I'm not sure what kind of chance the lawsuit has.



In all the areas where the phone was sold, everyone had an opportunity not to purchase it - they could have bought something else and gone with another carrier. Most monopoly suits that win usually deal with crowding out competition so you have no choice. Ma Bell went through this before.

AT&T has gotten really messed up previously for being a monopoly in the USA. It doesn't surprise me that they'd go back to acting as they used to. They where a monopoly hen and they are now.


They had to, I bet it was part of their contract with AT&T.

Except when you do not live in the service area for that network, meaning even if you wanted the product, you can't purchase it, because to you it is just a fancy paperweight!

I just think it's a rotten deal, that's all.

But a rotten deal doesn't make for lawsuit material, I agree.

In all likelihood, even if we were in AT&T's service area, I w\likely would not have purchased the iPhone. But I would have liked to have had that option.

To me this does not look like just a case of a company making a game to go with its console..IMO it looks like companies banding together to lock out the competition and create a monopoly.


it's called brand banding and there should be a law against, if there isn't...Brand banding is when 2 companies or so get together to try to force customers buying one product in to only using their specified conjoining products when there are available alternative choices..

Example: A car maker makes a totally hot car that looks and has features no other has..goes to extreme measures creating hype to get the consumers all excited. Then they organize a contract that only allows purchasers to buy from the gas stations they specify,tire manufacturers they specify,car washes they specify. etc .. you get the idea...

Even tho there are plenty of alternative gas stations,car washes and tire makers..and you don't have to alter the car to use them.

1 or more companies conspiring to lock out competition or force ably deny customers from using competitors services. should be against the law. (and possibly is) this would be tantamount to Price fixing by gas stations, trying to squash the smaller competitors.

not to mention since when were contracts legal and binding if they are unconstitutional ? if a contract violates the inherent freedom of choice. isn't the contract null and void? im not saying these contracts are, A lawyer could answer this better.


not to mention how many people have to buy a new and branded version of the same phone when ever they want to switch providers, why because the service provider's require it? like the phone mfgs are going to complain, every time you switch services, wa la you have to buy a new phone and more $ for the mfgs...






Adding a specific function to a product is not illegal.Neither is another company supporting it..

BUT if stardock and MS got together and added in ther EULA that when you buy Vista you MUST only use Stardock apps to skin it.. well then they have conspired to lock out the competition. essentially locking avedesk,litestep,etc out of the market....and create a Gui skinning monopoly.

see the difference?

on the point of the phones were altered this will probably be the defining factor. BUT if the phones are physically capable of being used by different service providers. is it legal for the mfgs and providers to intentionally lock them out to begin with?

I'm still trying to figure out why Apple got into bed with AT@T.   

well yeah, but it was the best I could come up with since I was running late for work

but I still don't see any issue for a class action suit other than to line some legal pockets (they are the only ones who ever truly win)