<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Engadget Mobile - Comments for Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices</title>
<link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link>
<description>Engadget Mobile Comments for Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[I AM HAPPY ABOUT THIS!  I am not upset about this, instead, I am happy.  What am I happy about you might ask?  This.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Tyler]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 6:15PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[WOW.... again with this, im really impressed by the fact that peoeple that AGAIN feel the need to complain because THEY WERE FORCED (keyword FORCED) into buying this phone AND unlocking it, im amazed..... i cant wait for them to loose.....]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[BRAVOS]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 5:40PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[I would not like to see them "loose" nor would I to seem the lose, either. A lot of the iPhone cases are for really random things with no merit. However, this case is completely legit in my book. I mean, these people shelled out $400-$600 for an UNSUBSIDIZED phone that they knowingly buy locked: fine, they knew that at time of purchase. Because it's unsubsidized, AT&T nor Apple have to give the people the unlock code if I understand that law correctly. But if they unlock it themselves, it's complete BS not only for them to release that update that iBricks the phone but for it to void their warranty, too. I mean, most times I agree that these people didn't have to take the update but this was really underhanded.<br><br>I like AT&T and Apple, but they've really been doing some effed up things regarding this iPhone. The problem is they hadn't planned this out carefully (AT&T paying Apple each iPhone purchased rather tan each iPhone activated) so the people are screwed in the end. Thumbs down to the both of them.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[derX]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 10:42PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[Personally, I'd rather see a class action suit over the insane bills that iPhone users receive when taking the phone overseas.  According to Apple AND AT&T, the phone still sends and receives data with the phone off.  Pathetic! ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 5:44PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[I am very happy about this. I attempted to unlock my phone, failed to ever do it right, then restored my phone back to factory settings and told my self I won't ever attempt it again. Then when I updated to 1.1.1 everything was disabled. I took it to the Apple store and they wouldn't do a damn because it had indications that I unlocked it. But I never successfully unlocked it! And what, if a person decides to re-lock their phone by restoring the phone like I did, the software still kills your phone!!!?? Totally idiotic if you ask me. I hope these guys win.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[ridingtime516]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 6:01PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[I don't suffer from Apple induced Stockholm's syndrome. The argument goes like this. If you buy a new car and you install turbo then wind up blowing up your engine, it's not the dealer's responsibility. That's 100% correct. However, if your car is working fine with the turbo in it and you take your car in for routine service (like an oil change) - your dealer then sees the turbo and takes action to f up your engine so it's not functional anymore... this would be called illegal.  ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[David]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 6:04PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[David: I agree with you. My analogy of this was if you bought and car and cut the roof off to put a custom covertable top on it, you can't sue the car maker if your roof leaks. This is ridiculous. Anyone with half a brain (which may be case of these iphone users) knows that phone unlocking is a shady prospect and they should deal with the risks. I hate the lawsuit happy f**kers in this country. Next time, buy an unsubsidized, unlocked phone next time. Dumbasses. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[bob.autrey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 6:50PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[I think you missed what David was saying... Re-read his comment. He has a valid point.<br><br>If Apple weren't so focused on re-locking the phones maybe they wouldn't have bricked some innocent ones.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Shane]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 7:18PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[Shane. You are correct. Thanks for pointing that out. I did misread his comment. <br><br>I just don't understand if all of you hate Apple and it's policies then why purchase their products? Again, this county is lawsuit crazy and it's driving it into the ground. If you really want to send Apple a message, buy a different phone. