4 ms·

I don't think this falls under your principle. I'm all about the doctrine of first sale, but this isn't a simple retail transaction where I fork over a sum of

I don't think this falls under your principle. I'm all about the doctrine of first sale, but this isn't a simple retail transaction where I fork over a sum of cash for a finished product and that's it. I paid for half a phone, my cell provider paid for the other half, and I have contracted to tie this phone to their service for two years in exchange for them shelling out that $300 up front. Once the two years are up they should be legally required to unlock it, but during the contract period it seems reasonable to keep me from taking full ownership of something that I don't yet fully own. "You can also pay full-price for a phone, not the discounted price that comes with a two-year service contract, to receive the device unlocked from the get-go." - if the full price phone was locked, your principle would certainly apply, but it isn't, so I don't think it does.

baudehlo 14y ago
I know that here in Canada, even if you buy an iPhone full price from anyone but Apple, it is locked to that vendor. Which seems ludicrous to me.
- sareon 14y ago
  I thought the newest bill (related to technology, pirating, etc) here in Canada made it legal for Canadians to be allowed to unlock their phones and made it illegal for companies to tie one device to one company.
linh 14y ago
I don' think that's what the article is about. If you break the contract you'll have to pay a terminal fee anyway.
mtinkerhess 14y ago
But you do fully own the phone, even if you're on a contract. It's not like a mortgage or a car loan; the phone company doesn't have a lien on your phone. The penalty for breaking the contract isn't to give the phone back--it's to pay a termination fee.
- dedward 14y ago
  This, specifically. If they want to deal with ownership do some kind of leasing agreement... otherwise, let's not have public enforcement propping up the business model.
roc 14y ago
Except that unlocking the phone doesn't free anyone from fulfilling their side of the original contract. So network interests in recapturing their subsidies don't even enter into it. If I buy an iPhone 5 from ATT and unlock it, even if I pay for a Straight Talk SIM and use that from time to time, I'm still on the hook to pay AT&T whatever monthly fee the contract obligates me to pay. The only reason AT&T would want me to not unlock my phone, is to ensure they have a captive market for further services that are not part of the contract. Be they usage overages, international roaming, etc. They'd like my $70/mo for a base smartphone package (with an absurd early termination fee to boot) and to not have to compete for any additional or international service I may need. Now you can certainly argue that that's a consideration people are willingly agreeing to when they agree to buy subsidized phones on contract. But the argument is that it's a consideration that ought to be explicitly spelled out in the contract terms, rather than enforced by an end-run through copyright law that most people don't know about and have no reason to believe holds any bearing over how they use a device they're paying for.
- therandomguy 14y ago
  "Except that unlocking the phone doesn't free anyone from fulfilling their side of the original contract"... it does, the contract now says that you can't unlock the phone. If you do you break the contract.
  - roc 14y ago
    I thought it was pretty clear that I was speaking in the context of the parent post, about the financial terms of the contract and whether it was reasonable for a network to lock a phone to ensure they recouped their subsidy. Also, the contract doesn't say anything about (un)locking the phone. An unaccountable executive reading of a largely-obscure copyright law is the only thing saying it. And it isn't being termed a violation of the contract, it's being termed a violation of the law. The fact that the 'lock' consideration and implications aren't explicitly in the contract is rather the point.
    - therandomguy 14y ago
Nursie 14y ago
You do have a point, but it's not like unlocking the phone gets you out of paying your monthly fees. Hell, they should encourage it because they'd still get your subscription fee and you might not even use their service!

baudehlo 14y ago

I know that here in Canada, even if you buy an iPhone full price from anyone but Apple, it is locked to that vendor. Which seems ludicrous to me.

sareon 14y ago
I thought the newest bill (related to technology, pirating, etc) here in Canada made it legal for Canadians to be allowed to unlock their phones and made it illegal for companies to tie one device to one company.

linh 14y ago

I don' think that's what the article is about. If you break the contract you'll have to pay a terminal fee anyway.

mtinkerhess 14y ago

But you do fully own the phone, even if you're on a contract. It's not like a mortgage or a car loan; the phone company doesn't have a lien on your phone. The penalty for breaking the contract isn't to give the phone back--it's to pay a termination fee.

dedward 14y ago
This, specifically. If they want to deal with ownership do some kind of leasing agreement... otherwise, let's not have public enforcement propping up the business model.

roc 14y ago

Except that unlocking the phone doesn't free anyone from fulfilling their side of the original contract. So network interests in recapturing their subsidies don't even enter into it. If I buy an iPhone 5 from ATT and unlock it, even if I pay for a Straight Talk SIM and use that from time to time, I'm still on the hook to pay AT&T whatever monthly fee the contract obligates me to pay. The only reason AT&T would want me to not unlock my phone, is to ensure they have a captive market for further services that are not part of the contract. Be they usage overages, international roaming, etc. They'd like my $70/mo for a base smartphone package (with an absurd early termination fee to boot) and to not have to compete for any additional or international service I may need. Now you can certainly argue that that's a consideration people are willingly agreeing to when they agree to buy subsidized phones on contract. But the argument is that it's a consideration that ought to be explicitly spelled out in the contract terms, rather than enforced by an end-run through copyright law that most people don't know about and have no reason to believe holds any bearing over how they use a device they're paying for.

therandomguy 14y ago
"Except that unlocking the phone doesn't free anyone from fulfilling their side of the original contract"... it does, the contract now says that you can't unlock the phone. If you do you break the contract.
- roc 14y ago
  I thought it was pretty clear that I was speaking in the context of the parent post, about the financial terms of the contract and whether it was reasonable for a network to lock a phone to ensure they recouped their subsidy. Also, the contract doesn't say anything about (un)locking the phone. An unaccountable executive reading of a largely-obscure copyright law is the only thing saying it. And it isn't being termed a violation of the contract, it's being termed a violation of the law. The fact that the 'lock' consideration and implications aren't explicitly in the contract is rather the point.
  - therandomguy 14y ago

Nursie 14y ago

You do have a point, but it's not like unlocking the phone gets you out of paying your monthly fees. Hell, they should encourage it because they'd still get your subscription fee and you might not even use their service!