[MacGeek1955]

Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say that there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.
Frank Zappa

[Terrin]

There is a difference between publicly stating that something is illegal, and actually believing it is illegal. They would never sue over that because they know they would lose. That is a clear example of Fair-use. Music labels claim things are illegal all the time that are not. It is called attempted brainwashing.

Quote:

---

And yes, the record labels do consider ripping your cds to your iPod "theft," they just haven't prosecuted anybody for it (yet.)

---

[Terrin]

Sounds good in theory, however, the US has the most Corporation friendly Court system in the World. Our Country actually considers Corporations to be people and accords them all the same rights. Sad really, since most people do not have millions of dollars to defend themselves in COurt.
Courts often are able to award attorney fees to the losing party. Google was sued a while back, and the Court awarded attorney fees because the Court viewed the sued as frivolous.

Quote:

---

THe U.S. should pass some kind of reform and have it where those wrongfully suing should not only pay all legal fees but also something like 10% of anything they attempted to get from the suit.

---

[Terrin]

I think Mac users often criticize Apple. For instance, people knocked iMovie and parts of Leopard. Not too many people defend Apple there. Here, however, Apple deserves to be defended. Under the same facts, I would defend Microsoft or Sony as well.
It is just silly to expect Apple to support a hacked product. No other company out there is being asked to do the same thing, and the costs to Apple would be huge. I hate AT&T. However, not many service providers were willing to do business with Apple. They view Apple as a threat. AT&T was willing to let Apple be Apple.

Quote:

---

Now I'm apparently immature to go with my stupidity. I seriously wonder what has become of the community of mac users i've been so proud to be a part of for over 20 years. It used to be that one could disagree with Apple and before long features and technology were introduced that brought us closer together and gave Apple enthusiasts something to be proud of. Today it sounds like one must take a loyalty oath to even be considered worthy of debate. Apple is a phenomenal company. They are not perfect and right on every issue.
If one of these genius know-it-all lemmings can show me where on the iTunes music store I can download the song I wrote for my wife on our wedding day, in an iPhone compatible ringtone format, I'll give them AND Apple a dollar.
If Apple can"t tell I"m the copyright owner, that"s not my problem. My wife"s free Nokia phone doesn"t seem to care who owns it.

---

[sandbag1]

Quote:

---

If one of these genius know-it-all lemmings can show me where on the iTunes music store I can download the song I wrote for my wife on our wedding day, in an iPhone compatible ringtone format, I'll give them AND Apple a dollar.
If Apple can"t tell I"m the copyright owner, that"s not my problem. My wife"s free Nokia phone doesn"t seem to care who owns it.

---

Have you tried loading it into your landline phone? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Personally I like coffee flavored coffee, tea flavored tea, and I like my ringtone to sound like a phone is ringing. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Kurtster]

Nobody said their licensing agreement promised that they could use their songs as ringtones. This is another poor analogy used to bolster an argument. The licencing agreement does'nt promise solid phone performance, but we expect it. When a Nokia phone does something I find useful, I think Apple should reconsider its position. Sosumi.

[SPOOF]

"Lucy Rivello said she wants to be able to use third-party apps and unlock her phone to switch to T-Mobile is she wants to."
Then don't buy the iPhone, moron.

[gaefstan]

What I said here had already been stated before so why add to the minutia

[Kurtster]

Quote:

---

"What if GM said they're car will only run on BP gas, ..."
So by your argument when I replace the motor in my GM car with a Dodge Hemi and something goes wrong with the onboard computer system I should be able to sue GM for incompatability?

---

OMG! The same false analogy comes up again. If you really want that analogy to work you need to include the part where GM removes the Hemi you installed and hands your car back without a motor. Then would it be ok to sue GM? Why is it so hard for the Apple-is-Jesus crowd on this forum to see that?

[dennishenley_MW]

Quote:

---

What if GM said they're car will only run on BP gas, but you want to use Marathon because you feel it's better gas,

---

I've got a Hoover vacuum cleaner and I can only use Hoover vacuum cleaner bags in them. I knew this when I bought the machine. I also have a VHS recorder and no matter what I do I can't get it to play my old Betamax tapes.
Apple never sold a phone that would work with anything but AT&T. It's spelled out in the spec sheets. I might want it to work with other services, but it doesn't.
How is this any different than me wanting a hack that lets me get free HBO and then suing my cable company if my hack is nullified by a cable update?
Anybody who thinks Apple deserves this lawsuit is an idiot. Anyone who goes along with the lawyers is an idiot. And, in the end, only the lawyers will benefit; lawyers always get paid. Litigants don't always get paid and then if there is a settlement it's a joke.

[Kurtster]

Again with a poor analogy. If your cable company rendered your TV inoperable because you stole HBO would that be ok? This is closer to what Apple is doing than just preventing you from stealing HBO.
why must you call people who disagree with you "idiots"? Is this really necessary and productive? I completely disagree with you but I don't assume to know enough about you to know if you're an idiot or not.