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[bob.autrey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 9:58PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[In this case, these people aren't being "lawsuit crazy," although many of the previous ones were. As you said, if these people modify their phones and expect for Apple to run to their rescue when things go wrong, then they deserve whatever happens. However, when they modify their phones and the company releases an update (AND WITHOUT WARNING) that damages the phone and blames it on the people for wanting the most out of their ~half a grand handset, their is definitely something fishy about this and AT&T are Apple should be held accountable.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[derX]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 10:47PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[In this case, these people aren't being "lawsuit crazy," although many of the previous ones were. As you said, if these people modify their phones and expect for Apple to run to their rescue when things go wrong, then they deserve whatever happens. However, when they modify their phones and the company releases an update (AND WITHOUT WARNING) that damages the phone and blames it on the people for wanting the most out of their ~half a grand handset, their is definitely something fishy about this and AT&T are Apple should be held accountable.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[derX]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 10:47PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[How are they lawsuit happy? I mean, your example is right. If they modify their device, it's their fault if things go sour. However, if you take it a step further, they modify their device and in using the phone as the manufacturer suggests (i.e.: installing the update) their phones are iBricked. It was done in a very sneaky way, these people paid around HALF A GRAND for a device and now they're being told how to use it?<br><br>If a company purposely voids customers' warranties, they should be punished accordingly.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[derX]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 10:57PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[Yeah, sorry about the triple post. Ignore the latter two. It seems that I had a computer trouble<br><br>....probably Apple's fault...I'm suin'!]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[derX]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 11th 2007 1:47AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[I would rather people sued ATT for charging more for cell service to non iphone customers.<br><br>As for suing apple for doing what apple has always done...<br>and, to all you who tried to unlock it and now want to sue, the lawsuit should say, "I tried to get one over on Apple and they beat me... WHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!"<br>]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Bayard]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 6:51PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA["Next time, buy an unsubsidized, unlocked phone next time. Dumbasses." <br><br>I thought the phone was unsubsidized?? It's not like you get a subsidized price for signing a two year contract when you buy the thing. <br>]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Bryan]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 7:49PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[Unsubsidized perhaps, but part of the terms of purchasing and using the device was entering into a two year service agreement with AT&T. You are breaking that agreement by "hacking" it to unlock it for use on another network. If you didn't think that was a fair deal, then you should not have bought the device. You guys could always just use the device under the terms of sale in which you bought it and you wouldn't be having any reason to bellyache.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[bob.autrey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 9:57PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[Bob,<br><br>  Your right, in a way. Try to think of it this way, what would you do if HP sold thier laptops and changed the OS so that you would only see HP's website on any browser you open? So you modify the OS so you can see Engadget, along comes MS with an update for HP that see's you mod then "format c:\" and refuse to fix the headphone jack because you changed the OS and voided your warrnty. Would that be legal? No!  So why does apple think it's ok for the iPhone? Hmmmm...]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[saidian]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 11th 2007 2:39AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[Didn't Microsoft tried to do something similar with Vista? ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Mag Li]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 8:02PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[Tired of Apples arrogance. It's the purchasers phone and they can do with it as they please.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[don]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 8:36PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[Sure. They can do as they please. But if they alter it, Apple should not be expected to support it. Same thing happened with folks in the Windows Mobile world when they flashed "leaked" ROMS for Windows Mobile 6 on their devices and fouled them up. They tried to return the devices but couldn't because the OS had been altered. It wasn't the carriers or Microsoft's fault that they jacked with the OS. Same thing when people were flashing their VZW Moto razors with other carriers ROMS. Many were bricked but no one sued Verizon. Anyone who's done any ROM cooking or phone hacking knows you do it at YOUR own risk.<br><br>]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[bob.autrey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 9:58PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[I was always under the impression that the terms of service were terms of SERVICE. Aside from maybe tiny things in the TOS forbidding screwing with your phone to hack the network itself, I don't think unlocking your phone is a violation. (I'm shooting form the hip on that one, I could be wrong)<br><br>Regardless of what device your SIM is in, your expected to pay according to your TOS. you can open an account and purchase just a SIM with no device from AT&T, and your still expected to abide by the TOS. (i.e. pay your bill on time every month) So what difference does it make if I want to unlock my phone to use another network (overseas or domestic)? If I don't want service with AT&T anymore, I still have to pay an ETF, according to the TOS, do I not?<br><br> Buying a Windows Mobile device and screwing with the ROM (flashing or whatever) is a completely different idea then buying an unsubsidized device (which you now seem to agree is unsubsidized) and expecting to be able to do whatever you want with it. Are you saying if I buy a Windows Mobile device, unlock it to be used on any network, I'm violating the TOS even if I continue to pay my bill? I could see unlocking violating my warranty on the device, which all modders take into consideration no matter what they're modding, but to kill (brick) someone's device that they paid for IN FULL and COMPLETELY UNSUBSIDIZED? I'm a bit lost. <br><br>Maybe I'm not understanding your theory on this one.  <br><br>Take my advice, and just don't buy the POS. (enough acronyms for one night!)<br><br> ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Bryan]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 10th 2007 11:01PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[See, bob, your examples all have one fundamental flaw, you think the main problem is people are just upset that they hacked their phones and they crapped out on them. If this was the case, I doubt this many people, including myself, would think this was a legit case, however, the core issue is that Apple issued an update that bricked the phones. <br><br>Back to your example of the car that had been modified: the people modify their cars and it works at that stage, however, the manufacturer then schedules a routine service on the car which causes their modifications to go horribly wrong rendering their cars unusable. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[derX]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 11th 2007 1:59AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[Look. All I'm saying is that if you purchase and use your device as it was intended, you'll not be affected by any software updates and you need not worry about your warranty. It is YOUR device but it was understood that you would only be able to use the device on AT&T. Is that at bit totalitarian or fascist? Perhaps. But let me ask you this. If you purchase a new phone and service from AT&T today and call them tomorrow for the unlock code do you think your going to get it? No. Shouldn't that be illegal as well? I mean it is YOUR phone? If you unlock that phone you may not be breaking the law, but you certainly are breaking your agreement.<br><br>And I don't think that you can really consider the iPhone "unsubsidized" just because you weren't given a discount on it. A truly unsubsidized phone comes unlocked and with no service agreement. And usually at a much higher price. Discount or not, you bought it under the AGREEMENT that it was for use only on the AT&T network. Period. So you can complain about Apple's methods all you want but YOU would not have a problem if YOU had kept to the terms YOU agreed to at purchase. What you saying is that it's okay for you to do something underhanded and try and circumvent the system, but if Apple retaliates then they are the bad guy and you are just an innocent victim. No way man. You were sneaky, they were sneaky... Tit for tat. I know that many people in this country don't feel like "contracts" or "agreements" mean much anymore, especially when they are with a huge money hungry corporation. When you screw them, it's fine. You're a rebel! But it just doesn't work that way. <br><br>I'll say again, if you wanted to own a device that as contract free and unlocked, you should have bought one. The iPhone was not sold to you as such. Either honor your agreements or don't buy the products. You have a choice. You CHOOSE to buy an iPhone and a two year service contract with AT&T then you chose to alter it for use with another network. <br><br>I'm sorry but I just can't sympathize with you on this. Why? Because if your phone was bricked after you unlocked it, it your fault and your's alone. Own it. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[bob.autrey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 11th 2007 9:41AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[Lets get one thing straight.  