Apple sued over iPhone locking, DRM patent violations [Archive]

AppleInsider

10-08-2007, 01:12 PM

Apple has been hit with two new lawsuits: one which charges the iPhone maker with antitrust violations for permanently disabling unlocked versions of its touch-screen handset, and another that accuses the company -- along with several other tech giants and adult media publishers -- with violating a DRM-related patent.

Suit over bricked iPhones

On Friday, California resident Timothy Smith filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the company is violating the state's Cartwright Act by prohibiting iPhone consumers from using and purchasing cell phone service other than through AT&T.

Filed on behalf of Smith by Damian Fernandez, the attorney who's been seeking plaintiffs for a class-action case against Apple over iPhone bricking, the suit claims that cell phone unlocking is completely legal and cites traditional copyright law as well as the more recent Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The formal complaint, which does not yet seek monetary damages, asks the court to issue an injunction that would prevent Apple from selling the iPhone with any software lock. It also asks that Apple be enjoined from denying warranty service to users of unlocked iPhones and from requiring iPhone users to get their phone service through AT&T.

Suit over DRM patent violations

Meanwhile, AppleInsider has learned that Apple on Friday was also named in new patent infringement suit along with digital media heavyweights Microsoft, Blockbuster, Sony, and Macrovision, as well as adult content providers Playboy and Hustler.

The 11-page complaint, filed in the patent litigation-friendly district of Tyler, Texas, charges each of the firms with violating U.S. patent #6389541 for "Regulating Access to Digital Content," which was issued to Digital Reg of Texas, LLC in May of 2002.

"Upon information and belief, Apple has infringed and continues to infringe the [...] patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, digital content incorporating DRM technology," the suit claims. "Apple provides such content through its iTunes Music Store and its iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store. Apple further provides controlled access and play out of digital content incorporating DRM technology through its iTunes Player. Apple also provides controlled access of digital content through its FairPlay Platform."

Digital Reg is seeking damages as a result of each defendant’s infringement, a permanent injunction barring the companies from further infringement, attorney's fees, and an award of enhanced damages "up to and including trebling" those deemed suitable by the Court as a result of each company's "willful and deliberate" actions.

Digital Reg is requesting a trial by jury. [ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=3277)

SpamSandwich

10-08-2007, 01:28 PM

Steve is gonna have to warm up to the idea of using the mob to fight off these lawsuits. :D

fraklinc

10-08-2007, 01:40 PM

Maestro64

10-08-2007, 01:48 PM

what a dum ass law sue really, lol apple did not brick your phone dum ass you did it your self by ingnoring the warning, dum ass people really, I hope apple start counter suing these dum ass funboys. Its like suing for not being able to watch tv if you unplug the power cord

More like cutting the power cord and suing because your TV only picks up the network broadcast stations and you want to watch Martian News

Rot'nApple

10-08-2007, 01:59 PM

Apple has been hit with two new lawsuits: one which charges the iPhone maker with antitrust violations for permanently disabling unlocked versions of its touch-screen handset... Suit over bricked iPhones -

On Friday, California resident Timothy Smith filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the company is violating the state's Cartwright Act by prohibiting iPhone consumers from using and purchasing cell phone service other than through AT&T.

Filed on behalf of Smith by Damian Fernandez, the attorney who's been seeking plaintiffs for a class-action case against Apple over iPhone bricking, the suit claims that cell phone unlocking is completely legal and cites traditional copyright law as well as the more recent Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The formal complaint, which does not yet seek monetary damages, asks the court to issue an injunction that would prevent Apple from selling the iPhone with any software lock. It also asks that Apple be enjoined from denying warranty service to users of unlocked iPhones and from requiring iPhone users to get their phone service through AT&T.

Finally we'll let the courts decide on who's rights were violated - Apple's who created a product or as one poster commented - the 'mob rules' rights? Of course then, based on the court's decision, will another court have to decide if that court is right and if the court, deciding on the court is not right, then we'll have to let the Supreme Court answer. However, they have been known to be wrong on the issues of the day in the past... ie. slavery, separate but equal, etc. Little things like that...

Buck

10-08-2007, 02:45 PM

lfmorrison

10-08-2007, 02:47 PM

More like cutting the power cord and suing because your TV only picks up the network broadcast stations and you want to watch Martian News

Exactly like, buying a television whose antenna is completely capable of picking up Martian News. but whose control software has been designed with the explicit intent of only picking up terrestrial broadcasts, making the necessary changes to the controller software to start picking up said Martian broadcasts, and then suing because the manufacturer decided to change its method of enforcing its Terran-only policy and released a resulting software update which depends on building on the baseline factory-default firmware - and incapable of functioning when added on top of certain versions of - but not all - modified Martian-friendly firmware.

At the end of the day, I don't think Apple can reasonably be expected to provide ongoing support for every possible divergence that they might encounter from their official factory-default firmware due to the many different unofficial unlocking techniques that might evolve over time. Therefore I don't think they did anything wrong in releasing firmware updates that aren't compatible with certain unlocking schemes.

Are they in the wrong for refusing warranty service to help customers get their phones back into a factory-authorized state? On the one hand, their stated reason for voiding the warranty - that the users have violated the EULA - has a reasonable chance of being disproved, since the EULA already has provisions which could very easily be interpreted as granting permission for certain kinds of firmware modifications as allowed by applicable law - specifically, the law allowing the kind of modification which would be required to allow a phone to be used on a different network.

On the other hand, warranty service wouldn't be required if the user hadn't made that modification in the first place. Even if the EULA hasn't been broken, there is an argument to be made that the reasonable man would have known that they might not be able to continue installing new Apple-approved software updates after adding some unauthorized ones of their own. Maybe the onus ought to be on the people who provided the hacks in the first place to provide a safe upgrade path.

On the third hand, the act of un-bricking the phone most likely can be done with a USB cable and appropriate software. At the worst, it most definitely doesn't require anything more involved than opening up the phone, attaching a JTAG probe, and about a minute of Flash formatting and re-programming.

I wish the the best of luck in the other part of their suit - essentially obtaining an injunction requiring Apple to furnish a legitimate means of obtaining a network-neutral iPhone. I don't think it has a snowball's chance in Hell, though, because there simply doesn't appear to be any law on the books in the USA on which to base a mandatory unlocking system.

It's one thing to say that such-and-such is not illegal. It's another thing entirely to then go on to say that, since it isn't illegal, such-and-such must by extension become mandatory.

shetline

10-08-2007, 02:48 PM

More like cutting the power cord and suing because your TV only picks up the network broadcast stations and you want to watch Martian News

Your analogy is terrible because wanting to use an iPhone on T-Mobile isn't anywhere near as exotic or unreasonable idea as expecting imaginary programming from distant planets. Further, while it would a totally unreasonable expectation for a TV to keep working after its power cord has been cut, it's actually the more natural behavior for a GSM cell phone to work with any carrier the user likes, just by changing the SIM card. Being locked to one carrier is an artificial restriction that the cellphone maker has to go out of their way to create.

Re-read this sentence:

"On Friday, California resident Timothy Smith filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the company is violating the state's Cartwright Act by prohibiting iPhone consumers from using and purchasing cell phone service other than through AT&T."

The devil is in the unstated details. Clearly an iPhone customer can get service from carriers other than AT&T if they like -- they'd simply have to purchase an additional cell phone to do so. Does the law stipulate specifically, however, that a customer has to be able to get service from any carrier using any cellphone that they own, or a least any signal-compatible cell phone?

If the law actually dictates the latter, it's Apple who's guilty of not paying attention to "the rules" and stupidly expecting to do things the rules say they're not allowed to do, of entering into a deal with AT&T based on terms that perhaps they aren't legally allowed to enforce, at least in some states.

It might even be to Apple's advantage to lose this particular law suit. If Apple were forced by law to unlock the iPhone from being bound to AT&T -- either that or simply not sell iPhones in California or any other state with a similar laws -- I think AT&T would have to see the light at some point when losing all customers in some states (including a big state like California) is a worse deal than keeping exclusivity in the remaining states. Then Apple would be free from AT&T lock-in, could start selling to T-Mobile as well, and perhaps sell unlocked iPhones too.

Taskiss

10-08-2007, 02:51 PM

http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-gates-steve-jobs-hugh-hefner-and.html
Is this a troll case? I'm not sure (although there are definitely signs - multiple defendants, multiple shells, blatant venue shopping, no connection to original inventors), and I don't care. It's just fun to muse that Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Larry Flynt will be forced to share the stage in Tyler. If there were ever a case that illustrates the ludicrousness of forcing multiple defendants together in a single case, this one takes the cake.

shetline

10-08-2007, 02:54 PM

On the third hand...
Does this third hand have anything to do with your opinions on reception of Martian news broadcasts? :D

wizard69

10-08-2007, 02:58 PM

Taskiss

10-08-2007, 03:06 PM

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/ant15.htm
CARTWRIGHT ACT

Horizontal Violations

Like its federal counterpart in Sherman Act 1, California's antitrust
statute - Bus. & Prof. Code 16720 - bars any agreement among competitors
that would serve to fix prices or allocate customers or markets, albeit
by way of a more detailed list of transgressions than is set out in the
Sherman Act's general prohibitions against "restraints of trade". For
recent court interpretations of what may constitute such proscribed
horizontal agreements and arrangements, the reader is directed to the
following cases: Rosack v. Volvo Corp. of America (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d
741; Mailand v. Burckle (1978) 20 Cal.3d 367; Kolling v. Dow Jones & Co.
(1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 709.

Tying Arrangements

Again like its federal counterpart in Section 3 of the Clayton Act,
California's antitrust laws - Bus. & Prof. Code 16720, 16727 - ban tying
arrangements. However, those statutes may apply to services where the
Clayton Act would not apply. Cases applying the tying laws are: Kim v.
Servosnax, Inc. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 842; Suburban Mobil Homes, Inc. v.
Amfac Communities, Inc. (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 541.

Vertical Restraints

General Rules Governing Pricing Restraints

A buyer who buys a product or service generally may set the price at
which it resells the product or service to others. A seller, in the
absence of an anticompetitive purpose or effect, may independently (1)
announce minimum resale prices and decide to sell or not to sell to a
dealer who has not adhered to those prices; and (2) choose those to whom
it wishes to sell and refuse to sell to any other buyer. Kolling v. Dow
Jones & Co. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 709, 719, 722. However, a seller of a
product may not by contract or coercion set the price at which the buyer
may resell the product. Such resale price fixing is always illegal
whether or not the price set is reasonable. Mailand v. Burckle (1978) 20
Cal.3d 367, 377.Apple isn't a cellular phone service provider. Since the Cartwright Act specifically prohibits agreements "among competitors" I can't see the lawsuit having legs.

http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/2cbj/97sep/97sep-14.htm
Tying may violate both §§16720 and 16727, and it is per se illegal only when the products are truly separate, and where either the seller has a dominant position in the market for the tying product or a not insubstantial amount of commerce in the tied product is affected. People v. National Association of Realtors, 155 Cal.App.3d 578, 583, 202 Cal.Rptr. 243 (1984). I'd say a cell phone manufacturer and a cellular service provider are NOT truly separate.

wizard69

10-08-2007, 03:29 PM

Exactly like, buying a television whose antenna is completely capable of picking up Martian News. but whose control software has been designed with the explicit intent of only picking up terrestrial broadcasts, making the necessary changes to the controller software to start picking up said Martian broadcasts, and then suing because the manufacturer decided to change its method of enforcing its Terran-only policy and released a resulting software update which depends on building on the baseline factory-default firmware - and incapable of functioning when added on top of certain versions of - but not all - modified Martian-friendly firmware.

That really isn't close neither. The difference is that Apple is blocking service to providers of essentially the same networking service. It is not an issue of Martian and Terran broadcast but an issue of GSM and GSM "broadcasts", where the primary difference is the service provider.

At the end of the day, I don't think Apple can reasonably be expected to provide ongoing support for every possible divergence that they might encounter from their official factory-default firmware due to the many different unofficial unlocking techniques that might evolve over time.

They may be compelled to offer a valid unlocking method though. Besides that they may be compelled to not to damage the iPhones with updates. This intentional damaging is a key issue with respect to the public madness that has resulted from this update. It is pretty difficult to imagine how this bricking is anything but a planed response to people choosing a carrier other than AT&T.

Therefore I don't think they did anything wrong in releasing firmware updates that aren't compatible with certain unlocking schemes.

That is not what people are complaining about. In fact the lack of compatibility would pretty much be expected. People understand and expect software compatibility issues

It is the mean spirited approach to the bricking of the iPhones that is the issue. If the updates bricking wasn't intentional then I don't think we would have seen every iPhone brick no matter how the unit was unlocked.

Are they in the wrong for refusing warranty service to help customers get their phones back into a factory-authorized state? On the one hand, their stated reason for voiding the warranty - that the users have violated the EULA - has a reasonable chance of being disproved, since the EULA already has provisions which could very easily be interpreted as granting permission for certain kinds of firmware modifications as allowed by applicable law - specifically, the law allowing the kind of modification which would be required to allow a phone to be used on a different network.

