T-Mobile Takes Out Some Handset Unlockers
from the the-only-confused-people-here-are-us dept
T-Mobile has won damages and an injunction (via Phone Scoop) against several companies that were taking bulk quantities of its prepaid handsets, unlocking them, and then reselling them. The company calls such activity "prepaid phone trafficking," when it's really just exploiting a poor business model. As in other suits filed by other operators, it sounds like T-Mobile based this one on copyright or trademark claims, saying "Consumers are harmed and may be misled about the source and origin of their mobile phones... Because the phones may still carry T-Mobile's brand, consumers may believe they are purchasing handsets manufactured for T-Mobile and covered by original warranties." That's slightly counter-intuitive: T-Mobile says the unlockers made their money by buying handsets locked to the operator, then unlocking them so they could charge a higher price when they were resold. According to T-Mobile, the phones carried a higher price, weren't sold in original packaging and didn't come with manuals. They were also, presumably, accompanied by advertising playing up the fact that they could be used on any operator's network. All of this combined would seem to make it pretty clear to buyers that they weren't buying an original, "official" T-Mobile product. So where's the basis for the confusion claims?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: legality, mobile phones, prepaid wireless, unlocking
Companies: t-mobile
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So where's the basis for the confusion claims?
T-Mobile's lawyers > Company X's lawyers.
"Lawyers" interchangeable with "bank account".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slapp A Logo On It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analogs?
My mind immediately leapt to RUF and Porsche, but apparently they get unbranded cars from the factory. So its not quite a match for this situation.
I would imagine these merchants don't market their handsets as 'un-warranteed' in addition to being unlocked, so it may be reasonable for T-mobile to point out that they're not authorized resellers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analogs?
Yeah, cars are another good example. Modded cars often sell for more than the original price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analogs?
AMD modifying Intel processors (this was long ago before AMD manufactured processors them selves)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Analogs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analogs?
They are not only sanctioned by apple, apple even gave them free advertising by showing them off at a big apple event.
Touchbooks? some stupid name like that. Never saw the point myself, but others love them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confusion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confusion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better Business Model
Now, the goal with prepaid phones is to make the initial price of the phone very cheap, so that, frankly, poor folks can afford one, and then pay you about 30 cents a minute for prepaid phone use (which compares to the ~8cents/minute that high volume post-paid customers pay).
The notion is to offer a free phone (the first crack hit) and to charge more for subsequent hits (prepay refills). To assure that the phone, which is offered at a substantial discount, is used on T-Mo, they lock it to T-Mo SIM cards.
It's not a bad or dishonest model, and it has worked for years for razor companies and inkjet printer makers. Often, this is the best option for low-income people who make infrequent calls.
But by selling a phone at well below market price, they open themselves up to arbitrageurs. Once the phone is unlocked, it is worth more, and thus the arbitrageurs buy low and sell high. But what is wrong with that? T-Mo offers phones for sale, these guys buy them. When the own the phone, they unlock THEIR property, and then they sell their property. Seems like T-MO's problem for selling them too cheaply.
So, instead of just SIM locking:
- why not sell them with a signed agreement NOT to unlock it for 24 months - then the arbitrageurs really WOULD be in breach of a contract?
- Or why not sell it with $50 of T-MO prepaid minutes attached to that unique phone, which may drive up the initial price, but would certainly scare off the arbitrageurs?
- Or how about leasing the phone so that it remains T-MO property, keeping the effective price low, and retaining legal control of the device?
There are dozens of business models that would satisfy the target market, but leave little opportunity for the arbitrageurs. It should be T-MO's (and Tracfone, and other pre-paid providers, too) job to solve this, not our court system's. This is like HP whining that people are using non-HP ink in their printers using non-HP ink in their printers...tough luck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
prepaid phone trafficking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: prepaid phone trafficking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlockers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So they are prosecuting paying customers ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two wrongs dont make....
And the right to onsell something.. thats bad too!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well BooHoo
"Consumers are harmed and may be misled about the source and origin of their mobile phones."
Seems like a stretch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
happens all the time
why not sell the phone either at cost or for a small profit and encourage people to do what they want with the phone once it's theirs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is it noone understands? Amazing!!!
chrissy- I am sure they would sell it at cost if the people that would buy this type of product could afford that easily enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]