but someone has to tell these companies that we, as consumers, want real bargaining power.