Apple did not release a patch that bricked IPhones.  If that was true every single person that had bought an IPhone would have had a bricked phone.  3rd party hackers released files that they warned can brick phones, why aren't these third parties being taken to court?  Why aren't they being held responsible?  When you download free software from someone you don't know who tells you they aren't responsible for what happens as a result of you using their software, you pretty much give up all rights to sue anyone.  The copyright law protects the end use from being sued for altering the phone's operating system to unlock the phone only.  Apple can counter sue these people who are altering anything else, I hope they do.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[trooth]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 13th 2007 1:20PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[Apple's iPhone is so crippled anyway that it doesn't really matter if it is locked, but its a real shame that phones are locked though. I'll never buy/get a locked phone again.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Geir]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 11th 2007 8:54AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[To comment on the analogy of the turbo on the car and dealing with the dealer....<br><br>Is the line of thought that Apple purposefully bricked the phones like your analogy eludes to?  I can't pretend to know how they program these things but when coming up with a firmware upgrade should they be held responsible to test every iteration of unapproved hacks to the phone to make sure it still works?  <br><br>If they set out to brick the phones then I can agree it was malicious and uncalled for.  If they simply released their firmware and it just happened to brick the phones then they shouldn't be held liable.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[ryan]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 11th 2007 9:17AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[You actually did hit on something there. Apple is not responsible to ensure that their updates don't crash or brick a "hacked" phone and like it or not, this unlocking procedure is a HACK. It's not like a typical device unlock code that a carrier will provide you when you have fulfilled the terms of your agreement and allow you to unlock the phone. Any real tekkie knows that hacking any piece of hardware to make it function outside of its intended use is taking a huge risk in turning that device into a boat anchor. If this happened to you consider it a lesson learned. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[bob.autrey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 11th 2007 10:55AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[/facepalm ... Does anyone accept personal responsibility anymore?<br><br>I cannot understand why some people feel entitled to "compensation" for "damages" when they were not forced to buy the iPhone in the first place and brought all of their "damages" on themselves.  They made the conscious decision to (in prior lawsuits) [1] stand in line for the device on launch day, [2] pay the full price of $599, (in this lawsuit) [3] purchase the phone fully knowing it would be carrier locked for several years, [4] downloaded and installed unsupported unlocking software, [5] downloaded and installed unsupported 3rd party applications, [6] downloaded and installed an update that Apple itself warned would potentially brick hacked/unlocked phones.  And now they want Apple to pick up the pieces?  Please...<br><br>If you felt so strongly against the carrier locked status and walled-garden approach Apple uses why oh why did you do all of the above?  If the iPhone didn't do what you wanted it to do you shouldn't have bought it.  If you didn't think the iPhone was worth $599 you shouldn't have paid it.<br><br>I know I'll get called a sheep for this, but in the interest of full disclosure I am an iPhone owner.  In fact, I was one of the folks who stood in line on launch day.  I paid full price for a device that met my needs.  I have not installed any 3rd party software and *shock* it has been the best mobile I have ever used.  For me, it meets my needs perfectly.  <br><br>To all those who have been so egregiously "damaged" by their iPhone experience, you have no one to blame but yourselves.  To avoid being so tragically "damaged" in the future, please *buy devices that work for you in their current form* -- not for what they could be or might one day become.  Everyone will be better off. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Noren]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 11th 2007 10:44AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[Thank you. Finally some other voices of reason here. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[bob.autrey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 11th 2007 10:48AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[As I have seen through many of the previous posts, the Car / Cell Phone analogy is very popular, so I too will add to this growing list. <br><br>If you purchase a 2008 Mercedes E55 AMG, a vehicle capable of speeds in excess of 200+ mph, that has been electronically limited to the US Govt. requirement of a top speed of 155 mph, and then proceed to have the limitation removed to release the full potential of said machine. Who is to blame when one of a number of the following takes place? [1] You are hauled off to jail for wreckless driving/endangerment. [2] The engine overheats and malfunctions, resulting in very costly repairs that are no longer covered under mfg. warranties, and then said repairs once again limit vehicles 155+ capabilities. [3] While cruising along at autoban speeds, a pot-hole causes a catastrophic crash resulting in loss of life. <br><br>As you are probably guessing for each instance there is a very valid, and real point to take in to account. 1) Mercedes sold you a limited vehicle, that you knew beforehand was LIMITED, at a premium price, (Yes, as with all things, you will always pay more to have it first!) and when you took the extra steps to alter the machine, it will ultimately be your problem to deal with! 2) When your 130k vehicle malfunctions, and the technician informs you that your warranty WILL NOT cover repairs, as the salesman had probably illustrated during the transaction, and that any repairs that are made will return the machine to original state. Would you get upset with the technician? Finally, 3) Would you pursue legal action against the entity responsible for taking care of the roads? (Ref to Att for the slow ones trying to follow along) How was it their fault that you used thier "Network" of roads outside of what they were intended? <br><br>In closing, I feel that the sheer ignorance necessary for someone to actually feel that they were in the right on this issue is mind boggling at best! I know firsthand that iPhone customers were informed that this device was Att Exclusive, also, that during the iTunes activation process the field of TOS that makes you check mark the "ACCEPT" box prior to activating your nice new shiny phone covers Apple, and Att's stance on having this as an exclusive device, in not one, but two different TOS acceptance pages. As for those whom have mentioned before that this device was "unsubsidized" and should be treated as if it were purchased to be done with whatever you had desired, are way off! It was subsidized, e.g. iPod - $100-$200appx., Digital Camera - $100-$200appx., Touch Screen PDA phone - $300-$600, by my math that equals a ballpark of $500 - $1000 if you were to buy said devices seperately! So not only did you save money on the electronic side of things, but you got to look really "cool" with your iPhone, and didn't have to invest in some cargo pants to carry all of that junk around! So go ahead, tie up our legal system with one more case of: Stupid People vs. The World! In my opinion you should have just bought a BlackBerry, and called it a day!<br><br>-Mike ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[cell_bandit]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 12th 2007 2:48AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[As I have seen through many of the previous posts, the Car / Cell Phone analogy is very popular, so I too will add to this growing list. <br><br>If you purchase a 2008 Mercedes E55 AMG, a vehicle capable of speeds in excess of 200+ mph, that has been electronically limited to the US Govt. requirement of a top speed of 155 mph, and then proceed to have the limitation removed to release the full potential of said machine. Who is to blame when one of a number of the following takes place? [1] You are hauled off to jail for wreckless driving/endangerment. [2] The engine overheats and malfunctions, resulting in very costly repairs that are no longer covered under mfg. warranties, and then said repairs once again limit vehicles 155+ capabilities. [3] While cruising along at autoban speeds, a pot-hole causes a catastrophic crash resulting in loss of life. <br><br>As you are probably guessing for each instance there is a very valid, and real point to take in to account. 1) Mercedes sold you a limited vehicle, that you knew beforehand was LIMITED, at a premium price, (Yes, as with all things, you will always pay more to have it first!) and when you took the extra steps to alter the machine, it will ultimately be your problem to deal with! 2) When your 130k vehicle malfunctions, and the technician informs you that your warranty WILL NOT cover repairs, as the salesman had probably illustrated during the transaction, and that any repairs that are made will return the machine to original state. Would you get upset with the technician? Finally, 3) Would you pursue legal action against the entity responsible for taking care of the roads? (Ref to Att for the slow ones trying to follow along) How was it their fault that you used thier "Network" of roads outside of what they were intended? <br><br>In closing, I feel that the sheer ignorance necessary for someone to actually feel that they were in the right on this issue is mind boggling at best! I know firsthand that iPhone customers were informed that this device was Att Exclusive, also, that during the iTunes activation process the field of TOS that makes you check mark the "ACCEPT" box prior to activating your nice new shiny phone covers Apple, and Att's stance on having this as an exclusive device, in not one, but two different TOS acceptance pages. As for those whom have mentioned before that this device was "unsubsidized" and should be treated as if it were purchased to be done with whatever you had desired, are way off! It was subsidized, e.g. iPod - $100-$200appx., Digital Camera - $100-$200appx., Touch Screen PDA phone - $300-$600, by my math that equals a ballpark of $500 - $1000 if you were to buy said devices seperately! So not only did you save money on the electronic side of things, but you got to look really "cool" with your iPhone, and didn't have to invest in some cargo pants to carry all of that junk around! So go ahead, tie up our legal system with one more case of: Stupid People vs. The World! In my opinion you should have just bought a BlackBerry, and called it a day!