I see Apple as being responsible for the intentional bricking of the iPhones. Pretty hard to get around that.

On the other hand, warranty service wouldn't be required if the user hadn't made that modification in the first place.

There are already reports that this isn't the case. IPhones have been bricked without being carrier unlocked.

Even if the EULA hasn't been broken, there is an argument to be made that the reasonable man would have known that they might not be able to continue installing new Apple-approved software updates after adding some unauthorized ones of their own. Maybe the onus ought to be on the people who provided the hacks in the first place to provide a safe upgrade path.

The people providing the hacks are only offering what people are legally entitled to. I'm not sure why people get stressed over that idea.

In any event it is unreasonable for anybody to expect that Apple isn't capable of employing engineers that can produce a update that doesn't trash the iPhone. Due to Apples size and stature in the industry it is pretty obvious that they do have access to the best in the industry and is further evidence that the bricking is no accident.

On the third hand, the act of un-bricking the phone most likely can be done with a USB cable and appropriate software. At the worst, it most definitely doesn't require anything more involved than opening up the phone, attaching a JTAG probe, and about a minute of Flash formatting and re-programming.

I'm very much in agreement with that.

I wish the the best of luck in the other part of their suit - essentially obtaining an injunction requiring Apple to furnish a legitimate means of obtaining a network-neutral iPhone. I don't think it has a snowball's chance in Hell, though, because there simply doesn't appear to be any law on the books in the USA on which to base a mandatory unlocking system.

I'm not sure if a law is needed. We already know a person has the right to unlock their phone, by eliminating that ability Apple has effectively tried to infringe on individual rights through their software update. Seems like a liability to me.

It's one thing to say that such-and-such is not illegal. It's another thing entirely to then go on to say that, since it isn't illegal, such-and-such must by extension become mandatory.
True to some extent. The logical problem here is how can one have a specific freedom but then be enjoined from exercising that freedom due to corporate fiat. The rational logical response is that Apple needs to offer an unlocking program or an unlocked phone to meet these realities.

If the legal challenges are successful, Apples approach will likely to be to offer an unlocked iPhone for several thousand dollars.

Dave

ros3ntan

10-08-2007, 03:53 PM

physguy

10-08-2007, 03:54 PM

That is the way I see it, one useful lawsuit and another cap lawsuit.

As to the people defending their rights to use cell phones on the carrier of their choice all I have t say is hurray for those with the back bone to go up against Apple. The problem that many seem to mis in this thread is that Apple has behaved very badly with respect to the law and consumer rights. There is nothing wrong with trying to blunt a corporation that has gotten a little to big for its pants.

Dave

Why does this go back to Apple? There are many phones out there that are locked so that doesn't appear to be illegal. None of my phones have ever been upgraded with software in any case (no 'smart phones') despite have numerous bugs - so no requirement to have updates and I'm not aware of any law that requires updates for bugs that don't interfere materially with the functions sold.

1) Apple sold a phone that, based on the actual result, could be used on multiple carriers - no foul here.

2) Apple provided an upgrade that, given that they don't know how the phones were unlocked, might break them - reasonable - and took the responsible step to warn people to not update if they unlocked the SIM. - good citizen effort.

3) Apple increased the security of their software (better hidden key, etc.), which they sell as non-extensible. - nothing illegal here.

Everyone in these complaints is basically saying they don't like the way the cell-phone industry in the US is run. That's fine, has absolutely nothing to do with Apple or the iPhone. At the moment these are a tiny fraction of the market. There is absolutely no monopoly position here to abuse. I'm believe I'm fairly safe in proclaiming that there are other choices of phones, even 'smart phones' to buy. Where is the legal foul that Apple did?? IMO, there isn't even much of an ethical foul but you don't (or shouldn't) involve the courts in ethical disputes that do not involve illegal activity.

What did Apple do that was illegal???????

extremeskater

10-08-2007, 04:10 PM

Steve is gonna have to warm up to the idea of using the mob to fight off these lawsuits. :D

People are interesting. First they want to sue over a price drop then they want to sue because they can only use ATT. They knew they could only use ATT before they bought the phone. Im amazed that lawyers take cases like this.

extremeskater

10-08-2007, 04:15 PM

hey maybe i should file a suit against sony, hp, dell, gateway and all other PC computer manufacturer because they cannot install MAC OSX...

So what do you think of this lawsuit now?

Actually the lawsuit would be filed against Apple in that case they block OS X not the hardware manufacturers. Apple has always liked to create its own arena and then play only within that arena.

Now that more are switching to Apple products they do not like this approach because their use to a more open market. Im not saying these suits have merrit , not sure if they do or not but when people spend their money they don't want to function only in an Apple world.

GQB

10-08-2007, 04:39 PM

Apple has always liked to create its own arena and then play only within that arena.

Now that more are switching to Apple products they do not like this approach...

And Apple does not force anyone to come into the 'arena'.
If this nonsense gets pointed where it belongs (at the cell carriers and their tools in the legislature and regulatory agencies), then perhaps some good will come of it in the long run.
But Apple is just the most convenient 'deep pocket'.

You know, all of this pissing and moaning from the 'water to wine/whine' crowd (I want to put a V-8 Hemi on my lawn mower and want Apple to support it when I do) is really an interesting complement to Apple. Its the first device that actually is capable of doing all the things they want, and in the ultimate spirit of entitlement, the jailbreak crowd figures Apple somehow owes it to them to provide its platform as a playground.
That's the only thing I can think of that might result in the pathological ranting going on.

GQB

10-08-2007, 04:43 PM

What did Apple do that was illegal???????

Simple. They succeeded in creating a great product, and now the mob wants their piece of the action.

While I left the fold years ago, dig out your copy of Atlas Shrugged.
Ayn lays it out pretty well, bless her perverted little heart.

Clive At Five

10-08-2007, 04:49 PM

In all honesty, I think Apple should at least be held responsible for creating a restore tool to unbrick iPhones.

Why? Because the unlocks that people used on their iPhones ARE ALLOWED by the DMCA, and Apple made unusable the phones of those who did nothing illegal.

Those shouting about the EULA and "warnings" from Apple, hear this: Apple's governing over people's use of iPhones cannot violate the rights they have, which, in America, include the ability to modify one's phone in such a way. They don't have sovereign rule over what iPhone users can and can't do.

It would be like a landlord selling a lot in a Mall but forbidding the tennant and all employees from silently praying before they eat their lunch, or any other form of personal religious practice.

Personally practicing religion is legal in the US, and no one can forbid you from doing so. Likewise with phone, no one can prevent you from unlocking. Just because the athiest tennant wants to snub out all religous folk, doesn't mean it's legal to do so. Likewise, just because Apple wants to enforce AT&T use doesn't mean they can forcibly snub out unlockers.

Thus, I don't find it at all unreasonable to demand that Apple provide a way to unbrick, therefore allowing users either a chance to sign up for AT&T, or attempt unlocking again, with a working unit (at their own risk, of course).

Let me make it perfectly clear that I do NOT think Apple should be charged with supporting unlocked phones or phones with 3rd-party programs. Those should be "proceed-at-you-own-risk" activites. I only approve of the "unbricker."

By the way, before you opponents begin to flame me, I do not own an iPhone, so no, I am not biased.

-Clive

mdriftmeyer

10-08-2007, 04:55 PM

Your analogy is terrible because wanting to use an iPhone on T-Mobile isn't anywhere near as exotic or unreasonable idea as expecting imaginary programming from distant planets. Further, while it would a totally unreasonable expectation for a TV to keep working after its power cord has been cut, it's actually the more natural behavior for a GSM cell phone to work with any carrier the user likes, just by changing the SIM card. Being locked to one carrier is an artificial restriction that the cellphone maker has to go out of their way to create.

Re-read this sentence:

"On Friday, California resident Timothy Smith filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the company is violating the state's Cartwright Act by prohibiting iPhone consumers from using and purchasing cell phone service other than through AT&T."

The devil is in the unstated details. Clearly an iPhone customer can get service from carriers other than AT&T if they like -- they'd simply have to purchase an additional cell phone to do so. Does the law stipulate specifically, however, that a customer has to be able to get service from any carrier using any cellphone that they own, or a least any signal-compatible cell phone?

If the law actually dictates the latter, it's Apple who's guilty of not paying attention to "the rules" and stupidly expecting to do things the rules say they're not allowed to do, of entering into a deal with AT&T based on terms that perhaps they aren't legally allowed to enforce, at least in some states.

It might even be to Apple's advantage to lose this particular law suit. If Apple were forced by law to unlock the iPhone from being bound to AT&T -- either that or simply not sell iPhones in California or any other state with a similar laws -- I think AT&T would have to see the light at some point when losing all customers in some states (including a big state like California) is a worse deal than keeping exclusivity in the remaining states. Then Apple would be free from AT&T lock-in, could start selling to T-Mobile as well, and perhaps sell unlocked iPhones too.

T-Mobile determines which Phones work with their backbone, not Apple.

Sue away. Perhaps this lawsuit will force the Telcos to open up.

It won't hurt Apple sales and only do the heavy lifting for them.

GQB

10-08-2007, 04:59 PM

One more try.
1) Apple has no responsibility to build its business model around hand-holding geeks with nothing better to do than hack their phone, break it, and cry to mama.
2) "But its MY PHONE!!!"
Yup. Your phone, Apple's software/firmware. (Read your contract.) You can saw it in half and glue a propeller on it to try to fly, but that's not Apple's responsibility.
3) But they NEED US!!!
AAPL: 167.91 ( +6.4601 )
The market disagrees. In fact the case can be made that the more the Apple cat keeps bitch-slapping the trespassing mice, the more users with an interest in platform stability will embrace it.

scottiB

10-08-2007, 05:07 PM

Simple. They succeeded in creating a great product, and now the mob wants their piece of the action.

While I left the fold years ago, dig out your copy of Atlas Shrugged.
Ayn lays it out pretty well, bless her perverted little heart.

Indeed (an Objectivist that's left the fold, as well).

physguy

10-08-2007, 05:19 PM

quinney

10-08-2007, 05:24 PM

Let me make it perfectly clear that I do NOT think Apple should be charged with supporting unlocked phones or phones with 3rd-party programs. Those should be "proceed-at-you-own-risk" activites. I only approve of the "unbricker."
-Clive

That seems contradictory. Unbricking unlocked or software modified phones
IS supporting them. Do you think users should pay a fee to have their bricked
phones unbricked, or are you saying Apple should have to eat the expense
of doing it?

GQB

10-08-2007, 05:25 PM

Indeed (an Objectivist that's left the fold, as well).

There must be a 'recovered Objectivists' support group out there somewhere. :)
Appropriate nostalgia for post #100.

Hiro

10-08-2007, 05:42 PM

Why do so many folks think here is any law in the US that expressly requires phones to be unlockable? There isn't. Period.

The only thing that is remotely close is an interpretation of an exemption to the DMCA which states it is not illegal to unlock your own phone. This ruling was made in direct response to cell providers suing their customers in court for customers unlocking their phones. Can't do that anymore, but there is no law or ruling requiring unlocking. Further, providing tools to others to unlock their phones is not covered in that ruling since it specifically refers to individual customers.

Nothing in there saying you can unlock a phone and force the manufacturer to support it. Nothing saying a cell carrier has to provide an unlock code by law. Nothing saying a phone even has to be unlockable or remain unlocked forever once unlocked. The ruling just says you can't be held criminally or civilly liable for unlocking YOUR OWN phone if you have the means to do so.

So now let's quit with the false legal posturing and get on with a reasonable discussion. If you think locking is morally reprehensible, that's totally fine. But separate your opinions from legal requirements, they are completely different things.

SpamSandwich

10-08-2007, 05:49 PM

People are interesting. First they want to sue over a price drop then they want to sue because they can only use ATT. They knew they could only use ATT before they bought the phone. Im amazed that lawyers take cases like this.

Lawyers want money. They'll sue anyone for anything you want to sue them for.

Clive At Five

10-08-2007, 05:59 PM

OK, one more time.
1) DMCA, as enacted, forbids unlocking of phones. A three year exemption from prosecution is in place for personal unlocking of phones. This is not ALLOWED by the DMCA in this respect.

2) Apple did NOT make the phones unusable. The users did by upgrading, despite the warnings.

See above. To my knowledge there is no US law or constitutional amendment which gives anyone the RIGHT to unlock their phone, it is simply exempted from any criminal (and probably civil) action at this time. Somehow I don't think anyone will argue that this falls into any inalienable rights definition.

Cheers.

Yes, as you said, there's a three-year limitation on the exemption, but it is saying that cell phone unlocking IS NOT ILLEGAL (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061124-8280.html) for that time period. If something isn't illegal, then it's legal. Therefore an US resident DOES have the right to unlock his or her cell phone, at least within the next 2 years and 1 month.

That seems contradictory. Unbricking unlocked or software modified phones
IS supporting them. Do you think users should pay a fee to have their bricked
phones unbricked, or are you saying Apple should have to eat the expense
of doing it?

