iphone to att or verizon?

[tnvolz19]

Does anyone think the iphone will go to verizon this year or will it stay with att?

[cousintim]

Depends on which rumor you choose to believe:

Yes.

No.

I'm in the "No" camp because Apple could just wait a year and offer a basically similar 4G LTE iPhone that would work on both networks. 

[tnvolz19]

I'm in the "no" and u got a point. i think it shud stay with at&t

[Irish Rose ACE - Master]

I think the iPhone should move on to other carriers, even though I will continue to use mine on AT&T if and when it does move on.........

[moorepheus]

The iPhone is not leaving AT&T, and you can take that to the bank!!!!  If there was a problem with AT&T and APPLE, then we would not see the iPAD w/ AT&T.  Also, look at all the Anti-APPLE/Anti-iPhone ads that Verizon puts out every day.   With that said, AT&T will have iPhone for many years to come, APPLE would be stupid to move from AT&T.  As for Verzion and APPLE, even with all the negative ads by Verizon, I think APPLE would be NUTS to turn down the chance to sell the iPhone on Verizon's network.  Only time can tell, the iPhone will be on all carriers in the US, it's just a matter of time. 

[tnvolz19]

Good, i sure hope so.

[BrianfromNO]

I'm not sure why these two have to be mutually exclusive.  The iPhone is coming to AT&T.  Apple wouldn't have given the iPad to AT&T if they weren't planning on launching their next handset on the carrier.  We may also see a Verizon iPhone later in the year.

[wingrider01 ACE - Expert]

---

BrianfromNO wrote:

I'm not sure why these two have to be mutually exclusive.  The iPhone is coming to AT&T.  Apple wouldn't have given the iPad to AT&T if they weren't planning on launching their next handset on the carrier.  We may also see a Verizon iPhone later in the year.

---

Since court documentation has been unearthed that ATT have the iphone till 2012 Oneof the sites gave a link to the corporate signed corporate documents), so if this is true then a Verizon Iphone later this year seems more like wishfull dreams.

[sitnsidewayz]

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

BrianfromNO wrote:

I'm not sure why these two have to be mutually exclusive.  The iPhone is coming to AT&T.  Apple wouldn't have given the iPad to AT&T if they weren't planning on launching their next handset on the carrier.  We may also see a Verizon iPhone later in the year.

---

Since court documentation has been unearthed that ATT have the iphone till 2012 Oneof the sites gave a link to the corporate signed corporate documents), so if this is true then a Verizon Iphone later this year seems more like wishfull dreams.

---

You don't know the full details of that contract. There could be stipulations that alter that contract. Even if there is a Verizon iPhone in the works, I wouldn't expect anytime soon. I'm sure Apple would want to further fatten up on AT&T before it expands to another carrier and fatten up some more. I wonder how many customers would buy the phone from AT&T and then buy it again if Verizon gets it? Think like Apple here.

[wingrider01 ACE - Expert]

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

BrianfromNO wrote:

I'm not sure why these two have to be mutually exclusive.  The iPhone is coming to AT&T.  Apple wouldn't have given the iPad to AT&T if they weren't planning on launching their next handset on the carrier.  We may also see a Verizon iPhone later in the year.

---

Since court documentation has been unearthed that ATT have the iphone till 2012 Oneof the sites gave a link to the corporate signed corporate documents), so if this is true then a Verizon Iphone later this year seems more like wishfull dreams.

---

You don't know the full details of that contract. There could be stipulations that alter that contract. Even if there is a Verizon iPhone in the works, I wouldn't expect anytime soon. I'm sure Apple would want to further fatten up on AT&T before it expands to another carrier and fatten up some more. I wonder how many customers would buy the phone from AT&T and then buy it again if Verizon gets it? Think like Apple here.

---

Search the net the PDF's of the contracts where published

[josephz2va]

---

tnvolz19 wrote:

Does anyone think the iphone will go to verizon this year or will it stay with att?