<br><br>-Mike ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[cell_bandit]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 13th 2007 1:20AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Apple, AT&amp;T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices]]></title><link>http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://mobile.engadget.com/2007/10/10/apple-atandt-served-with-class-action-suit-over-iphone-locking-pr/</guid><description><![CDATA[Buy your brand new Apple iphone 8gb $300usd / Nokia N95 8gb $300usd (100% delivery)<br> <br> <br>   We are Electronics Stationery Limited. Our Company is Registered  and Legitimate With a Work Force of Over 150 Staffs and 70 R & D  Research Engineers that always make sure that all products are  delivered in good condition.<br>  We supply many other electronic products, such as Mobile phones,Plasma  tv,Laptop Notebook,gps Navigation System,Video Games,Console,pda...etc.  We are using this medium to look for buyers of mobile phones, we are  offering Very low discounts with free shipment for mobile phones and  laptops, place your order with your full address, zip-code, and phone  contact numbers to Enable issue your proforma invoice and process your  shipment.<br>  Our phones are imported from Finland,Hungary and Singapore; they are  factory sealed with original packets with complete accessory, e.g.  charger, extra battery and software c d. The phones are sim free and  it’s never lock to any network, specification:  (europeans/usa-specifications) general network gsm 900/gsm 1800/gsm  1900 platform - tri band (gsm900 + 1800 + 1900 MHz: country of  manufactured origin: Finland,Hungary and Singapore.<br> <br>  NOTE : Minimum Order(MOQ) : 3unit and get 1 free<br>  Bulk Minimum Order : 10unit and get Extra 2units<br> <br> <br>  Email: electronicstationeryltd@yahoo.com<br>               electronicstationeryltd@hotmail.com<br>               electronicstationeryltd@gmail.com <br>                Contact Number:+447024013754<br> <br> <br>  Play station games<br>  PSP............................$90USD<br>  GameBoy Advance.....$80USD<br>  Nintendo DS..............$50USD<br>  Nintendo Wii..............$250USD<br>  GameCube.................$60USD<br>  Xbox 360...................$120USD<br>  Xbox..........................$70USD<br>  Play station 3...............$270USD<br>  Play station 3 80gb.......$355USD<br>  Play station 2...............$80USD.<br> <br> <br>  Nokia phones<br>  Nokia N80..................$140USD<br>  Nokia 8800 lamborghini...$680USD<br>  Nokia Luna.........$520USD<br>  Nokia E50..................$250USD<br>  Nokia N97..... ............$300USD<br>  Nokia N99..... ............$350USD<br>  Nokia N96..................$300USD<br>  Nokia N94..... ............$240USD<br>  Nokia 5700.................$270USD<br>  Nokia N93..................$200USD<br>  Nokia E61...................$230USD<br>  Nokia E61i..................$280USD<br>  Nokia N92..................$130USD<br>  Nokia N95 .................$250USD<br>  Nokia N91..................$190USD<br>  Nokia N90..................$180USD<br>  Nokia N70..................$130USD<br>  Nokia N73..................$150USD<br>  Nokia N71..................$140USD<br>  Nokia 8800.................$150USD<br>  Nokia 8800 Sirocco.....$230USD<br>  Nokia 7710.... ............$145USD<br>  Nokia 7610.................$120USD<br>  Nokia E62...................$250USD<br>  Nokia N93i.................$250USD.<br>  Nokia N75..................$230USD.<br>  Nokia N76..................$250USD.<br>  Nokia N800................$200USD.<br>  Nokia N75..................$190USD<br>  Nokia 770...................$220USD.<br>  Nokia N77...................$275USD<br>  Nokia N958gb............$300usd<br> <br>  TOM TOM GO<br>  TOM TOM GO 300 Portable Gps Navigation......................$190USD.<br>  TOM TOM GO 500 Portable Gps Navigation......................$150USD<br>  TOM TOM GO 910 Portable Gps Navigation......................$200USD<br>  TOM TOMGO 710 Portable Gps Navigation.......................$180USD<br>  Navman iCN 510 32MB Vehicle Gps Navigator..................$200USD<br>  Garmin Nuvi 360 Pocket Vehicle Gps Navigator.................$250USD<br>  Garmin Nuvi 680 Pocket Vehicle Gps Navigator.................$450USD<br>  Garmin Nuvi 660 Pocket Vehicle Gps Navigator.................$400USD<br>  Garmin Nuvi 610 Pocket Vehicle Gps Navigator.................$380USD<br>  Garmin Street Pilot 2720 Gps Car Navigation System..........$500USD<br>  Garmin Street Pilot 2660 Gps Car Navigation System....$700USD<br>  Garmin StreetPilot 7200 7" Gps Unit Car Navigation System$750USD<br>  Garmin Street Pilot 7500 7" Gps .........................................$1200USD<br> <br>  HTC P4350..........................$240USD<br>  HTC P3600..........................$230USD<br>  HTC TYTN..........................