Apple?s Contract With AT&amp;T Does Not Quash Verizon Rumor

Apple’s supposedly confidential agreement with AT&T was not a secret after all: They struck a five-year exclusivity contract to carry the iPhone in 2007, an old court document reveals. Still, the validity of the contract remains a question.

An ongoing class action suit filed against Apple and AT&T in 2007 alleged that the two parties held a monopoly over the iPhone by locking consumers into a contract for an indefinite amount of time. However, Engadget’s Nilay Patel discovered that Apple filed a brief in October 2008 citing a USA Today article, which says Apple and AT&T struck a five-year agreement for the iPhone in 2007.

“AT&T has exclusive U.S. distribution rights for five years ? an eternity in the go-go cellphone world,” the USA Today article dated May 23, 2007 wrote. “And Apple is barred for that time from developing a version of the iPhone for CDMA wireless networks.”

That would imply AT&T will be the exclusive U.S. carrier of the iPhone until 2012, which comes at odds with persistent rumors that Apple’s contract with AT&T expires this year and that a Verizon iPhone is due this fall. However, Engadget’s Patel notes that the contract could very well have been amended since then. Also, it’s unclear whether the contract would only apply to a specific model of the iPhone (first- or second-generation, for example). If that were the case, it would still open doors for Verizon to carry a brand new model of the iPhone.

Rumors of a Verizon iPhone gained more credence in March when The Wall Street Journal, which has a solid track record for Apple rumors, was tipped about a CDMA-compatible iPhone scheduled for mass production in September. CDMA is the standard used by Verizon.

Also, just today, tech blog Crunchgear claims it received a tip that advertising company Landor Associates is already preparing an ad campaign for a Verizon iPhone. Crunchgear has been an unreliable source of Apple rumors, according to MacRumors’ Arnold Kim, but the idea of an ad agency leaking information is plausible.

See Also: