3 ms·

Any secondary income is assumed income. A user can not be held liable or to contract for assumed income. For your argument how is a user unlocking his phone an

Any secondary income is assumed income. A user can not be held liable or to contract for assumed income. For your argument how is a user unlocking his phone and the user just stop using their phone different? As far as i understand your argument this should yield the same result as far as assumed income. (yes i know this is ridiculous but thats the point) Should it be illegal for a user to simply stop using his phones?

rayiner 14y ago
I'm not defending making it illegal, I'm defending AT&T's locking of the phones they sell. It's not secondary if it's contemplated by the contract. I haven't read AT&T's contract, but presumably it prohibits modifying the software on your phone that way.