$250USD<br>  HTC 3300............................$220USD<br>  HTC S620............................$240USD<br>  HTC Advantage x7500..........$300USD<br>  HTC S710............................$280USD<br> <br>  Nextel i880 ...............$140USD<br>  Nextel i930................$130USD<br>  Nextel i870................$120USD<br>  Nextel i860................$100USD<br>  Nextel i90c................$75USD<br>  Nextel i95cl...............$90USD.<br> <br>  Pamtero 600..............$145USD.<br>  Pamtero 650..............$170USD.<br>  Treo 650...................$140USD.<br>  Treo 700...................$200USD.<br> <br>  Eten M 700................$240USD.<br>  Dvx-pod....................$40USD.<br> <br>  02 Phones<br>  o2 xDA Exec ..............$220usd<br>  02 XDA Atom .............$200usd<br>  02 XDA NEO .............$200usd<br>  02 XDA mini S ...........$220usd<br>  02 XDA II mini ...........$180usd<br>  02 XDA IIi .................$150usd<br>  02 XDA IIs .................$160usd<br>  O2 X2i .......................$120usd<br>  02 X4 .........................$130usd<br>  02 X3 .........................$120usd<br>  02 x7 ..........................$140usd<br> <br>  JUICY SIDEKICK I.............................$100USD<br>  SIDEKICK II.....................................$120USD<br>  SIDEKICK II MISTER CARTOON.....$130USD<br>  JUICY COUTURE SIDEKICK II .......$120USD<br>  SIDEKICK 3.....................................$150USD<br>  Samsung D410..................................$120USD<br>  Samsung D500..................................$130USD<br>  Samsung d600...................................$150USD<br> <br>  Motorola A1200.........................$120USD<br>  Motorola razor v3.......................$100USD<br>  Motorola razor v3 pink edition....$120USD<br>  Motorola v3X.............................$140USD<br>  Motorola V3i..............................$110USD<br>  Motorola V3c.............................$120USD<br>  Motorola MPX300.,....................$130USD<br>  Motorola U6...............................$130USD<br> <br>  Sony ericsson w950i..............$200USD<br>  Sony ericsson w900i..............$170USD<br>  Sony ericcson p990................$150USD<br>  Sony ericsson w900...............$150USD<br>  Sony ericsson w600...............$135USD<br>  Sony ericsson p910i...............$100USD<br>  Sony ericsson p900................$150USD<br>  sony ericsson v600i................$120USD<br>  Sony ericssson w800i.............$150USD<br>  Sony ericssson k700i..............$100USD<br>  Sony ericcson k500i...............$100USD<br>  Sony ericsson w850...............$180USD<br>  Sony ericsson j220.................$250USD<br>  Sony ericsson j230.................$200USD<br>  Sony ericsson p800................$190USD<br> <br>  I-MATE PHONES<br>  I-MATE Smartflip .................$140USD<br>  I-MATE JAMin .....................$240USD<br>  I-MATE JASJAR ...................$250USD<br>  I-MATE K-JAM ....................$180USD<br>  I-MATE SP5 .........................$150USD<br>  I-MATE SP5m .......................$155USD<br>  I-MATE SP4m .......................$120USD<br>  I-MATE JAM Black ...............$150USD<br>  I-MATE JAM ........................$160USD<br>  I-MATE PDA2 .......................$190USD<br>  I-MATE PDA2k .....................$168USD<br>  I-MATE SP3i .........................$130USD<br>  I-MATE SP3 ..........................$135USD<br>  I-MATE Pocket PC .................$140USD<br>  I-MATE Smartphone2 .............$110USD<br>  I-MATE Smartphone ...............$115USD<br> <br>  Treo 700.................................$200USD<br>  Treo 600.................................$150USD<br>  Treo 650.................................$160USD<br>  PPC-6700...............................$200USD<br> <br>  Cingular 8125 .........................$250USD<br> <br> <br>  Qtek 8500 .............................$130USD<br>  Qtek S200 .............................$180USD<br>  Qtek 9000 .............................$250USD<br>  Qtek 8310 .............................$200USD<br>  Qtek 8300 .............................$185USD<br>  Qtek 9100 .............................$270USD<br>  Qtek 8100 .............................$150USD<br>  Qtek S110 .............................$175USD<br>  Qtek S100 .............................$190USD<br>  Qtek 9090 .............................$200USD<br>  Qtek 8020 .............................$190USD<br>  Qtek 8010 .............................$140USD<br>  Qtek 2020i ............................$220USD<br>  Qtek 2020 .............................$200USD<br>  Qtek 1010 .............................$140USD<br> <br> <br> <br>  iPod 20GB iPod........................................$60USD<br>  Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Pink M9435LL/A ...$50USD<br>  Apple 40 GB iPod photo............................$50USD<br>  Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Silver M9160LL/A..$60USD<br>  Apple 60 GB iPod Photo M9830LL/A........$80USD<br>  Apple 60 GB iPod photo............................$70USD<br>  Apple 30 GB iPod Photo M9829LL/A........$60USD<br>  Apple 4 GB ipod Mini Blue M9436LL/A....$55USD<br>  Apple 2 GB ipod Nano...............................$70USD<br>  Apple 4 GB ipod Nano...............................$80USD<br>  Apple 30 GB ipod Video............................$120USD<br>  Apple 60 GB ipod Video.............................$170USD<br>  Apple 80 GB ipod Video.............................