A legal group saying they represent AT&T is attempting to block a group trying to sell a remote unlock for iPhones. The story is still developing.
Press Release:
Press Release August 25th, 2007
iphoneunlocking.com, a subsidiary of UniquePhones (www.uniquephones.com). was poised and ready to release remote software unlocking services for the iphone today at 12 noon EST. The sale of unlocking codes is on hold after the company received a telephone call from a Menlo Park, California, law firm at approximately 2:54 a.m. this morning (GMT).
After saying they were phoning on behalf of AT&T, the law firm presented issues such as copyright infringement and illegal software dissemination. Uniquephones is taking legal advice to ascertain whether AT&T was sending a warning shot or directly threatening legal action. The logistics of different continents as well as it being a weekend factors into how the situation develops.
Until an assessment is made of the potential of legal action, Uniquephones is unable to release the unlocking software for sale. The company spokesperson also said that the company would also be evaluating what to eventually do with the software should they be legally denied the right to sell it. A substantial delay caused by any legal action would render the unlocking software a less valuable commodity as well as creating unforeseen security issues for the company
-We cant stop them with our experience and advanced programming skills, so let's sue them.. That's not friendly, now.. Is it?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Check out my Reviews To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think the issue is that they want to SELL the soft unlock. Realistically, AT&T should be forced to provide unlocks for the iPhone...
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Well, it was not the case with my SDA with T-Mobile. I was told that I couldn't get the unlock information for my SDA because it was a T-Mobile exclusive phone, and HTC wouldn't provide it for me. This may have changed since it has been well over a year since I tried it, but ATT might have some sort of clause somewhere stating that AT&T is not obligated to unlock the phone for the period of your contract, or something similar.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Check out my Reviews To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think there is some period of time one must have under contract before AT&T must unlock a phone if a customer requests it. Ah, yes, Chris posted something about that some time ago, here:
Now perhaps Cingular has some kind of special arrangement with Apple that extends the time frame out for a longer period of time.
Even so, my understanding about this is that the cellular provider locks phones and essentially locks in their users to a contact, as part of the discount the user gets on the phone (locked phones generally cost less money than unlocked phones). There is no discount on the iPhone, so, in my opinion, this locking policy should not apply and seems grossly unfair to the consumer.
julie
__________________ Julie | Microsoft MVP Mobile Devices | Mobility Site Moderator | Judge, Smartphone & Pocket PC Best Software Awards 2007 & 2008 | visit my blog: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Julie, the problem is you cannot buy the phone directly from Apple, regardless of locked or unlocked, so that might make them feel that they have right to keep it locked for a certain period of time. No matter full price or not.. (although I would think that full price would be well over $500 for that device if it were made available from Apple, would anyone buy it, that's a mystery).
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Check out my Reviews To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Julie, the problem is you cannot buy the phone directly from Apple, regardless of locked or unlocked, so that might make them feel that they have right to keep it locked for a certain period of time. No matter full price or not.. (although I would think that full price would be well over $500 for that device if it were made available from Apple, would anyone buy it, that's a mystery).
Of course! And as far as we know Apple has no intention of ever offering an unlocked version of the iPhone to the consumer market. It's locked price is pretty pricey. I can't imagine how much it would be for an unlocked phone. The only thing I can compare it to is the hw6900. I bought an hw6925 from Cingular, locking into a contact, for around $350. I think the hw6900 retails for almost $600. So that's a pretty big markup!
julie
__________________ Julie | Microsoft MVP Mobile Devices | Mobility Site Moderator | Judge, Smartphone & Pocket PC Best Software Awards 2007 & 2008 | visit my blog: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
HTC Touch is available for $600 without any commitment. And HP 6945 for similar range. When these type of devices go into contract, I notice they drop about %50 in price, branded, locked and with contract. They require at least $39.99 voice and possibly minimum $19.99 data. that is $60 a month income from there. They just assume you will use up all your minutes and get charged additional per minute, or won't use all your minutes, so they can save from their airtime costs. Plus they get the phones at great savings from the manufacturers.
