Northern California District Judge James Ware said that both compan ies are still potentially liable for violating state rules meant to preserve fair competition as well as claims that Apple alone was responsible for violating federal and California laws for abuse, computer trespass, and fraud, the article adds. However, it also grants dismissals to some claims of "unfair and deceptive" practices in jurisdictions outside of the states of California, New York and Washington, where Apple and the two original plaintiffs reside.

Submitted in October 2007, the class-action lawsuit charged Apple and AT&T with intentionally breaking the iPhones of customers who unlocked or installed third-party applications on the handsets, and further alleged that the two firms conspired from the inception of their partnership to illegally monopolize portions of the mobile cell phone.

The 24-page formal complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the suit, Washington resident Paul Holman and California resident Lucy Rivello alleged that Apple and AT&T unlawfully agreed prior to the iPhone's release that the handset would not be unlocked under any circumstances as a means of preventing consumers from using programs or services other than those which directly generate revenues for the two companies.

Based on "information and belief" they claimed that Apple and AT&T, once faced with a flurry of third-party iPhone applications and unlocking solutions, agreed to go beyond their already unlawful tactics of locking users down to their services and software by taking affirmative steps to break the iPhones of consumers who lawfully unlocked the AT&T SIM card or who installed third-party apps. On some of the counts, the suit seeks damages in the amount of "no less than $200 million," while in others it requests "no less than $600 million."

"Macsimum News" is a proud supporter of Planet Gumbo, which feeds the hungry. We urge you to help them in their efforts.