Hey Josh Pigford, U learn up. U are the stupid here and not the person who filed a lawsuite.

So wat do u mean ?, you can give me your money and do what ever I say ? are you nuts ?

Thank you. I would agree that I are the stupid here. We should all file lawsuites and be nuts. :)

So wat do u mean ?, you can give me your money and do what ever I say ? are you nuts ?

My bet is Apple and AT&T will relent or lose big. Personally, I wouldn’t touch an iPhone until this issue is resolved.

Mark my words this case, which is a well thought out one, will eventually lead to to Apple having to “unlock” maybe not next month, but give it time. The guy knows what he’s doing. Apple will of seen this coming and is looking at a time frame of 1-2 years, within which they will off made the profit work for them.

The guy starting the suit is just a front, figure out the legal expenses in such a case, who do you is paying? … think of the current lobby on this matter ….

and josh–i’ll apologize for calling you pathetic when you apologize for calling the litigant and idiot.

For the first two months of the iPhone, Apple did nothing and made no public comment regarding hacking the phone. Surely, their skilled legal department understood what was going on within the user community. They also had to understand the implications of their own silence on the issue: that Apple was quietly endorsing those activities. They took no affirmative action to warn users of the likelihood that the phones would be bricked by a subsequent update.

That they waited until just a few days before the 1.1.1 update to take that action is, at best, irresponsible. Further, the warning was pretty ambiguous. “Could” and “might” render the phones inoperable were the critical words. I don’t think there’s much doubt that they *knew* it would brick a percentage.

I’ll grant that unlocking the phones is not, in my opinion, the smartest thing to do. That’s an activity that probably put Apple at risk of litigation from AT&T. Installing third-party apps, however, has never been a violation of a hardware warranty. And, even violations of a warranty have never given the hardware manufacturer the right to render the purchased equipment inoperable.

So, Apple screwed up in three ways: a) by not affirmatively discouraging (either in writing or verbally) hacking, b) by not allowing a sufficient period of time to correct the hacks they knew existed before delivering the 1.1.1 update, and c) by damaging or rendering inoperable third-party software that’s clearly allowed on any other hardware device.

I don’t think anyone, when they think about it, really likes the precedent this sets. A manufacturer is free to define their warranty terms in a way that best suits their business interests. Consumers are free to accept or reject that warranty, but not to negotiate it. Under those terms, Apple should be free to void the warranty on any phone hacked to work with other networks – it’s in their business interest to do so – but not to destroy the devices that are owned by the consumer.

Unfortunately, the way these things get worked out in the US is in the courts. Apple appears determined, by their actions, to expand manufacturers’ rights to include permanently disabling a modified device (a device now owned by the consumer), even when they already have the right to void the warranty and be done with it. That doesn’t bode well for any of us, Apple consumers all. Would it be okay if, when you installed the custom pipes on that new Mini Cooper, BMW came and stole the engine, even when they already had the right to void the warranty? Far-fetched, maybe. But the analogy matches the expansion of manufacturers’ rights (at the expense of consumer rights) that Apple’s action seems to lead. The courts are the way that expansion is contained – for all of us.