You're suing for what?
 

Read this article:

Class action lawsuit over locked iPhone.

I thought I had seen nonsensical before, but this takes the cake...

PS- I just noticed the typo in the title. Can some kindly mod change that to read "you're"

Heh, I was once sued by a guy who ran my car off the road! He lost, but only after wasting who knows how much time and money on both sides.

Okay, this is the part as a Canadian that I don't understand. While we share much in common with our American neighbours, there are a few distinctions. In this case, there is a big difference between the litigiousness of Americans and Canadians. This kind of lawsuit would never fly in Canada. In fact, our justices would likely fine the plaintiff. Are there no fines for frivolous lawsuits in the US?

There should be, but no. It wouldn't hurt to fine the lawyers too.

Totally. In reality, I think that's what's missing the most. If you make the lawyers pay for it then they are far less likely to take cases. And if no lawyer will take your case...

I almost filed a complaint against the lawyers who filed the suit against me, but it just wasn't worth the effort. I wish I had though.

The kid claimed under oath that my two seater (Toyota MR2) pushed his big 1978 Mercedes diesel powered V8 off the road. Any lawyer who's done traffic cases would know that he had to be lying. The much lighter MR2 would be (and was!) like a fly stuck to the side of his car as he drove me off the road. Sure seemed like suborning perjury to me.

I just got a notice in the mail of a class action suit. Seems like some mortgage lender supposedly didn't providing enough information in their sales pitches over the last 5 years. The settlement? An offer for a better rate and/or reduced fees. Only in America can a lawyer sue a group over nothing and make millions of dollars, plus provide for a non-penalty settlement which also makes millions of dollars.

I would be interested to see if this suit gets anywhere. $2,000? what kind of charge per Kb does that amount to?

I just got my bill for 25 days roaming in the UK, on my Thai SIM card. No calls, just Blackberry email. That was, in USD terms, $100, just for roaming. My unlimited data plan here is 800 Baht per month, appx. $23.

Sounds cheap compared to what most of you face paying.

I have an AT&T phone that they would not give me an unlock code for. I had to search it out before I traveled abroad.

Unless things have changed in the last couple of years T-Mobile is the only company I know that will give out unlock codes to their phones and that is after the chance for a return is gone.

On and off topic... what do people here who are against DRM (as in won't use iTunes because of it) feel about their phones being locked to a carrier?

...and then go on and be elected to the State legislature or even the US Congress. The percentage of politicians who are lawyers in the USA never ceases to amaze me...

Well, quite a few Brit pols are lawyers too....

I think it has a lot to do with having the time and income available to be able devote oneself to the process of getting elected. I know. I stood for election twice.

Really, how'd you do?

[sarcasm]
I also think that being a lawyer helps a politician debate better, you know, for all those debates they do on national television...
[/sarcasm]

Actually, it does make them better at bickering over petty things, and it helps them to understand where the power really comes from (can you smell that? It's pure green power!)

Well, I did not get elected on either ocasion (thank goodness, in retrospect), but I reduced the other side's vote substantially. I lost by 480 votes on the first occasion, triggering 3 recounts. We all got to bed Very late that night.

I hate to say it, but I think part of the problem is the large percentage who are not lawyers. :eek: If you don't have a good understanding of the law, then it's going to be easy for lawyers to manipulate new laws that you create.

That's not an entirely accurate portrayal. There are numerous legal departments within the government that can be called upon to review and refine proposed legislation. It doesn't take a lawyer to create the law, but having several lawyers (and possibly justices) review the legislation before it is enacted is always prudent.

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. Observe...

I am 100% against DRM and am convinced that it doesn't work. I refuse to buy music from iTunes for many reasons. First and foremost, I will not pay money for music only to have someone tell me how and where I can use it. Second, I will not pay more money to have that restriction lifted (it should never have been there in the first place). Third, I'm not convinced that iTunes represents good value to the consumer.

I can get a new CD with 12 tracks on it for $15. That amounts to $1.25 a song and no DRM. The iTunes store wants $1.39 for DRM free music and $0.99 for DRM-crippled music. But there is no CD, case, or art to manufacture. There are no brick-and-mortar wholesalers, distributors and retailers. There are no shipments of CDs across countries or over oceans. There is only a server farm at Apple with fair bit of traffic. How much do you think that the server farm, the bandwidth, the web design and IT team really cost? Now divide that by three billion songs. Doesn't amount to much in the way of overheads does it? But none of that savings is being passed on to the consumer. It's being eaten up by Apple and music industry fat cats!