$220USD.<br> <br>  PIONEER CDJ-1000 MP3 MK3 PLAYER........$450USD<br>  PIONEER CDJ-800 MP3 MK3 PLAYER .........$320USD<br>  PIONEER CDJ-1000 MP3 MK2 PLAYER ........$300USD<br>  PIONEER CDJ-800 MP3 MK2 PLAYER ..........$280USD<br>  PIONEER DJM 1000.......................................$700USD<br>  PIONEER DJM 800.........................................$600USD<br>  PIONEER DJM 600.........................................$500USD<br>  Pioneer DVJ-X1 DVD .....................................$700USD.<br> <br> <br>  CANON EOS-1D Mark II-N 8 Megapixel Digital..................$900USD<br>  Canon EOS-5D Digital , 12.8 Megapixels.............................$900USD<br>  Canon XH A1 1.67MP Camcorder with 20x Optical Zoom......$850USD<br>  Canon XL2 3CCD MiniDV Camcorder w/20x Optical Zoom......$800USD<br>  Canon XL1 Digital Camcorder Kit.........................................$600USD<br>  Canon EOS 1D Mark II N 8.2MP Digital SLR Camera............$850USD<br>  Canon Camera Kit 1234B002.................................................$350USD<br>  Canon EOS 30D Digital SLR Camera & Canon.......................$400USD<br>  MASSIVE AUDIO 5000 MAX WATTS DMX SERIES 12" SUBWOOFER ........$160USD<br>  Kicker 06VS12L52 Solo-Baric 12" Single 2ohm ......................$170USD<br>  Kicker L5 06S12L54 12" Dual 4-ohm Voice Coil Woofer ........$160USD<br>  Kicker S15L7 Car Subwoofer................................................$120USD<br>  Kicker Solo- Baric L5 Car Subwoofer....................................$90USD<br>  JVC KW-AVX706 DVD Receiver .........................................$200USD<br>  Pioneer DEH-P4900iB CD Receiver .....................................$80USD<br>  JVC KD-PDR30 CD Receiver ...............................................$80USD<br>  Pioneer AVH-P5700DVD DVD Receiver ..............................$210USD<br>  Pioneer DEH-P7800MP In-Dash ...........................................$130USD<br>  Pioneer TS-A6991R 6"x9" 5-way Speakers ............................$70USD<br> <br> <br>  Samsung HP-R4252 42 in Flat Panel Plasma TV......................$450USD<br>  Samsung LN-R408D 40 in Flat Panel LCD TV........................$400USD<br>  Samsung LN-R268W 26 in Flat Panel LCD TV........................$350USD<br>  Samsung LN-R268W 26 in Flat Panel LCD TV........................$300USD<br>  Samsung HL-R5688W 56 in Rear-Projection DLP TV..............$550USD<br>  Samsung HL-R5667W 56 in Rear-Projection DLP TV..............$500USD<br>  Samsung HL-R5067W 50 in Rear-Projection DLP TV..............$450USD<br>  Samsung HLR5078W 50 in Rear-Projection DLP TV...............$500USD<br>  Samsung HL-R4667W 46 in Rear-Projection DLP TV..............$400USD<br>  Samsung HL-R4266W 42 in Rear-Projection DLP TV..............$400USD<br>  Samsung SlimFit TX-R3079WH 30 in Flat CRT TV..................$350USD<br> <br>  Sharp Aquos LC-45GX6U 45 in Flat Panel LCD TV.......................$500USD<br>  Sharp Aquos LC-45GD7U 45 in Flat Panel LCD TV.......................$450USD<br>  Sharp Aquos LC45GD4U 45 in Flat Panel LCD TV........................$450USD<br>  Sharp Aquos LC-37D7U 37 in Flat Panel LCD TV.........................$400USD<br>  Sharp Aquos LC-32DA5U 32 in Flat Panel LCD TV.......................$350USD<br>  Sharp Aquos LC-26DA5U 26 in LCD TV.......................................$300USD<br>  Sharp Aquos LC-20S4U 20 in Flat Panel LCD TV..........................$250USD<br> <br>  Sony Grand WEGA KDF-E60A20 60 in Rear-Projection LCD TV.........................$600USD<br>  Sony Grand WEGA KDF-E55A20 55 in LCD Rear-Projection TV.........................$550USD<br>  Sony Grand WEGA KDF-E55A20 55 in LCD Rear-Projection TV.........................$500USD<br>  Sony Grand WEGA KDFE42A10 42 in LCD Rear-Projection TV .........................$400USD<br>  Sony Grand WEGA SXRD KDS-R60XBR1 60 in Rear-Projection LCoS TV...........$600USD<br>  Sony Grand WEGA SXRD KDS-R50XBR1 50 in Rear-Projection LCoS TV...........$450USD<br> <br>  Sony Wega KDF-E50A10 50 in LCD Rear-Projection TV...............$450USD<br>  Sony Wega KDL-V40XBR1 40 in Flat Panel LCD TV....................$400USD<br>  Sony Wega KD-36FS130 36 in Flat Screen TV...............................$400USD<br>  Sony Wega KLV-S32A10 32 in Flat Panel LCD TV........................$300USD<br>  Sony BRAVIA XBR KDL-V32XBR1 32 in Flat Panel LCDTV.........$350USD<br>  Sony BRAVIA KLV-S26A10 26 in Flat Panel LCD TV...................$300USD<br> <br>  Panasonic TH-50PHD8UK 50 in Flat Panel Plasma TV..................$500USD<br>  Panasonic TH-42PHD8UK 42 in Flat Panel Plasma TV..................$400USD<br>  Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK 42 in Flat Panel Plasma TV.................$350USD<br>  Panasonic Onyx TH50PX500U 50 in Flat Panel Plasma TV............$500USD<br>  Pioneer PureVision PDP-5060HD 50 in Flat Panel Plasma TV.......$500USD<br> <br>  If you wish for any product not listed here please email me the product  Brand Name and Model and i will source it from our warehouse Our  product are brand new, you can book your order at our Sales Manager  Company Email Below<br> <br>  Email: electronicstationeryltd@hotmail.com<br>                 electronicstationeryltd@gmail.com<br> <br>  Regards<br>  Mgt<br>  ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[danny]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Dec 14th 2007 8:56PM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>