---

Doubt it for this year as LTE isn't around nationwide. Plus the iPhone hogs more than Android making Verizon the next complaints for poor coverage.

[sitnsidewayz]

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

BrianfromNO wrote:

I'm not sure why these two have to be mutually exclusive.  The iPhone is coming to AT&T.  Apple wouldn't have given the iPad to AT&T if they weren't planning on launching their next handset on the carrier.  We may also see a Verizon iPhone later in the year.

---

Since court documentation has been unearthed that ATT have the iphone till 2012 Oneof the sites gave a link to the corporate signed corporate documents), so if this is true then a Verizon Iphone later this year seems more like wishfull dreams.

---

You don't know the full details of that contract. There could be stipulations that alter that contract. Even if there is a Verizon iPhone in the works, I wouldn't expect anytime soon. I'm sure Apple would want to further fatten up on AT&T before it expands to another carrier and fatten up some more. I wonder how many customers would buy the phone from AT&T and then buy it again if Verizon gets it? Think like Apple here.

---

Search the net the PDF's of the contracts where published

---

I did and I can find no such animal, only a copy of some court papers, not the full contract. Perhaps you could provide a link.  

[Irish Rose ACE - Master]

---

josephz2va wrote:

Plus the iPhone hogs more than Android making Verizon the next complaints for poor coverage.

---

I do not think the iPhone would see all of the service related issues that it is seeing on AT&T's network. For one, selling it on two different networks will remove some of the data overload that is happening on one single network, and two; Verizon has more 3G coverage than AT&T at this point.

[sitnsidewayz]

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

BrianfromNO wrote:

I'm not sure why these two have to be mutually exclusive.  The iPhone is coming to AT&T.  Apple wouldn't have given the iPad to AT&T if they weren't planning on launching their next handset on the carrier.  We may also see a Verizon iPhone later in the year.

---

Since court documentation has been unearthed that ATT have the iphone till 2012 Oneof the sites gave a link to the corporate signed corporate documents), so if this is true then a Verizon Iphone later this year seems more like wishfull dreams.

---

You don't know the full details of that contract. There could be stipulations that alter that contract. Even if there is a Verizon iPhone in the works, I wouldn't expect anytime soon. I'm sure Apple would want to further fatten up on AT&T before it expands to another carrier and fatten up some more. I wonder how many customers would buy the phone from AT&T and then buy it again if Verizon gets it? Think like Apple here.

---

Search the net the PDF's of the contracts where published

---

I received your link, but this is not the contract between Apple and AT&T. It is a copy of the court papers filed, which is what I already indicated I had found. I do not dispute that it was a five year agreement. I made a statement that there could be stipulations in the contract itself that alter this. Without the actual contract itself we can't say one way or the other. Even the court papers say on page 2, line 24 thru page 3, line 1, " Although the Agreement itself is not public, some of its provisions have been revealed in the press." That is just some of the provisions. Other provisions would be pure speculation on anyone's part that doesn't have full knowledge of the contract. It has to be taken as a five year contract, since that is what it is, being aware that many times contracts do have "ways out" written into them. But, as I stated, we can only speculate.

[wingrider01 ACE - Expert]

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

BrianfromNO wrote:

I'm not sure why these two have to be mutually exclusive.  The iPhone is coming to AT&T.  Apple wouldn't have given the iPad to AT&T if they weren't planning on launching their next handset on the carrier.  We may also see a Verizon iPhone later in the year.

---

Since court documentation has been unearthed that ATT have the iphone till 2012 Oneof the sites gave a link to the corporate signed corporate documents), so if this is true then a Verizon Iphone later this year seems more like wishfull dreams.

---

You don't know the full details of that contract. There could be stipulations that alter that contract. Even if there is a Verizon iPhone in the works, I wouldn't expect anytime soon. I'm sure Apple would want to further fatten up on AT&T before it expands to another carrier and fatten up some more. I wonder how many customers would buy the phone from AT&T and then buy it again if Verizon gets it? Think like Apple here.