[feefer]

Everyone, enough with the stupid analogies. I'm sick of the LePorte/Bourne "cows eating grass", gasoline engines running on diesel fuel, etc. These types of comparisons are a form of intellectual weakness, as you cannot expect such situations to tell you anything about the matter at hand.
The bottom line: ALL cell phones rely on publicly-held resources (e.g. the airwaves, to be maintained by the government in the public's best interest), and hence why the FCC is a government agency! Radio operators must be licensed to operate on particular frequencies and at certain power ratings in order to maintain good public order and harmony. Otherwise, we'd have anarchy and chaos.
That's right: the government hands out certain rights and protections to cell providers (e.g. the right to operate on certain frequencies, and to not have such frequencies usurped by unlicensed entities, AKA "pirate radio operators") IN EXCHANGE with granting the U.S. citizenry certain benefits for sacrificing certain freedoms. Much like copyright law, the citizenry was asked to sacrifice some activities (for example, not being able to steal another's intellectual property) while gaining certain rights in exchange (e.g. the Right of First Sale).
As you see, it's all about balancing the rights of the individual with whatever is in the general public's best interest. It's all about an EXCHANGE of rights, with the stated goal of enhancing public benefit by encouraging fair commerce. Harmony encourages fair commerce, which is deemed to be beneficial to the American economic system.

When Apple entered the cell phone business with the iPhone, they may not have realized that there are certain consumer protection and anti-trust laws pertaining to public welfare that they cannot disregard (namely the Sherman Antitrust Act). I looked at it, and this class-action lawsuit asserts that Apple cannot make arrangements with AT&T to place artificial barriers to lock cellphones to AT&T's network, thus disregarding a consumer's right to determine the GSM carrier of their choice.
After a series of lawsuits looked into the whole cellphone locking issue last year, the Copyright Office has reiterated that a consumer is NOT violating DMCA provisions by unlocking a cellphone to use with another carrier, and the lawsuit holds that Apple is illegally violating consumer protection laws by trying to circumvent the right of a consumer to migrate. Any contract made under coercion or duress is not legally enforceable, so I suspect the class-action lawsuit is seeking to find Apple's excessive EULA terms to be unenforceable, null and void.
It sure seems that if you manufacture a GSM handset (where GSM IS a standard, with it's own inherent proprietary protocols, defined by specs), then the choices of carriers in the U.S. are:
1) T-Mobile
2) AT&T
If a consumer, for whatever reason, chooses to go with T-Mobile over AT&T, then they SHOULD have the right to use any chosen GSM handset with the GSM carrier of THEIR choice. Maybe the person lives in Vermont or Alaska (where AT&T don't operate GSM networks), or maybe they're outside of AT&T's service area in a State where AT&T DOES offer GSM (just not in their neighborhood), or maybe the consumer doesn't care about sacrificing visual voice-mail (an "AT&T only" feature which has been confirmed to operate like conventional voicemail on T-Mobile's network), or maybe they don't want to pay $20 a month for EDGE, etc.
Maybe they don't want to sacrifice whatever corporate discount that AT&T has decided to not allow for iPhone users, or they don't want to agree to AT&T's restrictive terms for roaming overseas. The reasons are numerous, from what I can see.
Bottom line: it's the CONSUMER'S choice to research, and purchase, service alternatives. AT&T and Apple rely on public resources (roads, radio waves, infrastructure, etc) to conduct their businesses, and despite what some of you think, we're NOT operating in a laissez-faire business climate, just yet. That's right: the U.S. Government has something to say about how interstate commerce is conducted. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
So Apple has to obey the SAME set of laws, including antitrust and consumer protection laws, that some of you are so concerned about (although you all seem more worried about copyright laws, as well as contract law).
Chris

[jpurdue]

I just purchased a Hitachi Plasma... and I should get the playboy channel for free. What do you say we get together and sue?!?!?

[feefer]

Quote:

---

I just purchased a Hitachi Plasma... and I should get the playboy channel for free. What do you say we get together and sue?!?!?

---

On what legal basis do you plan to sue? What law or public policy can you point to that you feel Hitachi has violated? That's what I thought: you don't have any idea, and are just spouting off....
Hint: most lawyers only make $ on cases that have "legs", and don't take cases that lack merit or some hope of recovery of their efforts. Your case is a loser IF you can't point to some legal basis. Unless your lawyer is an idiot, that's how it works.
Granted, class action suits often benefit the lawyers more than the members of the class, but I can also think of cases where I had benefitted from the terms of the settlement after the fact, without realizing a suit had already been settled. For example, I have a Sony camera where the CCD sensors were defective in manufacturing, and went bad prematurely after only a few years; it turned out Sony (and other manufacturers) had already settled a class-action suit where they would fix the CCD problem without charging consumers. All I had to do was send the broken camera back to Sony, and they repaired it without cost.
Before the suit, Sony denied the existance of a problem with CCDs, and charged boucoup $$$ for the repair (which necessitated replacement, for the most part: it cost as much to buy a new camera as it did to pay for the repair). Members of the class action suit were given refunds for any repairs they already paid for, and I, for one, didn't have to buy a new camera or pay for a repair. The old repaired camera still works fine, to this day.
And if not as ideal an outcome as this, at least the lawyers are giving the members of the class-action suit some legal voice in court. It sucks that big corporations would attempt to violate public policy laws or dodge out of expensive defective claims, but at least the people are getting their day in court when the exorbitant costs of mounting a legal challenge against a large corporation pretty much rules out that option for individuals.