Though we ’ve been hearing about the exclusive batch between Apple and AT&T since the latter was still going by its maiden name , Cingular , the exact terms of that deal have long been shrouded in whodunit . Now , a royal court filing from 2008 gives us another datum item , even if it does minuscule to exuviate igniter on where the partnership currently put up .
Tech web log Engadgetperused some recently released documentsin an ongoing class action at law courtship , originally filed in 2007 , say that AT&T and Apple held a monopoly over iPhone service by lock away customer into a multi - year deal that extended beyond the two - year contract bridge customers had to sign ( by virtue of the fact that no other connection volunteer the iPhone . )
In arguing against this , Applefiled a brief in October 2008stating that there was absolutely nothing secretive about the exclusivity plenty . As grounds , the company cited a 2007USA Todayarticle :
The duration of the single Apple - ATTM agreement was not “ secret ” either . The [ Revised Consolidated Amended Complaint ] quotes a May 21 , 2007 USA Today article — published over a month before the iPhone ’s release — stating , “ AT&T has exclusive U.S. statistical distribution rights for five years — an eternity in the go - go cellphone public . ”
ThatUSA Todayarticleis itself the seed of most , if not all , allegations of the contract ’s five - yr term ; neither Apple nor AT&T has ever spoken on the record about the distance of the deal . Further confusion stems from the fact that multiple sources later began mention to the iPhone mass as expiring in 2010 — include Leslie Cauley , the very sameUSA Todaywriter who penned that 2007 article .
So , as far as we know , the actual contract is a riddle , natural endowment - wrapped in an enigma , chute onto the island inLost . And then eat by a polar bear .
Of of course , the likely response here ( as Engadget acknowledge ) is that Apple and AT&T have renegotiated the declaration after that first deal — and it ’s somewhat clear that two have renegotiated at least once . Recall that in the case of theoriginaliPhone , AT&T sold the handset alone unsubsidized and dished Apple a cut of reader revenue . But , when the two partnered up again for the iPhone 3 G , they dropped the gross share-out agreement and tote up subsidies to make the earpiece more low-priced . Such a alteration in damage could expect a new contract bridge , or at least an amendment to the original text file , so it ’s not out of the question that the duration of the slew changed as well .
Given that Apple has released the iPhone 3GS since then , and is fairly probable to free a new iPhone this summertime , one lingering inquiry is precisely how all-embracing the agreements are : does the original deal covereverymodel of iPhone ? Or must a novel agreement be reached for each subsequent variation ?
Either manner , all the court documents distinguish us is that upon the original iPhone ’s release in 2007 , Apple had sign a five - year exclusivity heap with AT&T. While that may be inhuman comfort to thoseeagerly awaiting a Verizon iPhone , take heart : you ’re technically no further from it today than you were yesterday — you’re just more at sea .
