iBricks

[jumpman17]

By disabling unlocked/hacked iPhones and turning them to "iBricks", "Apple punished consumers for exercising their rights to unlock their iPhones," or at least that's what attorney Damian Fernandez said in a civil lawsuit filed in California.

Fernandez, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of a California man, estimates that Apple has sold 1.28 million iPhones and that Apple turned "several hundred thousand of those phones" to "iBricks" (Fernandez's word).

Fernandez is seeking "class action" status to expand the litigation to cover all US iPhone buyers. The suit demands a jury trial and asks the court to order Apple to unlock iPhones and provide warranty service to hacked devices.It also demands Apple be forced to pay unspecified cash damages.

Another 2 lawsuits have been filed for the same reason against Apple in San Jose. A federal case accusing AT&T and Apple of "unfair business practices and violations of antitrust, telecommunications and warranty laws" and another state-level case with more or less of the same accusations.

The federal case was filed by the firms of Hoffman & Lazear in Oakland and Folkenflik & McGerity in New York on behalf of iPhone owners Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello. The state case was filed by Saratoga attorney Damian Fernandez on behalf of California resident Timothy Smith.

By not allowing consumers to modify their iPhones to work on other carrier networks, "the two companies conspired from the beginning of their partnership to maintain a monopoly", the federal lawsuit alleged.

The federal lawsuit stated it didn't know how large the affected class could be but pegged the number at 100 or more and anticipates "there will be millions."

So, because people screwed with their expensive toys like they weren't supposed and then tried to update them and now they are bricked, it's somehow Apple's fault? And how is it a case that Apple is only allowing it to be used on ATT? Should Nintendo be sued because they don't allow their Mario games to be played on a PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360?

 

[BoneMonkey]

lol i agree with you 100 percent

 

[Veho]

I'm almost 100% sure there's a clause in the End User Licence Agreement that says that You, the User, won't mess with the firmware, otherwise They, the Evil Corporation, will brick your phone. Or something very much along these lines.

 

[lagman]

I'm almost 100% sure there's a clause in the End User Licence Agreement that says that You, the User, won't mess with the firmware, otherwise They, the Evil Corporation, will brick your phone. Or something very much along these lines.

Indeed, this will not proceed.

 

[VVoltz]

The Policy Agreement for the iPhone service is one of the longest ever created (Google News, don't remember the source).
In some points I agree with you, but when you actually own a phone you are free to make whatever you want with it, you already payed for it.
Otherwise it would be like getting a washing machine with a policy telling you that you are not able to wash pants on it.

I think the policy must refer to the service of the phone, not the phone itself. By actually "punishing" the consumers Apple is doing something non ethical IMO.

 

[Veho]

Otherwise it would be like getting a washing machine with a policy telling you that you are not able to wash pants on it.

So you never saw a disclaimer saying "Warranty void if pants"?

 

[jumpman17]

The Policy Agreement for the iPhone service is one of the longest ever created (Google News, don't remember the source).
In some points I agree with you, but when you actually own a phone you are free to make whatever you want with it, you already payed for it.
Otherwise it would be like getting a washing machine with a policy telling you that you are not able to wash pants on it.

I think the policy must refer to the service of the phone, not the phone itself. By actually "punishing" the consumers Apple is doing something non ethical IMO.

The article makes it sound like Apple purposly bricked the phones, but I think it's more of a case where the way they phone is modified that it makes firmware incompatible.

 

[Mangofett]

I personally would disagree with all of you, I mean, you bought a shiny 600$ phone, and you can't even use it how you want to???

 

[VVoltz]

I personally would disagree with all of you, I mean, you bought a shiny 600$ phone, and you can't even use it how you want to???

Linkidude, that is what I just said.

 

[Mangofett]

I personally would disagree with all of you, I mean, you bought a shiny 600$ phone, and you can't even use it how you want to???


Linkidude, that is what I just said.

The wind is really loud today. I can almost hear someone talking.

(Thats my way of saying "oops")

 

[Mewgia]

The Policy Agreement for the iPhone service is one of the longest ever created (Google News, don't remember the source).
In some points I agree with you, but when you actually own a phone you are free to make whatever you want with it, you already payed for it.
Otherwise it would be like getting a washing machine with a policy telling you that you are not able to wash pants on it.

I think the policy must refer to the service of the phone, not the phone itself. By actually "punishing" the consumers Apple is doing something non ethical IMO.


The article makes it sound like Apple purposly bricked the phones, but I think it's more of a case where the way they phone is modified that it makes firmware incompatible.

But the problem is is that Apple made the new firmware so that it would be incompatible, thus rendering modded phones bricks. They even said something like that, though obviously they did not directly say "haha we bricked your phones, now you have to buy a new one"

 

[MaHe]

Hey, the iTunes EULA forbids you to create weapons of mass destruction with it ... so you're technically not free to do anything with it. However, I still find it a violation of human rights to forbid something you do with your legally purchased device. But this doesn't really have anything to do with the case at hand.