Since unlocking is legal, users who did so did nothing illegal and Apple shut them out of service. Users should not have to pay an extra fee to revert their phones back to an initial state. Notice I'm not talking about "support for bricked phones." I'm saying there should be a tool that will install a full working version of 1.1.1, not simply an update to 1.0.2. Even unlockers who have registered AT&T SIMs can't use their product and those who never used (but still own) their original SIMs can't activate with AT&T if they now want to.

Seeing as how they didn't do anything illegal, how is this just?

-Clive

physguy

10-08-2007, 06:00 PM

Lawyers want money. They'll sue anyone for anything you want to sue them for.

Here Here!!! Now if we could only get them to focus on suing each other we might create that snake that ate its own tail :):)

physguy

10-08-2007, 06:11 PM

Yes, as you said, there's a three-year limiation on the exemption, but it is saying that cell phone unlocking IS NOT ILLEGAL (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061124-8280.html). If something isn't illegal, then it's legal. Therefore an American DOES have the right to unlock his or her cell phone, at least within the next 2 years and 1 month.

Since unlocking is legal, users who did so did nothing illegal and Apple shut them out of service. Users should not have to pay an extra fee to revert their phones back to an initial state. Notice I'm not talking about "support for bricked phones." I'm saying there should be a tool that will install a full working version of 1.1.1, not simply an update to 1.0.2. Even unlockers who have registered AT&T SIMs can't use their product and those who never used (but still own) their original SIMs can't activate with AT&T if they now want to.

Seeing as how they didn't do anything illegal, how is this just?

-Clive

Something being legal and conferring a RIGHT are two entirely different concepts. If unlocking a phone is a RIGHT granted or recognized by the gov't then no (ordinary) contract can abrogate that right. As a US citizen you have the RIGHT to be free from various, defined, forms of discrimination. This right cannot be removed by a contract.

This is not the case with unlocking a phone. You are perfectly free to enter into a contract along the lines 'I won't unlock this phone if you do XYZ'. In point of fact those who unlocked their phones did breach a contract to which they had agreed - the EULA with Apple. That breach relieved Apple of further responsibility wrt the upgrade.

Is this just? Maybe, maybe not. Various opinions abound. Does Apple have any legal responsibility - no.

SpamSandwich

10-08-2007, 06:18 PM

Here Here!!! Now if we could only get them to focus on suing each other we might create that snake that ate its own tail :):)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worm_Ouroboros

t.o.m

10-08-2007, 06:41 PM

Judges should start locking up stupid MF's like this who waste my money to get rich because of there unbridled greed. They need to be required to serve 1000 + hours of community service cleaning toilets for people who have the runs to make up for this greedy f*****g attempt at wealth. Hell, we all want to be rich, what we're willing to do to get it is the only difference. We'll see. I wish Apple and other company's would crush there soul and make them wish they'd never been born for this kind of sh*t. Including Microsoft!!!!

johnqh

10-08-2007, 06:46 PM

extremeskater

10-08-2007, 06:48 PM

And Apple does not force anyone to come into the 'arena'.
If this nonsense gets pointed where it belongs (at the cell carriers and their tools in the legislature and regulatory agencies), then perhaps some good will come of it in the long run.
But Apple is just the most convenient 'deep pocket'.

You know, all of this pissing and moaning from the 'water to wine/whine' crowd (I want to put a V-8 Hemi on my lawn mower and want Apple to support it when I do) is really an interesting complement to Apple. Its the first device that actually is capable of doing all the things they want, and in the ultimate spirit of entitlement, the jailbreak crowd figures Apple somehow owes it to them to provide its platform as a playground.
That's the only thing I can think of that might result in the pathological ranting going on.

I never said anyone was forced, just that the population using Apple products is changing to a degree and many do not understand the switch. For those of us that have used Apple products in the past we understand the rules for a lack of better works.

As far as cell phones that doesn't matter to me I always buy mine at retail so I never get locked into a contract. Paying a few hundred for a cell phone has never bothered me, id rather have the freedom to use the provide of my choice and leave then when I chose.

As far as buying and iPhone anyone that didn't do their research before dropping down 600.00 in some cases are idiots. Some people just buy things based on a name not on needs. Im not saying the iPhone doesn't meet needs but I think people sometimes set their expectations to high for a first gen product.

As far as the whining I just believe the general population overall is stupid, they buy things before they think, they buy them based on a cool factor not based on what they really need. If a Mac Pro didn't suit my needs I would stop using one and ove to a PC, cool or not, if iLife, iWork, Photoshop CS3 didnt suit my needs I would find products that did. To me a phone, pc or whatever are tools I don't buy them based on how cool they look or a Steve Jobs keynote......:wow:

More people should take the approach. I still laugh when I read about people being pissed that Leopard still using aqua scroll bars, who gives a shit I could care less about how Leopard looks all I care about is what is offers me as an OS.

physguy

10-08-2007, 07:01 PM

Interesting .... nobody does the patent suit bashing on the DRM lawsuit this time?

Well, the patent's priority date was in 98. iTunes was released in 2001. Can anyone think of any prior art before 98? It looks like a solid patent to me.

OK. There are 4 independent claims in the patent 1, 21, 32 and 37. In reading these, to me, they seem to be variation of cookie-based web access to a site, with and without encryption, etc. They involve an automated login process with a unique key. This is analogous to a cookie base login where the 'unique key' is your login information and the automated process is the web browser getting the information from the cookie and transmitting to the server. Then add ssl for encryption, etc. There are some differences but I could certainly argue obviousness based on the above analogy. What I can't say for sure (from my memory) is if the cookie based interaction was in place in 1998.

Taskiss

10-08-2007, 07:41 PM

Interesting .... nobody does the patent suit bashing on the DRM lawsuit this time?

Well, the patent's priority date was in 98. iTunes was released in 2001. Can anyone think of any prior art before 98? It looks like a solid patent to me.Suit over DRM patent violations

Meanwhile, AppleInsider has learned that Apple on Friday was also named in new patent infringement suit along with digital media heavyweights Microsoft, Blockbuster, Sony, and Macrovision, as well as adult content providers Playboy and Hustler.

The 11-page complaint, filed in the patent litigation-friendly district of Tyler, Texas, charges each of the firms with violating U.S. patent #6389541 for "Regulating Access to Digital Content," which was issued to Digital Reg of Texas, LLC in May of 2002.

"Upon information and belief, Apple has infringed and continues to infringe the [...] patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, digital content incorporating DRM technology," the suit claims. "Apple provides such content through its iTunes Music Store and its iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store. Apple further provides controlled access and play out of digital content incorporating DRM technology through its iTunes Player. Apple also provides controlled access of digital content through its FairPlay Platform."Here's prior art before '98... Recordable Audio CD's use SCMS (Serial Copy Management System), an early form of digital rights management (DRM), to conform to the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act).
Mon, 7 Apr 1997 01:02:57 +0200

Hello DAT-Heads ...

> >1) Are all commercially produced CDs bought from our local music store
> >(HMV, SAM the record man, TOWER Records, Sunrise or whatever) able to be
> >digitally transferred to DAT with NO PROBLEMS?
>
> Almost all CDs have the SCMS code 11, which means 1 more copy, so you
> can copy them digitally to a consumer dat deck (but you'll get a tape
> with 10, which cannot be copied digitally to a consumer deck). (The
> scms code for CDs was defined that way, which explains the unintuitive
> numbering scheme. CDs don't really have SCMS, but they have a
> "copyright asserted" bit (which is the first bit of their "scms"), and
> a "generation" bit (which is always 1, since CDs aren't masters)
> (which was used as the second bit of their "scms").)
http://www.fet.uni-hannover.de/~purnhage/dat/scms.txt

SCMS came before this patent.

rjwill246

10-08-2007, 07:51 PM

johnqh

10-08-2007, 08:30 PM

Here's prior art before '98...
http://www.fet.uni-hannover.de/~purnhage/dat/scms.txt

SCMS came before this patent.

Did you read the patent claims? It is not about copy protection, which has prior arts all over the place. It is about having copy protection for online distributed materials.

Please, read and understand before you post.

johnqh

10-08-2007, 08:48 PM

OK. There are 4 independent claims in the patent 1, 21, 32 and 37. In reading these, to me, they seem to be variation of cookie-based web access to a site, with and without encryption, etc. They involve an automated login process with a unique key. This is analogous to a cookie base login where the 'unique key' is your login information and the automated process is the web browser getting the information from the cookie and transmitting to the server. Then add ssl for encryption, etc. There are some differences but I could certainly argue obviousness based on the above analogy. What I can't say for sure (from my memory) is if the cookie based interaction was in place in 1998.

Cookies were introduced in 1994. However, it is probably pretty difficult to argue it is obvious, because an average engineer in multimedia delivery (especially in 1998) probably is not an expert in web browser implementation, so this is not something "obvious" to an average person in trade.

To make it worse, I will bet that both Microsoft and Apple applied for patents for their version of DRM, which will in turn validate this particular patent.

This is the second patent lawsuit against Apple which I consider valid (last one was the one against Nike/Apple).

ros3ntan

10-08-2007, 08:59 PM

Actually the lawsuit would be filed against Apple in that case they block OS X not the hardware manufacturers. Apple has always liked to create its own arena and then play only within that arena.

Now that more are switching to Apple products they do not like this approach because their use to a more open market. Im not saying these suits have merrit , not sure if they do or not but when people spend their money they don't want to function only in an Apple world.

Ohh thanks extremeskater for correcting me, i did not know that.

i'll take that one back. but I think it is still important to say that the rest is true

physguy

10-08-2007, 09:32 PM

Cookies were introduced in 1994. However, it is probably pretty difficult to argue it is obvious, because an average engineer in multimedia delivery (especially in 1998) probably is not an expert in web browser implementation, so this is not something "obvious" to an average person in trade.

The actual requirement for obviousness is to one 'skilled' in the trade. Anyone dealing with network transmission of data was, or should reasonably, have been aware of web/html/http standard practices.

To make it worse, I will bet that both Microsoft and Apple applied for patents for their version of DRM, which will in turn validate this particular patent.

Not necessarily as long as they dealt with specific implementation issues and not such a overly (IMO) broad claim set.

This is the second patent lawsuit against Apple which I consider valid (last one was the one against Nike/Apple).

The main problem I have with this, and similar patents, is there is no reduction to practice nor pursuit of implementation. I know this is not a legal requirement at this time but IMO it should be.

I still believe the combination of similarity to other technologies at the time, and the heft of the defenders will lead to either a defeat of this or a small/quick settlement.

EagerDragon

10-08-2007, 10:06 PM

iPhone91

10-08-2007, 10:48 PM

When will people learn...
If you don't like the terms of the iPhone, then don't get one!

JRG

10-08-2007, 11:57 PM

Did you read the patent claims? It is not about copy protection, which has prior arts all over the place. It is about having copy protection for online distributed materials.

Please, read and understand before you post.

I disagree with your reading.

It appears to me to patent unlocking existing content on your computer. Not downloading content.

I would say this lawsuit would cover things like the old multimedia CD's which came with a certain amount of content and then you paid to access extras that were already there. Perhaps a better modern example is shareware, the content is already downloaded and you pay to receive more rights and capabilities after using it for a bit.

I don't see it applying to the iTunes music store where none of the content exists on your hard-drive until you download it (which is after paying for it). Note the language only talks about downloading the token, not the content.

It also does not appear to cover the authorisation of an iTunes library on a new computer because that does not involve an extra payment.

ravedog

10-09-2007, 12:35 AM

three little words....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfO9JUNXN7U
:D

mr O

10-09-2007, 02:59 AM

I am a bit puzzled: unlike the iPhone one can surf the net with the iPod touch and any mac without having to lock yourself into a silly 2 year contract.

The iPhone is a great product by Apple. The problem is that they are locking you into a questionable two year eco system where Apple takes 30% of your monthly AT&T bill. Apple therefore is a part time service provider.

palegolas

10-09-2007, 03:09 AM

I hacked your phone, and now it's uncompatible with your software update. I*LL SUE YOU!

It's like hacking a DVD player's firmware to play region free, and then try an official firmware update. There is no guarantee it'll work.

Other than that.. I think Apple should have the same attitude with iPhone as with iTunes Plus. No sim lock, but it will be sold only with their selected operator of choice. That way it'll work like today, only if there's people willing pay for two operators to use iPhone on their selected operator of choice, then so be it.

edit: Personally though, really, wouldn't iPhone be better off totally operator free? Operators would probably want to install the visual voice mail and other small iPhone only details as a competitive offer.

pmjoe

10-09-2007, 04:35 AM

I think I posted this in another thread, but I still believe it all comes down to intent. If Apple intentionally released a software update that was designed to brick hacked iPhones, I could see where they could be held liable for it. But that is different than if a software update just happened to be incompatible with hacked iPhones and the failure was unintentional.

You bought the device, you have the right to modify it ... with the understanding that at some point in the process Apple is likely no longer required to provide warranty coverage for it. If you have modified the device to work with some other provider, whether the device works on that network is between you and that other provider. Apple is not allowed to intentionally damage your property.