---

Search the net the PDF's of the contracts where published

---

I received your link, but this is not the contract between Apple and AT&T. It is a copy of the court papers filed, which is what I already indicated I had found. I do not dispute that it was a five year agreement. I made a statement that there could be stipulations in the contract itself that alter this. Without the actual contract itself we can't say one way or the other. Even the court papers say on page 2, line 24 thru page 3, line 1, " Although the Agreement itself is not public, some of its provisions have been revealed in the press." That is just some of the provisions. Other provisions would be pure speculation on anyone's part that doesn't have full knowledge of the contract. It has to be taken as a five year contract, since that is what it is, being aware that many times contracts do have "ways out" written into them. But, as I stated, we can only speculate.

---

Think about it, it is a legally file COURT document, I don't think even Apple would be stupid enough to claim that and turn it not to be true. Contempt of Court charges and massive fines come to mind.

Whatever, believe what you want to believe, I prefer to believe filed court documentation.

[sitnsidewayz]

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

BrianfromNO wrote:

I'm not sure why these two have to be mutually exclusive.  The iPhone is coming to AT&T.  Apple wouldn't have given the iPad to AT&T if they weren't planning on launching their next handset on the carrier.  We may also see a Verizon iPhone later in the year.

---

Since court documentation has been unearthed that ATT have the iphone till 2012 Oneof the sites gave a link to the corporate signed corporate documents), so if this is true then a Verizon Iphone later this year seems more like wishfull dreams.

---

You don't know the full details of that contract. There could be stipulations that alter that contract. Even if there is a Verizon iPhone in the works, I wouldn't expect anytime soon. I'm sure Apple would want to further fatten up on AT&T before it expands to another carrier and fatten up some more. I wonder how many customers would buy the phone from AT&T and then buy it again if Verizon gets it? Think like Apple here.

---

Search the net the PDF's of the contracts where published

---

I received your link, but this is not the contract between Apple and AT&T. It is a copy of the court papers filed, which is what I already indicated I had found. I do not dispute that it was a five year agreement. I made a statement that there could be stipulations in the contract itself that alter this. Without the actual contract itself we can't say one way or the other. Even the court papers say on page 2, line 24 thru page 3, line 1, " Although the Agreement itself is not public, some of its provisions have been revealed in the press." That is just some of the provisions. Other provisions would be pure speculation on anyone's part that doesn't have full knowledge of the contract. It has to be taken as a five year contract, since that is what it is, being aware that many times contracts do have "ways out" written into them. But, as I stated, we can only speculate.

---

Think about it, it is a legally file COURT document, I don't think even Apple would be stupid enough to claim that and turn it not to be true. Contempt of Court charges and massive fines come to mind.

Whatever, believe what you want to believe, I prefer to believe filed court documentation.

---

What's not true? Yes, it is a five year contract, but there can always be provisions and stipulations in a contract that alter it. Those are not illegal and it doesn't make the fact that it originated as a five year contract false. Anyone can sign a two year contract with AT&T and then pay the ETF after one year and get out of the contract. Does that mean when the contract was originally signed, it was not a two year contract? This is real simple to understand, but don't believe of the possibility if you don't want to. Nobody here knows for sure. Like I said, we are talking speculation, but the possibility does at least exist.

[zentec]

---

Irish Rose wrote:

I do not think the iPhone would see all of the service related issues that it is seeing on AT&T's network. For one, selling it on two different networks will remove some of the data overload that is happening on one single network, and two; Verizon has more 3G coverage than AT&T at this point.

---

Some of the problems that customers have using the iPhone on AT&T's network are strictly iPhone problems.  The  phone is iffy, and is supported by the common complaints of users using other GSM networks.  I love my iPhone, but I've learned that if you want perfection from Apple, wait for the 3rd or 4th iteration. 

[wingrider01 ACE - Expert]

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

BrianfromNO wrote:

I'm not sure why these two have to be mutually exclusive.  The iPhone is coming to AT&T.  Apple wouldn't have given the iPad to AT&T if they weren't planning on launching their next handset on the carrier.  We may also see a Verizon iPhone later in the year.