I think if Apple intentionally bricked those iPhones, they SHOULD be punished, but if it was just an incompatibility problem, it's the users fault. However proving both points is rather complicated (can you prove they knew the unlocked phones would get bricked?).

In the end, it's just a matter of how good your legal team is. That's how it always was and always will be.

 

[Hiratai]

By disabling unlocked/hacked iPhones and turning them to "iBricks", "Apple punished consumers for exercising their rights to unlock their iPhones," or at least that's what attorney Damian Fernandez said in a civil lawsuit filed in California.

Fernandez, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of a California man, estimates that Apple has sold 1.28 million iPhones and that Apple turned "several hundred thousand of those phones" to "iBricks" (Fernandez's word).

Fernandez is seeking "class action" status to expand the litigation to cover all US iPhone buyers. The suit demands a jury trial and asks the court to order Apple to unlock iPhones and provide warranty service to hacked devices.It also demands Apple be forced to pay unspecified cash damages.

Another 2 lawsuits have been filed for the same reason against Apple in San Jose. A federal case accusing AT&T and Apple of "unfair business practices and violations of antitrust, telecommunications and warranty laws" and another state-level case with more or less of the same accusations.

The federal case was filed by the firms of Hoffman & Lazear in Oakland and Folkenflik & McGerity in New York on behalf of iPhone owners Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello. The state case was filed by Saratoga attorney Damian Fernandez on behalf of California resident Timothy Smith.

By not allowing consumers to modify their iPhones to work on other carrier networks, "the two companies conspired from the beginning of their partnership to maintain a monopoly", the federal lawsuit alleged.

The federal lawsuit stated it didn't know how large the affected class could be but pegged the number at 100 or more and anticipates "there will be millions."

So, because people screwed with their expensive toys like they weren't supposed and then tried to update them and now they are bricked, it's somehow Apple's fault? And how is it a case that Apple is only allowing it to be used on ATT? Should Nintendo be sued because they don't allow their Mario games to be played on a PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360?

Just in case you didn't know - it's OBVIOUSLY Apple's fault since they coded into the firmware that it would brick iPhones. More than likely they're getting sued for NOT stating it.

 

[jumpman17]

I personally would disagree with all of you, I mean, you bought a shiny 600$ phone, and you can't even use it how you want to???

Then don't buy it if it doesn't do what you want it to do.

Heck, I'm not going to buy a Wii because it doesn't play my Vic 20 tapes. Stupid Nintendo. You want me to pay you $250 and I can't even use your product the way I want to? Shame on you.

 

[JPH]

Douchebags shouldn't have done it; you knew Apple was gonna do something about it.
Why would you even fuck around with your phone like that, especially your 400 dollar phone.

I agree with ya, good point.

 

[Urza]

The Policy Agreement for the iPhone service is one of the longest ever created (Google News, don't remember the source).
In some points I agree with you, but when you actually own a phone you are free to make whatever you want with it, you already payed for it.
Otherwise it would be like getting a washing machine with a policy telling you that you are not able to wash pants on it.

I think the policy must refer to the service of the phone, not the phone itself. By actually "punishing" the consumers Apple is doing something non ethical IMO.

Then feel free not to install the firmware update. You aren't forced to do it.

And for the record, you can restore a bricked iPhone with iTunes.

 

[Mewgia]

Douchebags shouldn't have done it; you knew Apple was gonna do something about it.
Why would you even fuck around with your phone like that, especially your 400 dollar phone.

I agree with ya, good point.

But Apple should not have done that. In the past, they were very developer friendly. Now, they seem to be locking things up, and all of those devs that supported Apple's products without getting paid? Gone.
Good job Apple.

 

[Mangofett]

I personally would disagree with all of you, I mean, you bought a shiny 600$ phone, and you can't even use it how you want to???


Then don't buy it if it doesn't do what you want it to do.

Heck, I'm not going to buy a Wii because it doesn't play my Vic 20 tapes. Stupid Nintendo. You want me to pay you $250 and I can't even use your product the way I want to? Shame on you.

However, the Wii doesn't have the hardware or software to play your tapes. the iPhone has both, to act like a normal phone. Just Apple doesn't let you use it.

 

[Urza]

However, the Wii doesn't have the hardware or software to play your tapes. the iPhone has both, to act like a normal phone. Just Apple doesn't let you use it.

The Wii has the hardware and software to play NES, SNES, and N64 ROMs. Just Nintendo doesn't let you use it.

 

[VVoltz]

The Policy Agreement for the iPhone service is one of the longest ever created (Google News, don't remember the source).
In some points I agree with you, but when you actually own a phone you are free to make whatever you want with it, you already payed for it.
Otherwise it would be like getting a washing machine with a policy telling you that you are not able to wash pants on it.

I think the policy must refer to the service of the phone, not the phone itself. By actually "punishing" the consumers Apple is doing something non ethical IMO.

Then feel free not to install the firmware update. You aren't forced to do it.

And for the record, you can restore a bricked iPhone with iTunes.

Agreed, since is your phone, you are to do with it whatever you like.