Anyhow, we probably cannot blame the carrier too much for locking or trying to keep it locked, on a phone that you paid practically nothing, but for iPhone, where people pay $500 - $600, it is just not right. Not sure how much AT&T cashed out to Apple to have exclusive rights, or if they made another arrangement so AT&T markets iPhone for free.. who knows.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Check out my Reviews To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
typically, the discount isn't for the phone, it is for the contract. typically it is $200.00 - $250.00 per contract... early term is a $175.00 but I'd expect that to catch up to these more expensive phones.
They just put the "discount" on the phone, because the phone is the marketing gimmick that make people buy the service.
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
IMHO AT&T has every right to protect it's interests here. I'm no Apple fan - but they and AT&T had a business arrangement to offer a product together. Subverting that product for use on another network is copyright infringement, plain-and-simple.
Maybe it's not viewed as NICE that Apple and AT&T kept the platform (the iPhone) closed - but it's their right to do so.
If you're playing a game of poker are you now SUPPOSED to let everyone else see your hand? In this increasingly liberal environment I guess so. It used to be that inventing something unique became the property of the individual who invented it and he could sell it freely until someone else invented a BETTER mouse trap. Now we think it's OK to steal the first guy's trap design, slap a coat of paint on it and sell it as ours.
Sorry ... I'm with AT&T on this one. Their legal action is NOT frivolous and these turkeys that hacked the iPhone are not innovators - they are thieves. Neither they nor anyone else has the RIGHT to take Apple's design and use it for a purpose different than intended by the inventor.
I see your point too. But sometimes I think the consumer who paid for the phone gets lost in the shuffle.
__________________ Julie | Microsoft MVP Mobile Devices | Mobility Site Moderator | Judge, Smartphone & Pocket PC Best Software Awards 2007 & 2008 | visit my blog: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Apple (AAPL) and AT&T (T), the sole authorized supplier of the iPhone in the U.S., are doing what they can to make sure that legal clearance never comes. The two companies have put their lawyers on the case, applying pressure on hackers involved in unlocking iPhones to try to get them to stop. Much is at stake. AT&T has been hoping that as the exclusive provider of the iPhone, it will see a surge in new customers and monthly service charges of at least $60 from each one. Apple is supposed to get a cut of the revenues. If iPhones are unlocked, they can be used on the wireless networks of rivals like T-Mobile USA—and AT&T gets zippo. AT&T wouldn't comment for this story, while Apple didn't return a request for comment.
Fuzzy Laws
So will Apple and AT&T's legal action deter hackers? Hardly. Individual users are already allowed to unlock their own phones under an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that the U.S. Copyright Office issued last November. The exemption, in force for three years, applies to "computer programs…that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."
What's less clear is whether companies and hackers can legally unlock the phones and then sell them to others, or sell unlocking software. "The law here is unclear," says Jonathan Kramer, founder of Kramer Telecom Law Firm in Los Angeles. "There just isn't any case law in this area for us to figure out how it plays out."
Experts believe that AT&T and Apple will point to the DMCA's section 1201, stating that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." They will claim that a phone lock is just such a technological measure that protects copyrighted work: namely, cell-phone software.
Hackers Undeterred
Problem is, it could be argued that, in reality, the lock only protects access to a carrier's communications network—and communications services aren't copyrightable under the Act, explains Jane Ginsburg, professor of literary and artistic property law at Columbia Law School. "This law was written for DVDs and video games," she explains. "What's going on here is using the Copyright Act to achieve another objective."
Indeed, this time, hackers may have the law on their side. Remember, decades ago, automakers built their instrument panels so that only authorized radios of their own manufacture would fit in. Eventually, U.S. courts ended that practice. "If Apple and AT&T push too hard, they might see a revision of [the Copyright Act, and it won't be in their favor]," says Richard Doherty, director of consultancy the Envisioneering Group.
That's why, for now, some hackers contacted by AT&T lawyers still plan to release their wares. "Over the next few days…you will get what you are looking for," promises an Aug. 27 message posted on the Web site of UniquePhones, which helps people unlock mobile phones.