---

Since court documentation has been unearthed that ATT have the iphone till 2012 Oneof the sites gave a link to the corporate signed corporate documents), so if this is true then a Verizon Iphone later this year seems more like wishfull dreams.

---

You don't know the full details of that contract. There could be stipulations that alter that contract. Even if there is a Verizon iPhone in the works, I wouldn't expect anytime soon. I'm sure Apple would want to further fatten up on AT&T before it expands to another carrier and fatten up some more. I wonder how many customers would buy the phone from AT&T and then buy it again if Verizon gets it? Think like Apple here.

---

Search the net the PDF's of the contracts where published

---

I received your link, but this is not the contract between Apple and AT&T. It is a copy of the court papers filed, which is what I already indicated I had found. I do not dispute that it was a five year agreement. I made a statement that there could be stipulations in the contract itself that alter this. Without the actual contract itself we can't say one way or the other. Even the court papers say on page 2, line 24 thru page 3, line 1, " Although the Agreement itself is not public, some of its provisions have been revealed in the press." That is just some of the provisions. Other provisions would be pure speculation on anyone's part that doesn't have full knowledge of the contract. It has to be taken as a five year contract, since that is what it is, being aware that many times contracts do have "ways out" written into them. But, as I stated, we can only speculate.

---

Think about it, it is a legally file COURT document, I don't think even Apple would be stupid enough to claim that and turn it not to be true. Contempt of Court charges and massive fines come to mind.

Whatever, believe what you want to believe, I prefer to believe filed court documentation.

---

What's not true? Yes, it is a five year contract, but there can always be provisions and stipulations in a contract that alter it. Those are not illegal and it doesn't make the fact that it originated as a five year contract false. Anyone can sign a two year contract with AT&T and then pay the ETF after one year and get out of the contract. Does that mean when the contract was originally signed, it was not a two year contract? This is real simple to understand, but don't believe of the possibility if you don't want to. Nobody here knows for sure. Like I said, we are talking speculation, but the possibility does at least exist.

---

what part of the statement

"ATTM is a cellular phone service provider that markets and sells the iPhone and is the exclusive provider of wire and data services to iPhone customers, pursuant to a written agreement with Apple"

indicates that there are any alterations, if there where they would have been filed to the courts as an addendeum since it could affect the whole validity of the lawsuit.  You maybe talking speculation, but the document filed in the courts of california has no speculation about it, law suits or crass acytin suites are not based in speculation, at least not where I live, but it maybe possble where you do.

[sitnsidewayz]

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

BrianfromNO wrote:

I'm not sure why these two have to be mutually exclusive.  The iPhone is coming to AT&T.  Apple wouldn't have given the iPad to AT&T if they weren't planning on launching their next handset on the carrier.  We may also see a Verizon iPhone later in the year.

---

Since court documentation has been unearthed that ATT have the iphone till 2012 Oneof the sites gave a link to the corporate signed corporate documents), so if this is true then a Verizon Iphone later this year seems more like wishfull dreams.

---

You don't know the full details of that contract. There could be stipulations that alter that contract. Even if there is a Verizon iPhone in the works, I wouldn't expect anytime soon. I'm sure Apple would want to further fatten up on AT&T before it expands to another carrier and fatten up some more. I wonder how many customers would buy the phone from AT&T and then buy it again if Verizon gets it? Think like Apple here.

---

Search the net the PDF's of the contracts where published

---

I received your link, but this is not the contract between Apple and AT&T. It is a copy of the court papers filed, which is what I already indicated I had found. I do not dispute that it was a five year agreement. I made a statement that there could be stipulations in the contract itself that alter this. Without the actual contract itself we can't say one way or the other. Even the court papers say on page 2, line 24 thru page 3, line 1, " Although the Agreement itself is not public, some of its provisions have been revealed in the press." That is just some of the provisions. Other provisions would be pure speculation on anyone's part that doesn't have full knowledge of the contract. It has to be taken as a five year contract, since that is what it is, being aware that many times contracts do have "ways out" written into them. But, as I stated, we can only speculate.