I continue to find it disconcerting that DMCA comes up when discussing this. DMCA has to do with copying, protecting copyrights, making measures which circumvent copyright protecton illegal. Despite some odd ruling from the US copyright office claiming a relationship, the intent of the DCMA had absolutely nothing to do with phone unlocking. It certainly has nothing to do with protecting companies' software licenses. Any use of DMCA by a company to defend phone locking is a gross misuse of the intent of DMCA. You should be outraged, and you should let your legislators know about it.

Kishan

10-09-2007, 05:49 AM

There was some nice commentary on this issue in last week's episode of MacBreakWeekly. Their panel seemed to come down hard on Apple for carrying out this un Apple-like action. For weeks Apple was silent and essentially gave tacit approval for the hacking of the phone. It's a very anti-consumer piece of action. Whether Apple was compelled to do this by AT&T is certainly a question. As an Apple Fan, I would be willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt on this issue.

What I cannot believe, is that thus far, Apple has not offered a way back into the proverbial fold. Speculation is that there is a kickback to Apple from AT&T on each contract. Apple ought to provide some kind of amnesty to people with bricked iPhones to come back into the Apple/AT&T fold, if for no other reason than the revenue stream which is generated for Apple.

lfmorrison

10-09-2007, 07:07 AM

Something being legal and conferring a RIGHT are two entirely different concepts. If unlocking a phone is a RIGHT granted or recognized by the gov't then no (ordinary) contract can abrogate that right. As a US citizen you have the RIGHT to be free from various, defined, forms of discrimination. This right cannot be removed by a contract.

This is not the case with unlocking a phone. You are perfectly free to enter into a contract along the lines 'I won't unlock this phone if you do XYZ'. In point of fact those who unlocked their phones did breach a contract to which they had agreed - the EULA with Apple. That breach relieved Apple of further responsibility wrt the upgrade.

Is this just? Maybe, maybe not. Various opinions abound. Does Apple have any legal responsibility - no.

But there's the kink in your argument. People who have modified their software for the purpose of operating on a different network have not violated the language of the EULA.

The pertinent section of the EULA reads like this:
(c) Except as and only to the extent permitted by applicable law, or by licensing terms governing use of open-sourced components included with the iPhone Software, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, modify, or create derivative works of the iPhone Software, iPhone Software Updates, or any part thereof.
The key words here are "Except as ... permitted by applicable law..."

Since SIM unlocking is currently specifically permitted by applicable law, such an act is exempted from the EULA.

I still don't think Apple is doing anything wrong with the simple act of releasing a firmware upghrade that isn't compatible with certain modifications. I don't think that Apple is obliged to provide ongoing support for all the myriad different techniques of unlocking that have sprouted up so far.

However, I do think that Apple has a duty to provide a mechanism for reverting these legally modified, EULA-compliant, phones back to a factory-approved (SIM-locked, if absolutely necessary) state.

If Apple could find some way of providing a legitimate means of unlocking the phones through official channels, even for a fee, then they would close the loop-hole that the DMCA exemption provides. Then, they'd no longer need to worry about any of this because at that point there would only remain one possible legitimate mechanism for SIM unlocking (therefore it would be easy to provide official support). Everybody else would unambiguously be in violation of the EULA, and Apple would no longer have any duty of care for them.

Hell, even if Apple would admit that the hardware really is subsidized (via the ongoing cut that AT&T is paying back to Apple from the monthly service fees), then I'd feel a little better about all of this, because then it would be clearly established that the iPhone hardware itself is still Apple's property and therefore the end-user doesn't have any property rights to it at all until the end of the contract. (Yes, I understand that the software itself always has remained Apple's exclusive property, and that it was only licensed to the end-user despite the end user's ownership of the physical hardware. That's the reason why the EULA, and the rights conferred by the EULA, exist.)

minderbinder

10-09-2007, 07:42 AM

Since unlocking is legal, users who did so did nothing illegal and Apple shut them out of service. Users should not have to pay an extra fee to revert their phones back to an initial state.

While users have the right to hack their phones, that doesn't mean Apple has to make it easy for them, or support their phones after hacking.

Legality has nothing to do with it. It's also legal for users to pry open their iPhone and fill it with mayonnaise. But the fact that that's legal doesn't mean that apple has to make sure their phone works after that.

People need to take responsibility for their actions. If you hack a product, you may break it. Apple warned that hacks could brick the phone, and word got out fast that 1.1.1 caused problems. I have a hard time feeling bad for anyone who was careless enough to end up with a bricked phone.

Messiah

10-09-2007, 08:14 AM

Greed vs. Stupidity.

roehlstation

10-09-2007, 09:00 AM

"On Friday, California resident Timothy Smith filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the company is violating the state's Cartwright Act by prohibiting iPhone consumers from using and purchasing cell phone service other than through AT&T."

I'd love for Apple's response to this to be not selling the iPhone in California. Since it is ONLY a California Law.

physguy

10-09-2007, 09:07 AM

But there's the kink in your argument. People who have modified their software for the purpose of operating on a different network have not violated the language of the EULA.

The pertinent section of the EULA reads like this:

The key words here are "Except as ... permitted by applicable law..."

Since SIM unlocking is currently specifically permitted by applicable law, such an act is exempted from the EULA.

I still don't think Apple is doing anything wrong with the simple act of releasing a firmware upghrade that isn't compatible with certain modifications. I don't think that Apple is obliged to provide ongoing support for all the myriad different techniques of unlocking that have sprouted up so far.

However, I do think that Apple has a duty to provide a mechanism for reverting these legally modified, EULA-compliant, phones back to a factory-approved (SIM-locked, if absolutely necessary) state.

If Apple could find some way of providing a legitimate means of unlocking the phones through official channels, even for a fee, then they would close the loop-hole that the DMCA exemption provides. Then, they'd no longer need to worry about any of this because at that point there would only remain one possible legitimate mechanism for SIM unlocking (therefore it would be easy to provide official support). Everybody else would unambiguously be in violation of the EULA, and Apple would no longer have any duty of care for them.

Hell, even if Apple would admit that the hardware really is subsidized (via the ongoing cut that AT&T is paying back to Apple from the monthly service fees), then I'd feel a little better about all of this, because then it would be clearly established that the iPhone hardware itself is still Apple's property and therefore the end-user doesn't have any property rights to it at all until the end of the contract. (Yes, I understand that the software itself always has remained Apple's exclusive property, and that it was only licensed to the end-user despite the end user's ownership of the physical hardware. That's the reason why the EULA, and the rights conferred by the EULA, exist.)

Very interesting view. The next question that would arise is did those that did this modification (SIM Unlocking) do ONLY this modification, as that is the only loophole provided by your analysis (which seems right). If they also added other applications, etc., then they are still in violation.

I agree that Apple still has no responsibility to make sure updates work with the modified phones and now I wonder if this type of analysis is WHY they issued the warning. This would cover them WRT bricked phones.

Personally I think that anyone that SIM unlocked their phone and then upgraded following the warning, which I believe is given right at the time you start the upgrade, is pretty stupid. I also believe its the responsibility of those who modified the SIM to provide the restore function.

shetline

10-09-2007, 09:55 AM

I hacked your phone, and now it's uncompatible with your software update. I*LL SUE YOU!
Whether or not the suit has merit, you're completely misunderstanding the basis of the suit. The suit is over the fact that non-defeatable carrier locking exists in the first place, not that someone's hacks are incompatible with a software update.

The only relationship between the hacks and the suit is that if the hacks worked and continued to work, there'd be less reason to pursue a suit to try to force unlocking.

BobWeber

10-09-2007, 10:11 AM

Earlier today I blogged the following re the patent being asserted against Apple:

SPAMMMMMMMMMMMM

The main point is that there appears to be prior art to the asserted patent that may call its validity into question. The details are in my blogicle.

Cheers

johnqh

10-09-2007, 10:22 AM

Earlier today I blogged the following re the patent being asserted against Apple:

Deleted -JL

The main point is that there appears to be prior art to the asserted patent that may call its validity into question. The details are in my blogicle.

Cheers

That's a cheap shot to lead people to your blog.

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 10:42 AM

While users have the right to hack their phones, that doesn't mean Apple has to make it easy for them, or support their phones after hacking.

Legality has nothing to do with it. It's also legal for users to pry open their iPhone and fill it with mayonnaise. But the fact that that's legal doesn't mean that apple has to make sure their phone works after that.

Except the difference with mayonaise is that it would probably immediately render the unit inoperable... That would be sabotaging your own product and no one would have sympathy for you.

Unlocking 1.0.2 does not destroy anything and leaves the unit in perfect working condition. It's not a malicious act, and until 1.1.1 came around, the unlock process had NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS on units. Users didn't destroy their phones... Apple did. You said youself that users have the right to hack their phones... By doing something that destroyed legally modified phones, Apple has essentially committed the malicious act.

That's why I believe Apple should release a restore tool or (as EagerDragon suggested) an in-house Apple repair program which would dissuade users from attempting hacking in the first place in fear of bricking the unit, paying to ship, and waiting a couple weeks for the fix... time and time again.

I DO NOT (nor have I ever) agree with the idea of Apple supporting hacked phones... only restoring of Apple-bricked phones.

-Clive

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 10:52 AM

I hacked your phone, and now it's uncompatible with your software update. I*LL SUE YOU!

It's like hacking a DVD player's firmware to play region free, and then try an official firmware update. There is no guarantee it'll work.

The difference is that SIM-unlocking is legal, while region-0-hacking a DVD player is not. Manufacturers will provide you with a means of altering this if you are legitamately moving to a different region.

Other than that.. I think Apple should have the same attitude with iPhone as with iTunes Plus. No sim lock, but it will be sold only with their selected operator of choice. That way it'll work like today, only if there's people willing pay for two operators to use iPhone on their selected operator of choice, then so be it.

I agree that this would be a smart option. They'll sell such a greater volume of phones that it'll make it worth the lost profit sharing.

edit: Personally though, really, wouldn't iPhone be better off totally operator free? Operators would probably want to install the visual voice mail and other small iPhone only details as a competitive offer.

Most certainly other providers would want to add VVM compatability, not only for use with the iPhone, but for other emerging products. The incentive is high. Unfortunately, I think Apple was a little desperate to jump into a contract and AT&T took them from the rear, in this respect. In other respects, Apple got the better end of the deal, such as with the profit sharing on a phone that, likely, isn't even subsidiezed at all. Well, maybe it is now, after the $200 price-drop, but as suggested, I think many would pay and extra hundred or two for an unlocked unit. You all remember when GeoHot's model... some guy traded his car for it. Obviously some people would be willing to pay more than others :rolleyes::no::lol:

-Clive

quinney

10-09-2007, 11:35 AM

I also believe its the responsibility of those who modified the SIM to provide the restore function.

Correct. They should always do that first, before moving on to
subvert each Apple firmware update. As the altruistic saviours
of the computer using world, they will doubtless do it this way.

onlooker

10-09-2007, 11:49 AM

Total bullshit lawsuit. I can't say I see any reason reason why Apple is responsible for any of this. I've read every post, and I just don't agree with any of the analogies of Apple being at fault, or Apple being required to un-brick phones through warranty, and a user agreement that has been violated. They new when they violated the agreement what they were doing, and now their crying about it. How pathetic a child are you?

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 12:41 PM

They new when they violated the agreement what they were doing, and now their crying about it. How pathetic a child are you?

You mean like they knew how it was legal to unlock their phones? You mean like how Apple destroyed the phones of those who did nothing illegal and offered no remedy? And now how all of us are crying about it even though I don't even own an iPhone but 1.1.1 still personally damaged me? And how this obviously makes me a pathetic child because I refuse to support corporations limiting consumer rights?

Obviously.
:rolleyes: :no:

-Clive

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 12:53 PM

On a different note...

AT&T-registered iPhone users seem to be taking great personal offense to this, and I honestly can't figure out why? Honestly, why does it bother you that Joe Schmoe unlocked his iPhone? This doesn't involve you. You made the choice to fit inside the Apple-AT&T box, so stay in it, and stay out of the hair of those who legally chose not to. Maybe they have a case, maybe they don't. I happen to think they might.

As a potential future iPhone user, the result of this suit has particular intrest to me. For those of you with AT&T already, this will have no effect on you. Your only intent here is bashing those who think they have a right to legally use their product in an alternative way. Don't you support consumer's chioce or are you fine with corporate entities writing the laws on what we can and can't do?

-Clive

Maestro64

10-09-2007, 01:50 PM

GQB

10-09-2007, 02:32 PM

On a different note...

AT&T-registered iPhone users seem to be taking great personal offense to this,
-Clive

Not personal offense, but protection of our interests, yes.

This issue, which has been self-inflicted by a tiny sliver of iPhone users, has been ignorantly picked up by the MSN as proof that
- Apple hates its customers
- Apple has intentionally sabotaged its users
- Apple forces its updates
ad nauseum.

I don't blame the media (many of whom are in the pocket of vested anti-Apple interests) and actually don't blame the 'I want my features NOWWWWW' crowd.
I do, however, feel a responsibility to support those who have voiced reasonable arguments about personal responsibility to keep this baby from being smothered in its crib.

BTW, the argument that those supplying these gun-jumping hacks should be the ones responsible for providing the restore feature is brilliant.
Well put.

Footloose301

10-09-2007, 02:37 PM

hey maybe i should file a suit against sony, hp, dell, gateway and all other PC computer manufacturer because they cannot install MAC OSX...

maybe i should file another lawsuit for all the game makers that have exclusive deals with Sony or XBox or nintendo..

Maybe i should file another lawsuit for Halo 3 makers for making it only for XBOX.. I WANT TO PLAY HALO 3 ON PS3 OR I'LL SUE YOU.

there are many other examples.

So what do you think of this lawsuit now?

Exactly. You beat me to it. I was going to use the Halo 3 analogy. I'm so glad people that unlocked phones are now used as paper weights. Maybe they'll be a bit more wise next time. If you didn't want AT&T then don't buy the phone. Nobody forced you. And if you couldn't live without the iPhone then you had to make a comprimise. Just like Halo 3. A lot of people, even PS3 owners bought an XBOX360 just for Halo 3. Same concept. The iPhone was to be used ONLY on AT&T as Halo 3 was to be used ONLY on XBOX360. Some people had to try to be a smartass about it and unlock the phone, good for them. They got what they deserved.

I do however believe that anybody who has an unlocked phone should be allowed to have to restored so that its not a paperweight. Apple should do that much.

physguy

10-09-2007, 02:44 PM

You mean like they knew how it was legal to unlock their phones? You mean like how Apple destroyed the phones of those who did nothing illegal and offered no remedy? And now how all of us are crying about it even though I don't even own an iPhone but 1.1.1 still personally damaged me? And how this obviously makes me a pathetic child because I refuse to support corporations limiting consumer rights?

Obviously.
:rolleyes: :no:

-Clive

OK I'll try one last time, and I'll use caps to try and get through. APPLE DID NOT BRICK THEIR PHONES, THEY DID. THEY INSTALLED 1.1.1 DESPITE AMPLE WARNINGS OF THE CONSEQUENCE!!!!! YOU ARE CORRECT THAT WHAT THEY DID WAS LEGAL BUT THEY CAUSED THEIR PROBLEMS, NOT APPLE!!!!!!

OK????

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 02:52 PM

What floors me about this and the arguments and justifactions people use is like you had no other choice or option. These people did not have to buy an iphone nor did they have to do business with AT&T. You and everyone else have a choose so stop acting like you do not and exercise your choose.

They were exercising their right to choose:

1) Don't buy an iPhone
2) Buy an iPhone and register with AT&T
3) Buy an iPhone an LEGALLY UNLOCK IT.

All three are equally viable options.

If they did not want to be deal with AT&T and the iphone go somewhere else. (1) By the way its no different than going to Verizon and getting or buying a phone then trying to take that phone to AT&T and demanding them to make the Verizon phone work on thier network. If Apple had a deal with Verizon do you think Verizon would let you use the phone with say Sprint of Altel. (2)un top of that you know Verizon disable feature in many of the phones so your required to pay them to get ring tones, transfer pictures and so on, why hasn't people sued over this.

Point (1): No one is taking the iPhone to Verizon and asking them to make it work. The correct version of you analogy is as such: Bill buys a Vphone from the Verizon store. Later on, he decides he wants to use the Vphone on AT&T's network. He then calls the manufacturer who tells Bill that the phone was designed for Verizon only. This is an accurate analogy. My responce remains the same: Bill's options are to stay with Verizon, or legally unlock his phone to use it with another carrier.

Point (2): Phone features are different than carrier choice, which is the subject of the DMCA exemption. Therefore hacking to gain access to those features is not legal. Few are disputing this.

(3)People go out and read the laws around warranties and you will soon find out you can not change, modify or use a product however you like without the possibility of voiding your warranty. (4)Remember Apple never said they are baring you from moding or doing what every you want with the phone, (5)hell, you can throw it against the wall if you like, but there is no law that says they must honor a warranty if you do so. (6)You got an implied warranty which mean it assume you did nothing wrong and it was due to Apples or its supplier doing. Do what every you like with any product you buy, but do not expect that you will not have to pay to replace or repair what you did to the product outside what the manufacturers says is ok

Point (3): Except for the following 6 exemptions:
Exemptions are allowed for 1) the educational library of a university's media studies department, in order to watch film clips in class; 2) using computer software that requires the original disks or hardware in order to run; 3) dongle-protected computer programs, if the the dongle no longer functions and a replacement cannot be found; 4) protected e-books, in order to use screen-reader software; 5) cell phone firmware that ties a phone to a specific wireless network; and 6) DRM software included on audio CDs, but only when such software creates security vulnerabilities on personal computers.

Point (4): Yes they did (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2007/09/18/apple-to-actively-stop-sim-unlocking/).

Point (5): Uhh.... Throwing your iPhone against the wall is a malicious act which will likely disable your iPhone, and cause irreparable damage to the phone. Carrier-unlocking is not malicious and does not destroy or disable the iPhone in any way. It was the 1.1.1 firmware that did that. That's why I believe Apple should create a tool to restore the phones that they bricked to a working but locked version of 1.1.1.

Point (6): Since unlocking is legal, users who did so (by your own statement) did nothing wrong. Thus, as you said, Apple is in charge of repairing the problem.

Users who hacked purely to install 3rd party apps... that's a different story but unlocking is legal and Apple should remedy the phones they bricked.

-Clive

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 02:57 PM

Footloose301

10-09-2007, 03:00 PM

Okay, I see your point, users don't HAVE to install 1.1.1, but before the update, it wasn't known that the next firmware would brick the iPhone. Since there's no official complete restore, users who no longer wish to unlock don't even have a way to return back into the environment. Do you not think Apple should give them a way to do so?

-Clive

Apple did give people several warnings before the update came out also. So not only did people NOT have to install the update, they were also well aware of the consequences, but they did it anyways.

I believe there should be a complete "Restore" on iTunes that would allow the iPhone to become "new" again and eveything would be back to normal.

GQB

10-09-2007, 03:04 PM

OK I'll try one last time, and I'll use caps to try and get through. APPLE DID NOT BRICK THEIR PHONES, THEY DID. THEY INSTALLED 1.1.1 DESPITE AMPLE WARNINGS OF THE CONSEQUENCE!!!!! YOU ARE CORRECT THAT WHAT THEY DID WAS LEGAL BUT THEY CAUSED THEIR PROBLEMS, NOT APPLE!!!!!!

OK????

No, its a subtle concept, and maybe just repetition will work as well as shouting.

i=1;
while (i > 0){
Device owners are indeed perfectly within their rights to unlock their phones.
In the real world up to this point, such hacks were additionally pretty benign, since most cell phone manufacturers manufacture crap, hard-wired devices that were rarely, if ever, updated. Most user just periodically got a new phone.

But with the iPhone, the era of software-based, and frequently updated phones arrives.
And if the method used for that unlock conflicts with the software manufacturer's contractual and ethical obligation to provide updates and security fixes (particularly if the fix addresses the method used for the unlocking), then I'm sorry, but the manufacturer and its 99% use-as-is base wins.

}

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 03:08 PM

Exactly. You beat me to it. I was going to use the Halo 3 analogy. I'm so glad people that unlocked phones are now used as paper weights. Maybe they'll be a bit more wise next time. If you didn't want AT&T then don't buy the phone. Nobody forced you. And if you couldn't live without the iPhone then you had to make a comprimise. Just like Halo 3. A lot of people, even PS3 owners bought an XBOX360 just for Halo 3. Same concept. The iPhone was to be used ONLY on AT&T as Halo 3 was to be used ONLY on XBOX360. Some people had to try to be a smartass about it and unlock the phone, good for them. They got what they deserved.

I do however believe that anybody who has an unlocked phone should be allowed to have to restored so that its not a paperweight. Apple should do that much.

For the three millionth time, it's legal to unlock your phone.

There's no clause in the DMCA (or any law, for that matter) requiring that game developers port their software to operate on different consoles.

There is, however, an examption made for users who want to unlock their mobile phones. It's not about people having their cake and eating it too. It's about consumers not being controlled by corporations. Apparently you want corporations to win.

I would say to any of you who paid extra to get an iPhone (termination fees, non-expired plans with other carriers, higher plan rates) got what YOU deserved for not standing up for your rights as a consumer. Other countries look at us and see that Americans are the bitches of corporations. How come no one here can see it?

-Clive

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 03:14 PM

Apple did give people several warnings before the update came out also. So not only did people NOT have to install the update, they were also well aware of the consequences, but they did it anyways.

There were methods of unlocking available before Apple issued any sort of official warning. There were most certainly many users who unlocked their phones before they knew it could never be officially restored again.

I believe there should be a complete "Restore" on iTunes that would allow the iPhone to become "new" again and eveything would be back to normal.

This is all I've been pushing for. A way to put all the Firmware, and all the software back to a factory state. I haven't been pushing for an Apple-sanctioned unlock, nor their support of 3rd party apps. Just a Restore Tool.

-Clive

Taskiss

10-09-2007, 03:17 PM

GQB

10-09-2007, 03:18 PM

It's about consumers not being controlled by corporations. Apparently you want corporations to win.

-Clive

Actually the irony in my case is that I'm of the 'corporations as sociopaths' school of thought myself.
But the problem is the bought-and-sold legislative and regulatory process we now have that essentially puts Apple in an untenable situation.
They do have contractual obligations to its partners, as distasteful as you and I both find them.
But the answer is not to shoot ourselves in the foot by laying down in front of the train (which is essentially what hacking the firmware of a nascent OS really is), or to demand that Apple forgo partnering opportunities (that, yes, will require lock-in for a period) but to work to fix the insanity of our telecom regulation mechanisms and laws.
Starting with repeal of 'corporate personhood'.

cheers

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 03:20 PM

Footloose301

10-09-2007, 03:20 PM

For the three millionth time, it's legal to unlock your phone.

Congrats. We all know this. Its also legal to read the newspaper as you drive, but you shouldn't because of the consequences. As it is legal to unlock the phone, its not right. The iPhone was NOT designed to work on other carriers, so it should not be done. Period.

GQB

10-09-2007, 03:31 PM

Its also legal to read the newspaper as you drive, but you shouldn't because of the consequences.

Not in California. Let me know what state you live in so that I can avoid it.

(edit: woah... just did a quick google search, and couldn't find ANYTHING indicating that reading while driving is indeed illegal (yet) in CA.
That scares the crap out of me.)

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 03:40 PM

Actually the irony in my case is that I'm of the 'corporations as sociopaths' school of thought myself.
But the problem is the bought-and-sold legislative and regulatory process we now have that essentially puts Apple in an untenable situation.
They do have contractual obligations to its partners, as distasteful as you and I both find them.
But the answer is not to shoot ourselves in the foot by laying down in front of the train (which is essentially what hacking the firmware of a nascent OS really is), or to demand that Apple forgo partnering opportunities (that, yes, will require lock-in for a period) but to work to fix the insanity of our telecom regulation mechanisms and laws.
Starting with repeal of 'corporate personhood'.

cheers

Very good thoughts. I agree in many places, especially in reforming the whole Corporate Personhood (Juristic Person?) concept. Where to start though...........?

-Clive

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 03:51 PM

Congrats. We all know this. Its also legal to read the newspaper as you drive, but you shouldn't because of the consequences. As it is legal to unlock the phone, its not right. The iPhone was NOT designed to work on other carriers, so it should not be done. Period.

Not designed to? How not?

Should not be done? Why not?

If you start talking about features like VVM, I will just laugh at you. That's a minor part of the phone as a whole.

The associated carrier affects only a few things: the phone function, EDGE, VVM. The first has no effect on its operation. The second won't affect TMoblie users, and will barely affect users who spend most of their time in a city blanketed in WiFi (as most are these days). The third is a minor feature, like I said. You can still dial in to voicemail, like the good old days. I don't see this hampering my potential iPhone experience.

So explain to me how it's "just not right" to unlock the iPhone.

And while you're at it, you still have not justified how this is at all similar to running Halo 3 on PS3 or whatever. How about you explain that for me too.

-Clive

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 03:59 PM

Not in California. Let me know what state you live in so that I can avoid it.

(edit: woah... just did a quick google search, and couldn't find ANYTHING indicating that reading while driving is indeed illegal (yet) in CA.
That scares the crap out of me.)

I got a lady pulled over for reading a novel (yes, that's right, a NOVEL) in the car while driving... with young children. I followed her for about 10 miles then called the highway patrol and continued following for another 20 miles. The highway Patrol pulled her over... after 30 seconds of unnoticed lights, the patrolman had to blast the sirens for a moment and the lady almost swerved off the road.

They called me the following week and told me they gave her a warning. How lame.

She puts my life and the life of her young children at danger and doesn't get a ticket. Someone legally hacks their iPhone, harms no one and deserves to get punished for it. How is that fair???

Oh, and before you ask, GQB, it was in Minnesota. Avoid I-94 between St. Cloud and Rogers ;)

-Clive

Footloose301

10-09-2007, 04:07 PM

Not designed to? How not?

Should not be done? Why not?

If you start talking about features like VVM, I will just laugh at you. That's a minor part of the phone as a whole.

The associated carrier affects only a few things: the phone function, EDGE, VVM. The first has no effect on its operation. The second won't affect TMoblie users, and will barely affect users who spend most of their time in a city blanketed in WiFi (as most are these days). The third is a minor feature, like I said. You can still dial in to voicemail, like the good old days. I don't see this hampering my potential iPhone experience.

So explain to me how it's "just not right" to unlock the iPhone.

And while you're at it, you still have not justified how this is at all similar to running Halo 3 on PS3 or whatever. How about you explain that for me too.

-Clive

Heres what I'm talking about when I said Apple designed it for AT&T....
1. Look on the iPhone itself. What does it say? AT&T
2. Check out the commercials. Do they say "Works on T-mobile too". I don't think so.

Apple made the phone to work with AT&T. If they wanted to give you the option to go to T-Mobile or whoever then they would have given you that option. Just because the iPhone works to 50% of its abilities on another network does not mean you should do that. Thats like saying "my car runs good with one donut tire". You can't go over 50mph, it doesn't look right, and the car wasn't designed to be run with a donut on all the time, its a temporary fix until you get home.

And as for explaining the Halo 3, I don't have to. You should be able to put that one together yourself. But just in case you've been asleep; Halo 3 was designed to work on ONLY the XBOX360 like I have already said, Not the PS3. Do you think its right for somebody to make an XBOX360 emulator for the PS3 so that you'd be able to play Halo 3 on the PS3? Just like the emulators for the iPhone so you can play Nintendo.

Footloose301

10-09-2007, 04:11 PM

She puts my life and the life of her young children at danger and doesn't get a ticket. Someone legally hacks their iPhone, harms no one and deserves to get punished for it. How is that fair???

-Clive

That analogy had nothing to do with somebody's well being. They deserve to get punished for it because AT&T would be making money each month and they're not thanks to these people. Thats almost considered stealing IMHO. Look at all of the these record companies sueing people. And as I know, I know. Its legal to unlock the SIM.

Footloose301

10-09-2007, 04:13 PM

I got a lady pulled over for reading a novel (yes, that's right, a NOVEL) in the car while driving... with young children. I followed her for about 10 miles then called the highway patrol and continued following for another 20 miles. The highway Patrol pulled her over... after 30 seconds of unnoticed lights, the patrolman had to blast the sirens for a moment and the lady almost swerved off the road.

-Clive

Thank you. Those are the people that need to be in the passenger's seat. Along with those that think turn signals are optional. Thats my biggest pet peeve.

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 04:40 PM

Heres what I'm talking about when I said Apple designed it for AT&T....
1. Look on the iPhone itself. What does it say? AT&T
2. Check out the commercials. Do they say "Works on T-mobile too". I don't think so.

Apple made the phone to work with AT&T. If they wanted to give you the option to go to T-Mobile or whoever then they would have given you that option. Just because the iPhone works to 50% of its abilities on another network does not mean you should do that. Thats like saying "my car runs good with one donut tire". You can't go over 50mph, it doesn't look right, and the car wasn't designed to be run with a donut on all the time, its a temporary fix until you get home.

:lol:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA:lol: Only in a sad world would VVM and EDGE be 50% of the iPhone's total user-experience...

Other's opinions may vary but in my world, there's the ENTIRE iPod functionality, including music, tv, podcasts and movies, all on a beautiful full-screen display, which in my mind, comprises at least 50% of the experience. Then there's Safari, which is basically only worthwhile on WiFi anyway. I cannot see myself spending the time to look up something on the web via EDGE when I'm driving out in the boonies, sans a WiFi signal. So Safari & E-Mail are another 25% for me. Then there's the phone functionality, which, since it's integrated gives me 10%. YouTube gives me 5%, the other trinkets (camera, pictures, stocks, weather, etc) give me another 5%. VVM would give me 5% but I wouldn't be able to get it. So I would personally get about 95% out of the iPhone that others could with AT&T. Being able to use it on my own SIM's terms would give me a bonus user-experience boost of 5%, enough to cover the "disappointment" of not having VVM or being able to surf the net on dial-up like speeds while in the boonies. Therefore I'm back up to 100%.

While these numbers are fudgy, I guarantee I would get equal, if not more, out of having an iPhone than the average user, despite missing VMM.

As for the AT&T displayed onscreen, however, I think it would confuse Joe Schmoe so much if he was using a Verizon SIM that it would just ruin the entire iPhone experience. I guess you're right on that point. :no: No wait, actually, when you unlock the phone and put in your own SIM it says YOUR carrier's name where AT&T used to be, so it's actually a moot point.

As for the commecials, WHO FREAKING CARES WHAT IT SAYS?! All car commercials in the US show the car driving on the right-hand side of the road. That doesn't mean their cars won't work on roads in the England where they drive on the left-hand side of the road.

I revert to the old saying "there's more than one way to skin a cat." Now whatever that actually means is beyond me. And who would want to skin a cat?

And as for explaining the Halo 3, I don't have to. You should be able to put that one together yourself. But just in case you've been asleep; Halo 3 was designed to work on ONLY the XBOX360 like I have already said, Not the PS3. Do you think its right for somebody to make an XBOX360 emulator for the PS3 so that you'd be able to play Halo 3 on the PS3? Just like the emulators for the iPhone so you can play Nintendo.

There is nothing legally preventing a user from using software to run Halo 3 on a PS3 or otherwise as long as he or she owns a copy of the game and as long as he or she doesn't sell it for profit. So no, I don't see a problem with it.

Care to try again?

-Clive

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 04:44 PM

That analogy had nothing to do with somebody's well being. They deserve to get punished for it because AT&T would be making money each month and they're not thanks to these people. Thats almost considered stealing IMHO. Look at all of the these record companies sueing people. And as I know, I know. Its legal to unlock the SIM.

Downloading/uploading music from P2P networks is illegal. The record companies have the right to prosecute.

AGAIN, unlocking a phone is legal. Therefore, it's not stealing from Apple, AT&T or anyone else.

See the difference? Downloading/uploading songs = illegal, unlocking a phone = legal.

If you disagree, call your local representative and ask them to give corporations more rights over consumers by making phone unlocking illegal. If you think it'll make the world a better place, I won't stop you from persuing it. As for right now, it's legal. Sorry to disappoint.

-Clive

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 04:48 PM

Thank you. Those are the people that need to be in the passenger's seat. Along with those that think turn signals are optional. Thats my biggest pet peeve.

Nah, they should be banished to a convict island where they can fight amongst themselves for survival and we'll watch highlights on TV from our comfy couches.

Maybe that's a little extreme for failing to use a turn signal, but there should a place that idiots go to keep their DNA from being passed on into the human gene pool.

-Clive

onlooker

10-09-2007, 05:46 PM

You mean like they knew how it was legal to unlock their phones? You mean like how Apple destroyed the phones of those who did nothing illegal and offered no remedy? And now how all of us are crying about it even though I don't even own an iPhone but 1.1.1 still personally damaged me? And how this obviously makes me a pathetic child because I refuse to support corporations limiting consumer rights?

Obviously.
:rolleyes: :no:

-Clive

If you sign (or click accept) on the agreement it means you agree to the terms.
Sure it's legal to get half of your spouses earnings unless you sign a pre-nump. The Apple agreement is valid agreement. They blew it off. Their problem not Apples.

Taskiss

10-09-2007, 05:56 PM

I pondered this, but I was under the impression that any means to an unlock were legal, even if it did include a jail-break...

Is there some sort of legal mumbo jumbo that could provide clarification for this?

-CliveWell, I can post the DMCA or I can just say that that the DCMA "criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works".

Or, you could just accept that a program for doing so being named "jailbreak" might not necessarily be on the list of acceptable software.

At that point we could delve into some analogies about how you can take your cash out of a bank but if you were to do so at gunpoint you might just be committing an illegal act, no matter that it's your money.

Or, we can just accept that the act is illegal and let someone else spout the irrelevancy of how things would be in their perfect world...

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 05:59 PM

If you sign (or click accept) on the agreement it means you agree to the terms.
Sure it's legal to get half of your spouses earnings unless you sign a pre-nump. The Apple agreement is valid agreement. They blew it off. Their problem not Apples.

You don't have to accept any terms if the first thing you do is jail-break your phone.

Besides, that's a technicality.

The real meat is that no one can prvent you from doing something that written law specifically says that you can under any circumstances. The exemption to the DMCA was written SPECIFICALLY to protect consumers from getting forcibly locked into a carrier.

How many times must this be explained?!

-Clive

Taskiss

10-09-2007, 06:15 PM

An illegal act committed to facilitate a legal act is still illegal.

Jailbreaking your iPhone doesn't connect it to any network.

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 06:17 PM

Well, I can post the DMCA or I can just say that that the DCMA "criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works".

I get this, but there are 6 exemptions to the DMCA, one of which is in order to avoid being locked into a carrier.

To use you bank analogy, it would be like using a gun at a bank to withdraw your money under the circumstance that the bank was forcing you to spend your withdrawn money exclusively with their affiliates and no one else.

Essentially that's what going on with the iPhone. Apple is the bank where you deposit your money and withdraw it in the form of an iPhone... But Apple says you can only use it with their partner, AT&T, with whom they share profit.

Going back to the bank analogy, there would then be a legal clause saying specifically that you can spend your money anywhere you want. If you don't agree to spend your money with the bank's affiliates, there is no other way to get your money out without holding up the bank for the amount that is yours... or waiting for a court order.

Likewise, you don't agree to use it on AT&T (and the DMCA exemption allows you to do so) so you have to hold Apple (embodied in the iPhone Firmware) at gunpoint (Jailbreak) in order to use your money (iPhone) where you want (TMobile, Verizon, whatever)... or wait for a court order... which is what this whole this is about.

An illegal act committed to facilitate a legal act is still illegal.

Jailbreaking your iPhone doesn't connect it to any network.

By the way, is there specifically a law against forcing a bank to give you your own money at gun point? I'd like to see some legal mumbo jumbo supporting that claim... ;)

-Clive

Taskiss

10-09-2007, 06:22 PM

To use you bank analogy, it would be like using a gun at a bank to withdraw your money under the circumstance that the bank was forcing you to spend your withdrawn money exclusively with their affiliates and no one else.There's no law obligating the carriers to provide unlocking mechanisms, as far as I've been able to find. You can terminate your contract with AT&T by contacting them within a certain time - free. That still doesn't obligate them to unlock your phone.

THe exemption to the DCMA is that you won't get sued for unlocking the phone. Period. Reading anything more into that is conjecture.

Taskiss

10-09-2007, 06:24 PM

By the way, is there specifically a law against forcing a bank to give you your own money at gun point? I'd like to see some legal mumbo jumbo supporting that claim... ;)

-Clive"Assault with a Deadly Weapon" is the term used to describe the act of threatening to harm one or more people by using a weapon (usually a firearm).

"Aggravated assault" occurs when an individual brandishes (but does not fire) a firearm (or something appearing to be a firearm) at another person.

Different states use different terminology.

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 06:35 PM

"Assault with a Deadly Weapon" is the term used to describe the act of threatening to harm one or more people by using a weapon (usually a firearm).

"Aggravated assault" occurs when an individual brandishes (but does not fire) a firearm (or something appearing to be a firearm) at another person.

Different states use different terminology.

Both of which are legal in self-defense, correct? Protecting my assets is a form of self-defense I would venture to say... as long as only necessary force is used, of course.

-Clive

Taskiss

10-09-2007, 06:45 PM

Both of which are legal in self-defense, correct? Protecting my assets is a form of self-defense I would venture to say... as long as only necessary force is used, of course.

-CliveSince the property in question (the iPhone OS) belongs to Apple in the form of intellectual property I'd say Steve Jobs would be the one to claim self-defense if he were to shoot you.

You keep trying to read more into the exception to the DMCA than what is written there. Not being prosecuted for doing something is hardly a license to kill, and that's the only protection you're afforded by the exception to the DMCA - the protection from prosecution. Not a whit more.

You've been given a protection - you haven't been assigned a right.

Clive At Five

10-09-2007, 06:51 PM

Since the property in question (the iPhone OS) belongs to Apple in the form of intellectual property I'd say Steve Jobs would be the one to claim self-defense if he were to shoot you.

You keep trying to read more into the exception to the DMCA than what is written there. Not being prosecuted for doing something is hardly a license to kill.

Would it not be my authorized copy of the iPhone OS? Technically, the dollar bills in our pocket are owned by the government, but they are authorized to us for use in any way deemed legal by the US govt. Likewise, the iPhone software is our "bills" which is owned by Apple, but we may use it in any fashion deemed "legal" by Apple... who in turn can only impose restrictions deemed legal by the US govt.

Circles... :lol:

-Clive

Footloose301

10-09-2007, 06:57 PM

Downloading/uploading music from P2P networks is illegal. The record companies have the right to prosecute.

AGAIN, unlocking a phone is legal. Therefore, it's not stealing from Apple, AT&T or anyone else.

See the difference? Downloading/uploading songs = illegal, unlocking a phone = legal.

If you disagree, call your local representative and ask them to give corporations more rights over consumers by making phone unlocking illegal. If you think it'll make the world a better place, I won't stop you from persuing it. As for right now, it's legal. Sorry to disappoint.

-Clive

I've already said all of that. Your post did nothing.

Taskiss

10-09-2007, 06:57 PM

Would it not be my authorized copy of the iPhone OS? Technically, the dollar bills in our pocket are owned by the government, but they are authorized to us for use in any way deemed legal by the US govt. Likewise, the iPhone software is our "bills" which is owned by Apple, but we may use it in any fashion deemed "legal" by Apple... who in turn can only impose restrictions deemed legal by the US govt.

Circles... :lol:

-CliveNo, it's not "technically" yours at all. Not in the least.

I'm willing to wait for someone to be convicted of doing so if that's what you need to have happen to be convinced.

Footloose301

10-09-2007, 07:00 PM

:lol:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA:lol: Only in a sad world would VVM and EDGE be 50% of the iPhone's total user-experience...

Other's opinions may vary but in my world, there's the ENTIRE iPod functionality, including music, tv, podcasts and movies, all on a beautiful full-screen display, which in my mind, comprises at least 50% of the experience. Then there's Safari, which is basically only worthwhile on WiFi anyway. I cannot see myself spending the time to look up something on the web via EDGE when I'm driving out in the boonies, sans a WiFi signal. So Safari & E-Mail are another 25% for me. Then there's the phone functionality, which, since it's integrated gives me 10%. YouTube gives me 5%, the other trinkets (camera, pictures, stocks, weather, etc) give me another 5%. VVM would give me 5% but I wouldn't be able to get it. So I would personally get about 95% out of the iPhone that others could with AT&T. Being able to use it on my own SIM's terms would give me a bonus user-experience boost of 5%, enough to cover the "disappointment" of not having VVM or being able to surf the net on dial-up like speeds while in the boonies. Therefore I'm back up to 100%.

While these numbers are fudgy, I guarantee I would get equal, if not more, out of having an iPhone than the average user, despite missing VMM.

As for the AT&T displayed onscreen, however, I think it would confuse Joe Schmoe so much if he was using a Verizon SIM that it would just ruin the entire iPhone experience. I guess you're right on that point. :no: No wait, actually, when you unlock the phone and put in your own SIM it says YOUR carrier's name where AT&T used to be, so it's actually a moot point.

As for the commecials, WHO FREAKING CARES WHAT IT SAYS?! All car commercials in the US show the car driving on the right-hand side of the road. That doesn't mean their cars won't work on roads in the England where they drive on the left-hand side of the road.

I revert to the old saying "there's more than one way to skin a cat." Now whatever that actually means is beyond me. And who would want to skin a cat?

There is nothing legally preventing a user from using software to run Halo 3 on a PS3 or otherwise as long as he or she owns a copy of the game and as long as he or she doesn't sell it for profit. So no, I don't see a problem with it.

Care to try again?

-Clive

This entire post is all YOUR opinion. No facts here. Worthless.

Can you please type anything that is even remotely close to being a fact?

Footloose301

10-09-2007, 07:08 PM

There is nothing legally preventing a user from using software to run Halo 3 on a PS3 or otherwise as long as he or she owns a copy of the game and as long as he or she doesn't sell it for profit. So no, I don't see a problem with it.

-Clive

You must be blind. How would you feel if you were Bungie or Microsoft and some clown decided to make a program to run Halo 3 on the PS3? Same thing as music. That is stealing. I don't care how much you want to sugar coat it or beat around the bush. It may not be "illegal" but its definitely wrong. The money that would be going towards Microshit and Bungie is now Sony's. As that person might own a PS3 and then buy the game for $60 and play it on their PS3 that only puts $60 towards that game. A person that has a PS3 and would like Halo 3 needs to buy an XBOX360 which is $350 and then the $60 game would make $410 to Microshit. Do you get the point?

Essentially AT&T is losing money because people are taking business other places where they were supposed to get a piece of the pie.

shetline

10-09-2007, 08:16 PM

You must be blind. How would you feel if you were Bungie or Microsoft and some clown decided to make a program to run Halo 3 on the PS3?
I probably wouldn't like it. But then again, I identify much more strongly with the average consumer than I do with businesses and their cherished business models. If I had already purchased a PS3, and not an Xbox, I'd probably be very happy to be able to pay for Halo 3, but not for a whole new gaming system, and still be able to play Halo 3.

Microsoft may well have planned to make money on selling more Xboxes via sales of Halo 3, but why on earth should they be guaranteed that this business model will work for them? If someone finds a way to run Halo 3 on a PS3, why should my tax dollars be spent on law enforcement and court costs to kill that off? Because Microsoft getting what they want is more "fair"? Because I dream of the day it'll be me raking in the big bucks, and I care more about laws favoring the hypothetical wealthy future me and less about the current me?

There's only one really good reason for IP laws to exist in my opinion -- and it's not the "It's mine! It's mine! I get to decide TOTALLY and COMPLETELY what anyone can do with my IP because it's mine, mine, mine!" attitude that a lot of people on these forums seem to favor.

The best reason for IP laws IMHO is to encourage innovation. IP law needs to be just good enough to inspire people to innovate -- to invent new things, develop new services, write new songs and stories and software. IP law certainly doesn't need to anywhere near as extreme as it has become these days, with insanity like lifetime plus 75 year copyrights and such.

I'm quite happy to see people well rewarded for good ideas and good work. I think it's good that a few people can get quite wealthy that way in fact. But the laws should keep in mind the real desired end result -- encouraging innovation, not the creation and protection of billionaires. Making a game that once could only run on Xbox run on PS3 is a useful innovation. Making an iPhone run on T-Mobile instead of just AT&T is a useful innovation.

Are the potential profits from an unlocked iPhone or a run-anywhere Halo 3 so dismal that no one would bother to create such devices and games without the legal guarantee of the extra measure of profit that artificial exclusivity provides? If that's not the case, why should our law enforcement agencies and court systems be wasting our tax dollars to help enforce and foster a world with less innovation, but more profit for certain individuals?

If Apple can't make money on an unlocked iPhone, enough to keep it profitable and worthwhile for them, then they should figure out how to reduce costs and increase value until they do make money on the iPhone, or simply suffer defeat in the marketplace.

If Microsoft can't generate extra dollars selling Xboxes because Halo 3 suddenly runs on PS3, they should play cat-and-mouse with the hackers (with no protective laws helping them in this battle, just their own cleverness), improve the Xbox so that Halo 3 and/or other games play better on an Xbox than a PS3, make Xboxes more expensive, or simply suffer defeat in the marketplace.

onlooker

10-10-2007, 01:12 AM

It's total stupidity when somebody is pissed that they didn't listen to Apple when they told them not to update a hacked phone. You should have restored your software. It's not like they weren't warned.

Gon

10-10-2007, 01:53 AM

The best reason for IP laws IMHO is to encourage innovation. IP law needs to be just good enough to inspire people to innovate -- to invent new things, develop new services, write new songs and stories and software. IP law certainly doesn't need to anywhere near as extreme as it has become these days, with insanity like lifetime plus 75 year copyrights and such.

I'm quite happy to see people well rewarded for good ideas and good work. I think it's good that a few people can get quite wealthy that way in fact. But the laws should keep in mind the real desired end result -- encouraging innovation, not the creation and protection of billionaires. Making a game that once could only run on Xbox run on PS3 is a useful innovation. Making an iPhone run on T-Mobile instead of just AT&T is a useful innovation.Exactly.

In my opinion companies have the right to pile as much artificial limitations on their stuff as they want to (although I don't like it when they do), and on the other hand their customers have the right to do everything in their power to remove those limitations.

Footloose301

10-10-2007, 04:16 AM

I probably wouldn't like it. But then again, I identify much more strongly with the average consumer than I do with businesses and their cherished business models. If I had already purchased a PS3, and not an Xbox, I'd probably be very happy to be able to pay for Halo 3, but not for a whole new gaming system, and still be able to play Halo 3.

Microsoft may well have planned to make money on selling more Xboxes via sales of Halo 3, but why on earth should they be guaranteed that this business model will work for them? If someone finds a way to run Halo 3 on a PS3, why should my tax dollars be spent on law enforcement and court costs to kill that off? Because Microsoft getting what they want is more "fair"? Because I dream of the day it'll be me raking in the big bucks, and I care more about laws favoring the hypothetical wealthy future me and less about the current me?

There's only one really good reason for IP laws to exist in my opinion -- and it's not the "It's mine! It's mine! I get to decide TOTALLY and COMPLETELY what anyone can do with my IP because it's mine, mine, mine!" attitude that a lot of people on these forums seem to favor.

The best reason for IP laws IMHO is to encourage innovation. IP law needs to be just good enough to inspire people to innovate -- to invent new things, develop new services, write new songs and stories and software. IP law certainly doesn't need to anywhere near as extreme as it has become these days, with insanity like lifetime plus 75 year copyrights and such.

I'm quite happy to see people well rewarded for good ideas and good work. I think it's good that a few people can get quite wealthy that way in fact. But the laws should keep in mind the real desired end result -- encouraging innovation, not the creation and protection of billionaires. Making a game that once could only run on Xbox run on PS3 is a useful innovation. Making an iPhone run on T-Mobile instead of just AT&T is a useful innovation.

Are the potential profits from an unlocked iPhone or a run-anywhere Halo 3 so dismal that no one would bother to create such devices and games without the legal guarantee of the extra measure of profit that artificial exclusivity provides? If that's not the case, why should our law enforcement agencies and court systems be wasting our tax dollars to help enforce and foster a world with less innovation, but more profit for certain individuals?

If Apple can't make money on an unlocked iPhone, enough to keep it profitable and worthwhile for them, then they should figure out how to reduce costs and increase value until they do make money on the iPhone, or simply suffer defeat in the marketplace.

If Microsoft can't generate extra dollars selling Xboxes because Halo 3 suddenly runs on PS3, they should play cat-and-mouse with the hackers (with no protective laws helping them in this battle, just their own cleverness), improve the Xbox so that Halo 3 and/or other games play better on an Xbox than a PS3, make Xboxes more expensive, or simply suffer defeat in the marketplace.

You know, I agree with you 100%. I do believe that the iPhone should run on more than just AT&T because I had Sprint at the time. I do wish Halo 3 ran on the PS3. I really do. The only point I was making is that these people are suing and getting upset over something they were warned about. I whole heartedly believe Apple should have just sold the iPhone without a carrier in mind, but thats not a case.

lfmorrison

10-10-2007, 07:39 AM

In fact the unlocking of the iPhone is a legal act. The necessity to jailbreak the iPhone in order to enable the particular method of unlocking normally used is illegal.

They need to find another way to unlock the iPhone, 'cause jailbreaking the device is illegal.

There's where I disagree. The fact is that no method has been found yet which would make it possible to unlock an iPhone using any method other than jailbreaking.

The DMCA exemption is quite clear on the fact that firmware modification is exactly the sort of mechanism that is permitted:
"Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."

Jailbreaking is just another necessary step in the firmware modification process that is required to allow network interoperability.

In my view, it's entirely Apple's burden to prove, in each individual case, that there was any additional intent in jailbreaking beyond the single objective of achieving network interoperability.

I'm starting to see the point that warranty service might be exempted if the limited warranty text actually includes such a provision.

Apple has stated that the warranty was violated because the EULA had been violated. In previous posts, I've given my reasons why I don't think that's actually true (at least for the people who really did only jailbreak the iPhone for the sole purpose of connecting to a different network).

I think it'll be interesting to see, during the discovery process of this trial, if Apple can actually provide any evidence to back up their other claims, such as their position that irreparable damage was done to the phone as a result of unlocking.

- Luke

pmjoe

10-10-2007, 07:54 AM

Taskiss

10-10-2007, 08:01 AM

There's where I disagree. The fact is that no method has been found yet which would make it possible to unlock an iPhone using any method other than jailbreaking.That fact is irrelevant. The language of the DCMA is clear - "when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."

If the "Jailbreak" app just unlocked the phone, it wouldn't be illegal. That's not "the sole purpose" that is achieved by that software though. The intent of the user is irrelevant, the wording is quite clear.

If something other than Jailbreak is created to unlock the iPhone to allow connection to another carrier and that was "the sole purpose" of that software then it would be legal.

The act of unlocking the phone's tie to a single carrier is exempt. That's the ONLY thing that's exempt.

Taskiss

10-10-2007, 08:02 AM

Access to a phone network is not a copyrighted work.Modifying the OS to allow 3rd party apps violates the copyright because it changes the code and violates the DMCA because it circumvents the lock Apple put there.

The DMCA, which was passed on October 8, 1998 and ratified by President Clinton later that month, criminalizes "the production and dissemination of technology whose primary purpose is to circumvent measures taken to protect copyright, not merely infringement of copyright itself." The act also increases the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.

lfmorrison

10-10-2007, 08:20 AM

That fact is irrelevant. The language of the DCMA is clear - "when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."