Opening Up the Networks
Demand for unlocked iPhones, which sell for $499 and $599, is rising. Already, the phone has become a cultural phenomenon, with enthusiastic fans going to great lengths to get their hands on one. Consumers in rural areas where AT&T doesn't have a network or in markets with spotty AT&T coverage may want to use the popular device through T-Mobile's network. Overseas, consumers want to try it in conjunction with Orange (FTE) and Vodafone (VOD) wireless service. "If Apple offered unlocked iPhones for $1,200, they'd probably sell some," Doherty says.
Many hope that the legal wrangling will, eventually, result in major shifts in how the U.S. wireless industry operates. For one, a case could pave the way to making all wireless networks more open to unlocked phones. In the next five years, 10% to 15% of U.S. wireless users could move to unlocked phones, figures Andrei Jezierski, founder of venture consultancy i2 Partners in New York (see BusinessWeek.com, 12/4/06, "Motorola, Nokia Set Cell Phones Free").
Plus, to answer pent-up demand for untethered phones, a cell-phone carrier could differentiate its offerings by selling all of its handsets unlocked, says David Chamberlain, an analyst with consultancy In-Stat. "It's an anomaly that the phones are tied to individual carriers," he says. "Can we change that business as usual? Maybe. But people who want that will fight for a very long time."
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I see your point too. But sometimes I think the consumer who paid for the phone gets lost in the shuffle.
Hi Julie,
Maybe ... however the consumer did not HAVE to buy a $600 phone. It was known up-front that buying an iPhone was expensive and that you would be locked-in to AT&T for 2 years if you decided to buy one. If by being "lost in the shuffle" you mean the vendor should "look out" for the consumer, I can't agree with that. There are plenty of choices when it comes to phone technology these days. The vendor made the details of the deal clear and up-front; how much more would anyone expect? If you don't like the details of the deal, buy something else.
One of the guys in the office has an iPhone. I took a look at it - it's very nice. I wouldn't say $600 nice - but it's nice. As for myself I'll stick with a Pocket PC (X50) and phone (RAZR) for the time being; the two don't have to live in the same case.
In the case of the iPhone there are some compromises being made. The consumer simply needs to research his options - if he purchases it and feels "stuck" then he really has no one to blame but himself, IMHO.
So far I haven't seen a "converged" PPC/Phone that seemed worth buying as yet. Something just doesn't "feel" right about 'em yet. But ... I'm getting a bit off topic.
The problem from the consumer standpoint is (exclude the iphone unlocking for the moment), You want a cell phone. You get a phone and contract. After using it for x period of time, the service isn't satisfactory to you for whatever reason the only way out is to break the contract. By breaking the contract you pay a termination fee (originally intended to offset the cost of the phone).
So you paid for a phone that now you can no longer use as it is locked to a provider... and now the process starts over again with a new provider and a good phone that you cannot use as it is locked to provider A and you need provider B.
Typical contracts used to be 1 year, but are now 2 years, and the termination fee is to force the consumer to balance the cost of the fee vs. satisfaction of the service.
Now there are alternatives to this and there are more and more coming out, like MetroPCS which virtually every late teen and young adult not on a family plan around here is using... Similar is Boost, Virgin and some of the prepay plans by the bigger carriers.
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm feeling a little burned by my recent experience with AT&T. I have been an AT&T customer, in and out of contracts, for probably 12 years. During that time, AT&T was acquired by Cingular. As we all know, Cingular is now AT&T.
Last December I bought the hw6925 from Cingular/AT&T and entered into a a two year contract. When the phone arrived, it came with a new SIM card. The SIM card that I now use in my hw6925 cannot be used in my old cellphone, because the old cellphone is locked to AT&T and the new SIM is labeled (I guess) as Cingular. When I called AT&T about getting an unlock code for the old cellphone, I was told that the phone was too old. So, even though I purchased all my equipment from the same cellular service, my old phone is useless to me (I had hoped to take it out with me when I go on long runs - getting geared up to start training for a marathon).
julie
__________________ Julie | Microsoft MVP Mobile Devices | Mobility Site Moderator | Judge, Smartphone & Pocket PC Best Software Awards 2007 & 2008 | visit my blog: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