---

Think about it, it is a legally file COURT document, I don't think even Apple would be stupid enough to claim that and turn it not to be true. Contempt of Court charges and massive fines come to mind.

Whatever, believe what you want to believe, I prefer to believe filed court documentation.

---

What's not true? Yes, it is a five year contract, but there can always be provisions and stipulations in a contract that alter it. Those are not illegal and it doesn't make the fact that it originated as a five year contract false. Anyone can sign a two year contract with AT&T and then pay the ETF after one year and get out of the contract. Does that mean when the contract was originally signed, it was not a two year contract? This is real simple to understand, but don't believe of the possibility if you don't want to. Nobody here knows for sure. Like I said, we are talking speculation, but the possibility does at least exist.

---

what part of the statement

"ATTM is a cellular phone service provider that markets and sells the iPhone and is the exclusive provider of wire and data services to iPhone customers, pursuant to a written agreement with Apple"

indicates that there are any alterations, if there where they would have been filed to the courts as an addendeum since it could affect the whole validity of the lawsuit.  You maybe talking speculation, but the document filed in the courts of california has no speculation about it, law suits or crass acytin suites are not based in speculation, at least not where I live, but it maybe possble where you do.

---

Dude, like I said and the court papers say, not all details of the contract are made public. Not even in the filing, which is why you were not able to provide that pdf of the contract that you incorrectly said was available. The specualtion part is only about what I said could be in the contract that is not detailed, not what the filing is about. One doesn't have to file suit over the entire contract. One can file a suit over just part of the contract. Then the filing would just need to detail that part of the contract. One has no way of knowing if any stipulations will or will not be invoked. That in itself would keep the lawsuit valid, should any stipulations that could alter the contract exist. There is no point in arguing something neither can prove since the contract is not public. Time will tell.

[wingrider01 ACE - Expert]

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

BrianfromNO wrote:

I'm not sure why these two have to be mutually exclusive.  The iPhone is coming to AT&T.  Apple wouldn't have given the iPad to AT&T if they weren't planning on launching their next handset on the carrier.  We may also see a Verizon iPhone later in the year.

---

Since court documentation has been unearthed that ATT have the iphone till 2012 Oneof the sites gave a link to the corporate signed corporate documents), so if this is true then a Verizon Iphone later this year seems more like wishfull dreams.

---

You don't know the full details of that contract. There could be stipulations that alter that contract. Even if there is a Verizon iPhone in the works, I wouldn't expect anytime soon. I'm sure Apple would want to further fatten up on AT&T before it expands to another carrier and fatten up some more. I wonder how many customers would buy the phone from AT&T and then buy it again if Verizon gets it? Think like Apple here.

---

Search the net the PDF's of the contracts where published

---

I received your link, but this is not the contract between Apple and AT&T. It is a copy of the court papers filed, which is what I already indicated I had found. I do not dispute that it was a five year agreement. I made a statement that there could be stipulations in the contract itself that alter this. Without the actual contract itself we can't say one way or the other. Even the court papers say on page 2, line 24 thru page 3, line 1, " Although the Agreement itself is not public, some of its provisions have been revealed in the press." That is just some of the provisions. Other provisions would be pure speculation on anyone's part that doesn't have full knowledge of the contract. It has to be taken as a five year contract, since that is what it is, being aware that many times contracts do have "ways out" written into them. But, as I stated, we can only speculate.

---

Think about it, it is a legally file COURT document, I don't think even Apple would be stupid enough to claim that and turn it not to be true. Contempt of Court charges and massive fines come to mind.

Whatever, believe what you want to believe, I prefer to believe filed court documentation.