I am, however, in favour of businesses being allowed to form strategic alliances (provided, of course, that it is within the bounds of antitrust law). If I owned my own business (which I do not), I wouldn't care to have people try to tell me who I was allowed (or not) to partner with in releasing my product. So I personally have no problem with the iPhone being locked to AT&T. If you don't like it, then don't buy it.

there was some guy who on his at&t bill it said roaming charges were something like 0.05 cents per kb but it was a mis print and was really something like 5 cents and his bill came to $5000, don't know what happened to him, did anyone else here that story?

I just found a new twist on this story. According to this article, the man who was charged the $2000 is himself a lawyer...Explains why he could buy three, eh? Or at least I think that's what the brief is inferring.

In the other article it mentions the plaintiff having a representative...but most lawyers do that, right? I guess I'm confused, someone read this article and straighten me out, okay?

Correct. I agree.
If you live in America, the iTunes store only wants $1.29 for DRM-free. Only 4 cents more expensive. Buying albums off iTunes is a waste IMO. I see iTunes being more for buying individual tracks off albums. (In case you only like 3 or 4 songs off a particular album)

However, the statement I disagree with is "Apple and music industry fat cats" eat up all the savings. Actually, the Music industry is eating up said savings. Apple makes little/no money off the iTMS. All the funds go to the record companies to keep them happy. Apple profits off iPod sales.

Well, the problem is that Apple has a great product, and that, well...they are sort of limiting the iPhone's potential by not releasing it to other carriers. There are a lot of people I know who won't jump to AT&T for the iPhone. Lots of missed potential.

I'd like to know where you are getting your numbers from. I'm highly skeptical that Apple makes little or no profit from the iTunes Music Store!

That's their mistake to make. Not the consumer's to dictate! I don't necessarily agree with their business strategy here, but I'm not planning on challenging it in a court of law! That's ridiculous.

Well, Apple has said so, and for what it's worth, analysts have broken down the numbers to show that Apple makes a few (I think it was 3 or 4) pennies on each song before figuring in the cost of running the servers and advertising. Having sold over 3 billion songs, that's about $120 million dollars over 6 years, or about $20 million per year on average from selling songs. While I wouldn't sneeze at a paycheck like that, Apple it would file it under petty cash.

The only party which gets little to no money from the iTunes Music Store sales are the artists that actually make the music.

I believe that was Verizon and the story came from the oh so not biased Consumerist.com

http://consumerist.com/consumer/veri...ong-220999.php

Then based on the assumed truth of cwtnospam's comment above, I revise my previous statement: the potential savings of online music distribution are being eaten up almost entirely by music industry fat cats!

I still stand by my reasoning for not purchasing music online, however.

As it has been since the beginning of the industry. ;)

Well, you can kind of blame the Beatles and the Rolling Stones for this. You see corporations saw the big boom of music in the 60s and were like, hey we can make money from this? Thus having corporate sponsored tours, and everyone gets rich, except the artist of course.

Some good friends of mine are in a band that was once signed to RCA records. RCA gave them some money up front (which is technically a loan, thats how it works) and they cut an album on RCA. Now, the person who managed them at RCA got fired, along with several other managers/producers, and when that happens all contracts under those people are automatically up for renegotiation. In the end they broke even, lost a whole album to RCA, got new equipment and a new touring van. I say they did well in the end, but they did lose an entire album to RCA in the process.

Well said.

And while we are on the topic of lawsuits, $100 says someone starts a lawsuit against apple for the iPhone price drop.

This is one of the reasons that I support iTunes actually. You can put independently published music on iTunes and sell it. Granted, you won't have the same advertising. But between iTunes, a good website and, oh, I don't know, some talent? You can make things work for yourself. I have songs from bands that only tour five bars in remote corners of the country...I really think iTMS can allow the industry fat cats to be overcome :).

Does anyone think that this lawsuit may have ensued, partially because the plaintiff is a lawyer who probably DID read the contracts associated with the phone service activation. If so, I agree with his argument and position.

Many of the first iPhone bills that were issued created shock waves to the unsuspecting consumer, because of the extremely high text messaging and data packet costs that were minimally defined. Everyone saw the young lady who received the $400 bill for all her endless texting on YouTube; well on a grander level, why does the consumer NOT have the right to know the exceptions for charges when one signs on the dotted line?

As for iTunes, they created a most trustworthy interface, however I prefer emusic ... at one third the cost, and delivers my mp3s to the desktop to place wherever I desire. Also emusic regularly showcases acts that are not mainstream as the above poster mentioned. A viable vehicle to showcase undiscovered talent at a more nominal charge.

I'm quite new to this site, and am extremely impressed with the quality and technical expertise of the postings. Kudos and thanks.