14 DAY TRIAL // Vodafone's recent injunction against T-Mobile has been widely regarded as an act of vengeance, however the move has more to do with consumer rights and will turn out to be very important to iPhone users everywhere.
It could be said that Vodafone has a lot to be bitter about over the iPhone. Even before there even was an iPhone, Apple was turned down by Verizon and Vodafone owns 45% of Verizon Wireless in the US. In the UK, Vodafone was once again the most likely candidate, but ended up losing to O2. As such, the recent legal move against T-Mobile in Germany can easily be interpreted as a sore looser move.
Whatever the actual feeling of the company towards Apple's phone might be, the legal issues raised are quite important. Most reports claim that Vodafone has a problem with T-Mobile's exclusivity and the fact that customers are forced into a contract. Neither of these are the true problems here. While it may be alright for T-Mobile to be the sole carrier for the iPhone and ask that customers sign a two-year contract with them in order to obtain one, beyond that point any further restrictions are illegal.
The iPhone should be unlocked, in the sense that as long as the customers keep fulfilling their two-year contractual agreement, they should be free to use the device with any carrier they like. Furthermore, the question of contractual expiration was raised. What happens to the iPhone after your two-year contract with T-Mobile is over? Will customers be free to use the device with any carrier whatsoever, or will they have to renew a contract with T-Mobile or be left with a brick?
Laws in Germany forbid SIM locking as well as preventing the device to be used with other carriers even after the contract expires. But issues are important not only for iPhone users in Germany, but all current and future iPhone users all over the world. Apple may have turned the mobile industry upside down with the contractual terms it has managed to strike with the carriers, but the very draconic limitations of the system must not run afoul of customer's right.