---

What's not true? Yes, it is a five year contract, but there can always be provisions and stipulations in a contract that alter it. Those are not illegal and it doesn't make the fact that it originated as a five year contract false. Anyone can sign a two year contract with AT&T and then pay the ETF after one year and get out of the contract. Does that mean when the contract was originally signed, it was not a two year contract? This is real simple to understand, but don't believe of the possibility if you don't want to. Nobody here knows for sure. Like I said, we are talking speculation, but the possibility does at least exist.

---

what part of the statement

"ATTM is a cellular phone service provider that markets and sells the iPhone and is the exclusive provider of wire and data services to iPhone customers, pursuant to a written agreement with Apple"

indicates that there are any alterations, if there where they would have been filed to the courts as an addendeum since it could affect the whole validity of the lawsuit.  You maybe talking speculation, but the document filed in the courts of california has no speculation about it, law suits or crass acytin suites are not based in speculation, at least not where I live, but it maybe possble where you do.

---

Dude, like I said and the court papers say, not all details of the contract are made public. Not even in the filing, which is why you were not able to provide that pdf of the contract that you incorrectly said was available. The specualtion part is only about what I said could be in the contract that is not detailed, not what the filing is about. One doesn't have to file suit over the entire contract. One can file a suit over just part of the contract. Then the filing would just need to detail that part of the contract. One has no way of knowing if any stipulations will or will not be invoked. That in itself would keep the lawsuit valid, should any stipulations that could alter the contract exist. There is no point in arguing something neither can prove since the contract is not public. Time will tell.

---

Guess you really don;t understand court filings in relation to lawsuits and crass action suites and the wording of the filings.

Believe what you wish, it is your right.

[sitnsidewayz]

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

BrianfromNO wrote:

I'm not sure why these two have to be mutually exclusive.  The iPhone is coming to AT&T.  Apple wouldn't have given the iPad to AT&T if they weren't planning on launching their next handset on the carrier.  We may also see a Verizon iPhone later in the year.

---

Since court documentation has been unearthed that ATT have the iphone till 2012 Oneof the sites gave a link to the corporate signed corporate documents), so if this is true then a Verizon Iphone later this year seems more like wishfull dreams.

---

You don't know the full details of that contract. There could be stipulations that alter that contract. Even if there is a Verizon iPhone in the works, I wouldn't expect anytime soon. I'm sure Apple would want to further fatten up on AT&T before it expands to another carrier and fatten up some more. I wonder how many customers would buy the phone from AT&T and then buy it again if Verizon gets it? Think like Apple here.

---

Search the net the PDF's of the contracts where published

---

I received your link, but this is not the contract between Apple and AT&T. It is a copy of the court papers filed, which is what I already indicated I had found. I do not dispute that it was a five year agreement. I made a statement that there could be stipulations in the contract itself that alter this. Without the actual contract itself we can't say one way or the other. Even the court papers say on page 2, line 24 thru page 3, line 1, " Although the Agreement itself is not public, some of its provisions have been revealed in the press." That is just some of the provisions. Other provisions would be pure speculation on anyone's part that doesn't have full knowledge of the contract. It has to be taken as a five year contract, since that is what it is, being aware that many times contracts do have "ways out" written into them. But, as I stated, we can only speculate.

---

Think about it, it is a legally file COURT document, I don't think even Apple would be stupid enough to claim that and turn it not to be true. Contempt of Court charges and massive fines come to mind.

Whatever, believe what you want to believe, I prefer to believe filed court documentation.

---

What's not true? Yes, it is a five year contract, but there can always be provisions and stipulations in a contract that alter it. Those are not illegal and it doesn't make the fact that it originated as a five year contract false. Anyone can sign a two year contract with AT&T and then pay the ETF after one year and get out of the contract. Does that mean when the contract was originally signed, it was not a two year contract? This is real simple to understand, but don't believe of the possibility if you don't want to. Nobody here knows for sure. Like I said, we are talking speculation, but the possibility does at least exist.

