Actually, the iPhone data plan is CHEAPER than many of ATT's other data plans.

Also, while consumers have the right to unlock a phone for the SOLE purpose of connecting to a network (apparently not for the purpose of selling the phone), I can't see (as a non-attorney) where the DMCA exception requires that the manufacturer facilitate the unlocking. To make the suit even sillier, Apple told iPhone users that applying the update to a hacked iPhone could result in the iPhone becoming non-operational.

I note that "TimothySmithIsAFlamingTurd.com" is already registered. I did send an e-mail to his Mom telling her that he is the new poster child for legal abortion.

I think people should have realized when they bought an iPhone, that making modifications to that device, well, really wasn't allowed, should have had an idea of possible consequences.

But then again, we live in a country where you can sue tobacco companies when you get lung cancer.

OTHER CELL COMPANIES HAVE PHONES THAT ARE EXCLUSIVE TO THEM! The Chocolate is only available through Verizon. Nextel phones are only available through Sprint. The case has NO merit.

I think people should have realized when they bought an iPhone, that making modifications to that device, well, really wasn't allowed, should have had an idea of possible consequences.

But then again, we live in a country where you can sue tobacco companies when you get lung cancer.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I think people should have realized when they bought an iPhone, that making modifications to that device, well, really wasn't allowed, should have had an idea of possible consequences.

And the REALLY funny part about it is that there AREN'T any consequences! There are lots of un-locked iPhones out there living happily. Nothing is stopping them.

This idiot's problem is that he ran an update that Apple TOLD HIM would break his phone. Had he not done that he'd still have exactly what he wanted: an unlocked iPhone.

This smells like extortion to me.

But a law firm would never condone that....

Quote

Bosco wrote:
I note that "TimothySmithIsAFlamingTurd.com" is already registered. I did send an e-mail to his Mom telling her that he is the new poster child for legal abortion.

It's now available according to GoDaddy and ALLWHOIS. Go for it!

Quote

Guest wrote:
But then again, we live in a country where you can sue tobacco companies when you get lung cancer.

Actually, most keen observers of the tobacco settlement recognize that it allowed tobacco companies to raise their prices, protect themselves from liability, and ensure profitability by shutting out upstart competition. Google for "bootleggers and Bapists" for more on the concept.

Apple stock rose to a record high on news of a frivolous lawsuit involving the iPhone.

Isn't this like suing Ford cuz you modified your car to run on water and it stopped working?

Violating Antitrust statutes?

Good luck with that one.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Isn't this like suing Ford cuz you modified your car to run on water and it stopped working?

Not quite, it's closer to using Shell gas in your Ford and taking your Ford in to the dealer for an oil change only to have them pull your starter because they only support Texaco gas.

This idiot from California bought his iPhone for the SOLE purpose of suing Apple and getting his 15 minutes of fame. No one FORCED him to buy any product, and Apple has been more than upfront about the conditions under which the iPhone is sold. And the lawyers supporting this lawsuit are the ones that give the entire legal profession a black eye.

Most frivolous lawsuits come out of CA?
All I ever hear about is doped up actors/actresses doing silly things usually with drugs/alcohol and instead of serving a sentence their publicists publish ludicrous apologies or companies that have ran themselves in the dirt because they can't figure out how to actually sell a working product to a consumer so they try to add "lawsuit winnings" as money earned to help their bottom line.

Now we have yet another idiot who can't understand the simple english used in the AGREEMENT nor can they fathom the WARNING "This update may make your device inoperable if it was modified, unlocked, or if UNSUPPORTED third party applications were installed on it."

Lets tie up the court systems some more with these type of lawsuits so all companies will "pass the costs" to the consumer!

Here are some ideas for some more california lawsuits. I think they all have merit and are just full of win...

(1) Sue Microsoft because you can't play Playstation games on the console. This is damaging and violates our rights because"Proprietary" is a direct violation of "Freedom of Purchase Act". Then also sue Nintendo and Playstation as well.

(2) Sue coffee makers for creating a product that you have to mix with water in order to get coffee. What about those poor california children that are allergic to water and want to enjoy a nice cup of coffee?

(3) Sue car manufacturers for making a product that forces us to use gasoline. I bought the car. I own it. I should be able to pour maple syrup in the "gas tank" and it should still run. This screams of "anti trust".

(4) Sue Networks for forcing us to watch commercials. I want to watch my tv shows I payed for but I didn't ask for the commercials. I want them taken out completely and I should be able to have all commercials taken out since I "paid" for the service myself.

(5) Pants manufacturers. They all should be sued in a class action lawsuit because pants do NOT come with a label on it that warns the consumer that the contents of the pants may cause unwanted pregnancy or lead to contracting an STD.

(6) MIcrosoft Windows. There should be a warning on the box that states that frequent freezes, lock ups, and security flaws may lead to loss of data or data corruption.

(7) Plastic Pink Flamingo Lawn Ornament Manufacturers. Who in their right mind allowed this product to flourish? Seconded only by "lawn gnomes" in gaudiness, this eye sore has lead to more home owner association complaints and has caused much heart ache and grief across the nation. I smell millions here.

(8) Forum Trolls. Since the internet and Wikipedia is the new "source" for reliable information and Forum Trolls relentlessly quote from such renowned sources, I feel they should be sued for misleading information which leads to punitive damages for those that surf the net while at work.

(9) I think the Internet should be sued. Yup. It has led to "file sharing piracy", Blogitus, trolling, free prn, and auto updates which have all had painfully damaging outcomes to all users of the internet. Most software requires an internet connection in order to work properly or update properly and this has damage the floppy disk market beyond repair.

(10) "Texting". This is a huge one. You own a phone. dial 10 numbers and you can actually SPEAK to someone. Instead you want to drive your car with your knees while you are "thumbing" text spam to all your text buddies some new lame joke that has already circulated every email box known to man. Thrown in spammers on this lawsuit as well. Why can;t you sue that friend that feels they need to forward every single chain letter and stupid joke to your mailbox?

I think I will sue myself and since I cannot pay myself the 20 million I am seeking in damages maybe I can have the government subsidize me for my own well being.

Lawsuits like this have made a joke of the judicial system.

GO CALIFORNIA! you are leading the way in breeding lawsuit idiots!.

Someone drop a steamer in the gene pool please.

"Most frivolous lawsuits come out of CA? "

You have to take the bad with the good. Where ever you are in World it has something negative about its society. Hell, even in Nebraska, probably the antithesis of California, someone recently sued God.

Quote

daemon wrote:
Not quite, it's closer to using Shell gas in your Ford and taking your Ford in to the dealer for an oil change only to have them pull your starter because they only support Texaco gas.

It's actually nothing like that. But keep using that analogy. Eventually somebody will believe it.

Also, if anyone actually read the DCMA regs, it only allows for phones to be unlocked if they are subsidized by the phone carriers. The iPhone is not subsidized. As for these kind of lawsuits coming out of Ca. Did anyone read where Apple is being sued in New York because somebody bought an iPhone early, then the price was reduced, and they are suing because they cannot sell their phone for as much profit as other people? Where do these people come from?

My favorite is number 4 "of harm alleged by consumers"

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

Yes your honor, I paid a fee to get out of my old contract. No, I know of no reason why I cannot have 2 contracts.

oh...

I wont be able to access the internet on my MacBook Pro because I dont have AT&T Broadband internet...