I agree it's total abuse of the DMCA, and a stupid idea.
But note, from TFA: "You can also pay full-price for a phone, not the discounted price that comes with a two-year service contract, to receive the device unlocked from the get-go. Apple sells an unlocked iPhone 5 starting at $649, and Google sells its Nexus 4 unlocked for $300."
You didn't buy the phone outright. You agreed to a massively subsidized price in exchange for a quid pro quo. At the very least, AT&T should be able to sue you for the breach of contract and get their $350 back.
But I think that's exactly what they should have to do, not have the government use the DMCA to enforce their contractual provisions for them.
> At the very least, AT&T should be able to sue you for the breach of contract and get their $350 back.
That's exactly what they do, except that a lawsuit isn't necessary. It's already part of the contract. Specifically, AT&T charges $350 - ($10 * <number of months used>).
Seems like it's weighted to be more beneficial earlier in the contract, and later on makes more sense as the user to see the contract through to the end.
If you're unlocking your subsidized phone and moving to another carrier, you either have to keep paying your original contract or pay the early termination fee, both of which balance out the subsidy. If you're off-contract or have already completed your contract term, you've already bought the phone outright. As far as I am aware, there is literally no point of time where you can unlock your phone and leave your carrier high and dry.
I don't know what AT&T's reasoning is for not unlocking under-contract phones. They must make money off it somehow. Maybe they want to limit resale so people buy new phones, or limit hand-me-downs for use on other carriers. Who knows? See: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/theres-lots-of-mone...
The point is, that reasoning is built into the terms. You don't get to decide, after the fact, when you feel like AT&T has gotten the benefit of their bargain.
But note, from TFA: "You can also pay full-price for a phone, not the discounted price that comes with a two-year service contract, to receive the device unlocked from the get-go. Apple sells an unlocked iPhone 5 starting at $649, and Google sells its Nexus 4 unlocked for $300."
You didn't buy the phone outright. You agreed to a massively subsidized price in exchange for a quid pro quo. At the very least, AT&T should be able to sue you for the breach of contract and get their $350 back.
But I think that's exactly what they should have to do, not have the government use the DMCA to enforce their contractual provisions for them.