---

what part of the statement

"ATTM is a cellular phone service provider that markets and sells the iPhone and is the exclusive provider of wire and data services to iPhone customers, pursuant to a written agreement with Apple"

indicates that there are any alterations, if there where they would have been filed to the courts as an addendeum since it could affect the whole validity of the lawsuit.  You maybe talking speculation, but the document filed in the courts of california has no speculation about it, law suits or crass acytin suites are not based in speculation, at least not where I live, but it maybe possble where you do.

---

Dude, like I said and the court papers say, not all details of the contract are made public. Not even in the filing, which is why you were not able to provide that pdf of the contract that you incorrectly said was available. The specualtion part is only about what I said could be in the contract that is not detailed, not what the filing is about. One doesn't have to file suit over the entire contract. One can file a suit over just part of the contract. Then the filing would just need to detail that part of the contract. One has no way of knowing if any stipulations will or will not be invoked. That in itself would keep the lawsuit valid, should any stipulations that could alter the contract exist. There is no point in arguing something neither can prove since the contract is not public. Time will tell.

---

Guess you really don;t understand court filings in relation to lawsuits and crass action suites and the wording of the filings.

Believe what you wish, it is your right.

---

And I'm sure you are, as you have often not proven. Believe what you want.

[Planet-Ed ACE - Expert]

Has anyone ever considered cutting out all the extra junk when replying to a post??  The embedded quotes of quotes of quotes etc etc are going over the top.

Its bad when you have to scroll to see a reply of a single post.

[wingrider01 ACE - Expert]

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

And I'm sure you are, as you have often not proven. Believe what you want.

---

As you have just as often. Done here, BHL responses are not my balliwick.

[sitnsidewayz]

Ok. I'll let you have the last word. LOL.

[DimentoGraven]

---

sitnsidewayz wrote:

Dude, like I said and the court papers say, not all details of the contract are made public. Not even in the filing, which is why you were not able to provide that pdf of the contract that you incorrectly said was available. The specualtion part is only about what I said could be in the contract that is not detailed, not what the filing is about. One doesn't have to file suit over the entire contract. One can file a suit over just part of the contract. Then the filing would just need to detail that part of the contract. One has no way of knowing if any stipulations will or will not be invoked. That in itself would keep the lawsuit valid, should any stipulations that could alter the contract exist. There is no point in arguing something neither can prove since the contract is not public. Time will tell.

---

This is essentially correct and should be considered when reading any court filings based on passed contracts, past court filings, and the like.

Heck, even when other court cases are referred to as precedent for other cases, the entire case isn't reviewed, only the relevant rulings or statements.

Maintaining/controlling "legal relevancy" in court cases is a major part of civil law strategy.  Helps you to avoid the "baffle them with BS" tactics (or likewise, use the tactic yourself) that can often confuse the case.

[thiswirelessbit…]

Whatever happens all I know is that smartphones are not fully functional on Verizon's network; I have a Droid for work and I can't talk and surf or talk and text simultaneously.

[YvilKittyInSpace]

I don't think that it will happen this year mainly because Apple prefers to update once  a year.

There was only one time when they didn't follow the summer time update schedule and that was during the very first iPhone. The original 8GB was released in June of 2007. February of 2008, they released a 16GB model as well, so they have shown they can break the once a year cycle. I am thinking that if there were to be a CDMA model that would work with Verizon, it would be later in this year or early next year.

[Irish Rose ACE - Master]

---

Planet-Ed wrote:

Has anyone ever considered cutting out all the extra junk when replying to a post??  The embedded quotes of quotes of quotes etc etc are going over the top.

Its bad when you have to scroll to see a reply of a single post.

---

This is exactly what I was thinking.

[Neihn]

With the recent push for multitasking. Iw ould say there is little chance of Verizon seeing a iPhone this year unless they have already moved a system in place to allow Voice and Data at the same time.  If it does come to Verizon this year I can see the ad now "Can you hear me now? Opps got a text call ya back." "Verizon where the iPhone can multitask but you can't"

[Irish Rose ACE - Master]

^ I can't quote a post from the mobile site, but the post above, made me LOL!