And therefore, Apple has to prove, for each individual case, that the person who performed the jailbreak in that particular circumstance, didn't have the sole purpose of network interoperability in mind.

Your argument seems to be that the jailbreak can potentially be used for other non-exempt purposes, therefore it must never be used at all.
That has been shot down too many times to count.

Such as in the case of VCRs.

Or, your previous example of handguns.

It's illegal to use a gun in the act of robbing a bank.
It's illegal to modify the firmware of the iPhone in the act of installing general-purpose software on the iPhone.

However, it is legal to use a gun if it is the only effective means available to defend your life and property, and if you stop using the gun as soon as you have neutralized the threat to said life and property.
It is legal to modify the firmware of the iPhone if it is the only modified with the intent of establishing a SIM unlock, and if you don't exploit the modification for anything else beyond achieving said interoperability.

pmjoe

10-10-2007, 08:34 AM

Modifying the OS to allow 3rd party apps violates the copyright because it changes the code and violates the DMCA because it circumvents the lock Apple put there.
Courts tend to frown on interpretations of DMCA that restrict seemingly legitimate rights of citizens in favor of corporate greed. I really doubt an interpretation such as yours would hold up in court. DMCA was designed to protect access to copyrighted works. Unlocking a phone is not really the same as installing 3rd party apps. Access to a phone network is not a copyrighted work, and I really doubt other carriers are opposed to you accessing their network.

Fact of the matter is that Apple decided to play funny money with the iPhone by selling the phones to people outright, and then relying on a backdoor scheme to get money back from AT&T on iPhone service plans. DMCA doesn't protect Apple from flawed business models either.

You are correct that DMCA could be used to argue against installing 3rd party apps on the iPhone. Apple being on record as saying they aren't opposed to 3rd party apps on the iPhone would make that case more difficult too though.

Maestro64

10-10-2007, 08:57 AM

They were exercising their right to choose:

1) Don't buy an iPhone
2) Buy an iPhone and register with AT&T
3) Buy an iPhone an LEGALLY UNLOCK IT.

All three are equally viable options.

Point (1): No one is taking the iPhone to Verizon and asking them to make it work. The correct version of you analogy is as such: Bill buys a Vphone from the Verizon store. Later on, he decides he wants to use the Vphone on AT&T's network. He then calls the manufacturer who tells Bill that the phone was designed for Verizon only. This is an accurate analogy. My responce remains the same: Bill's options are to stay with Verizon, or legally unlock his phone to use it with another carrier.

Point (2): Phone features are different than carrier choice, which is the subject of the DMCA exemption. Therefore hacking to gain access to those features is not legal. Few are disputing this.

Point (3): Except for the following 6 exemptions:

Point (4): Yes they did (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2007/09/18/apple-to-actively-stop-sim-unlocking/).

Point (5): Uhh.... Throwing your iPhone against the wall is a malicious act which will likely disable your iPhone, and cause irreparable damage to the phone. Carrier-unlocking is not malicious and does not destroy or disable the iPhone in any way. It was the 1.1.1 firmware that did that. That's why I believe Apple should create a tool to restore the phones that they bricked to a working but locked version of 1.1.1.

Point (6): Since unlocking is legal, users who did so (by your own statement) did nothing wrong. Thus, as you said, Apple is in charge of repairing the problem.

Users who hacked purely to install 3rd party apps... that's a different story but unlocking is legal and Apple should remedy the phones they bricked.

-Clive

Clive At Five,

I am not going to attempt to even try to insert my comment within in the above text, I do not have that kind of time and it would be hard to upstage your editing skills.

Anyway, DMCA has no barring over a product warranty, that covers copyrights, warranty is different legal beast and have different rules and laws that cover them from a consumer standpoint. I personally been doing warranty agreements for the last 15 yrs so I know what I am talking about. I am telling you, if you mess with a product outside what is consider normal operating conditions the manufacture is not obligate to honor the warranty, some will and usually do in the name of customer satisfaction but you can not force them because you feel you can do want every you want with a product. i.e. hacking the firmware then bring it back and have them fix or replace it due to the things you did not the manufacturer.

So in this case, people are hacking the hardware as well as the firmware which is outside normal operation and also malice (since they knew that their actions could cause the device to fail) therefore their warranty is voided and no court in this country will make Apple honor a warranty that a user change or modify the product.

Oh by the way, their is case law on this, if the manufacturer can show that the modification or what the consumer did causes the failure they have every right not to cover it. So in your example the firmware update fail and make a brick of the phone because the end user modified the the original firmware, so the failure was due to their actions not Apple's.

Just so you know, many times firmware updates do not update all the code, sometimes it just over writes specific pieces of code, so if you hack the code, you run the risk that you mod a section of code that the new code did not expect to change.

Remember, Apple did not say people violated the "software agreement" but they specifically said the "Warranty" and because this all your's and other people's arguments are not valid under a warranty agreement.

Last point, Apple saying they will do everything they can to stop people from unlocking the sim, well again there is clear law on this. the SIM is owned by AT&T not Apple and contains firmware on it that is cover by copyright laws and Apple under the DRM laws can not allow people the ability to hack that firmware. So Apple must protect the SIM. If you do not believe me, research directv and the people who were arrested and fine for developing and release tools and products that allowed people to hack the Directv Receiver Smart cards firmware

Clive At Five

10-10-2007, 11:01 AM

This entire post is all YOUR opinion. No facts here. Worthless.

Can you please type anything that is even remotely close to being a fact?

Noooooo... Perhaps you care to read again... The part highlighted in red is my opinion, which I stated before and after I said it. Parts highlighted in blue are facts.

:lol:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA:lol: Only in a sad world would VVM and EDGE be 50% of the iPhone's total user-experience...

Other's opinions may vary but in my world, there's the ENTIRE iPod functionality, including music, tv, podcasts and movies, all on a beautiful full-screen display, which in my mind, comprises at least 50% of the experience. Then there's Safari, which is basically only worthwhile on WiFi anyway. I cannot see myself spending the time to look up something on the web via EDGE when I'm driving out in the boonies, sans a WiFi signal. So Safari & E-Mail are another 25% for me. Then there's the phone functionality, which, since it's integrated gives me 10%. YouTube gives me 5%, the other trinkets (camera, pictures, stocks, weather, etc) give me another 5%. VVM would give me 5% but I wouldn't be able to get it. So I would personally get about 95% out of the iPhone that others could with AT&T. Being able to use it on my own SIM's terms would give me a bonus user-experience boost of 5%, enough to cover the "disappointment" of not having VVM or being able to surf the net on dial-up like speeds while in the boonies. Therefore I'm back up to 100%.

While these numbers are fudgy, I guarantee I would get equal, if not more, out of having an iPhone than the average user, despite missing VMM.

As for the AT&T displayed onscreen, however, I think it would confuse Joe Schmoe so much if he was using a Verizon SIM that it would just ruin the entire iPhone experience. I guess you're right on that point. :no: No wait, actually, when you unlock the phone and put in your own SIM it says YOUR carrier's name where AT&T used to be, so it's actually a moot point.

As for the commecials, WHO FREAKING CARES WHAT IT SAYS?! All car commercials in the US show the car driving on the right-hand side of the road. That doesn't mean their cars won't work on roads in the England where they drive on the left-hand side of the road.

I revert to the old saying "there's more than one way to skin a cat." Now whatever that actually means is beyond me. And who would want to skin a cat?

There is nothing legally preventing a user from using software to run Halo 3 on a PS3 or otherwise as long as he or she owns a copy of the game and as long as he or she doesn't sell it for profit. So no, I don't see a problem with it.

Care to try again?

-Clive

And even my opinion section (red) has validity for me. Am I supposed to not find value in an iPhone sans VVM and EDGE because YOU apparently think those two features comprise 50% of the user-experience? I would be buying an iPhone for me, not for you. So who's opinion matters? That's right... not yours. I say I would get 95% out of an iPhone sans VVM and EDGE. That makes it worth the price tag for me. That's all the justification I (or anyone) needs. Sorry if you disagree.

-Clive

Mac Voyer

10-10-2007, 12:02 PM

All the analogies I have seen so far are silly IMO. So, to, are most of the arguments. I am completely in favor of the experimentalist who buys a product and tries to make it even better. After all, that is a time honored business model. What the experimentalist has to know is that once they start experimenting with the product, they sever all ties with the manufacturer. They are on their own. This is true for both hardware and software. Unlocking the iP took some mad skills and real dedication. They actually had to do some trickery with the modem to make it work. There should be no reasonable expectation that Apple will provide a restore path for would be inventors and those who want to take away from Apple's bottom line. If you want to experiment, be prepared to buy two or more of the product. Some people seem to think that just because it was a software hack, Apple should support it. News flash! If you screw up the firmware on your Mac so that you cannot get it restarted again, and the problem was caused by something you did, your warranty will not cover that damage either.

On a different note, I hope Apple does not fix the bricked phones, at least the ones that were intentionally hacked. I do not want to have to wait to speak to a genius about a real problem because ten other people are taking up their time and mine fixing a problem caused by the consumer. I don't want Apple's dev team wasting time trying to undo what the hackers have done. Rather, I want them to continue making compelling advances to the functionality of the phone.

To recap,
Point 1. I love experimenters and I want them to succeed most of the time. But you have to consider the cost of product development. Buying multiple products to experiment is a part of that cost.

Point 2. Software is the same as hardware. I suspect there are quite a few things you can do in the terminal to brick a Mac. Sorry, that is not covered under your Apple Care.

Point 3. Apple barely had enough human resources to get this phone out the door in great working order. Even as we post, they are working on adding new functionality. It harms the iPhones present and future if they have to divert those precious resources to undoing damage caused by experimenters.

For all you experimenters out there, please buy more phones. I can't wait to see what you come up with. Also, the next time Apple clearly says not to do a thing lest it brick your phone, that is a pretty non-subtile hint that you should not do it. For those who were innocently misled, you may want to find a new source of advice. Even you had to know better at some level. It is like cigarettes. People have been calling them coffin nails for decades. When the cigarette industry was sued by the states, there was not a person alive who didn't know the product was addictive and deadly. Consider firmware hacks on your iPhone as coffin nails for the iPhone. Now enough with these frivolous lawsuits. Let the rest of us get back to enjoying the best out of the box phone experience in the history of the planet.

Hiro

10-10-2007, 07:00 PM

I pondered this, but I was under the impression that any means to an unlock were legal, even if it did include a jail-break...

Is there some sort of legal mumbo jumbo that could provide clarification for this?

-Clive

No. Nothing exists specifically to support the legality of any particular method. That would be up to the courts to decide.

The whole unlocking waiver section of the DCMA interpretation is nearly worthless for any action other than preventing you from being criminally charged or civilly sued for unlocking you own phone (or doing one of the other waived actions). It confers no other rights.

The mere existence of the waiver does not legally entitle you or anyone else to anything. It ONLY prevents you from being taken to court IF you unlock your phone. Subtle but incredibly important differences from what the unlocking crowd wants.

physguy

10-10-2007, 07:18 PM

And therefore, Apple has to prove, for each individual case, that the person who performed the jailbreak in that particular circumstance, didn't have the sole purpose of network interoperability in mind.

Your argument seems to be that the jailbreak can potentially be used for other non-exempt purposes, therefore it must never be used at all.
That has been shot down too many times to count.

Such as in the case of VCRs.

Or, your previous example of handguns.

It's illegal to use a gun in the act of robbing a bank.
It's illegal to modify the firmware of the iPhone in the act of installing general-purpose software on the iPhone.

However, it is legal to use a gun if it is the only effective means available to defend your life and property, and if you stop using the gun as soon as you have neutralized the threat to said life and property.
It is legal to modify the firmware of the iPhone if it is the only modified with the intent of establishing a SIM unlock, and if you don't exploit the modification for anything else beyond achieving said interoperability.

Its amazingly unlikely that Apple would be required to do this on a one-by-one basis. All they would have to show, which would be trivial, is that the jailbreak code itself was developed for the purposed of adding 3rd party apps. This would be trivial by just showing the blogs of the teams doing it. From those I read over the months the great majority of the discussion is for the jailbreak to add 3rd party apps, which is a clear violation of the EULA.

There is no case here and it will never get to discovery.

Footloose301

10-10-2007, 11:12 PM

And even my opinion section (red) has validity for me. Am I supposed to not find value in an iPhone sans VVM and EDGE because YOU apparently think those two features comprise 50% of the user-experience? I would be buying an iPhone for me, not for you. So who's opinion matters? That's right... not yours. I say I would get 95% out of an iPhone sans VVM and EDGE. That makes it worth the price tag for me. That's all the justification I (or anyone) needs. Sorry if you disagree.

-Clive

HAHA good luck with that.:lol:

charlituna

06-18-2008, 10:45 AM

cell phones are a luxury, not a necessity. and a cell phone with all the bells and whistles of an iphone is really a luxury. no one NEEDs it. they just want it. plus everyone knows from the start that if you want the iphone you have to sign up with ATT. back in the days when you didn't own your phone number and would have to change it to change service that was a pain in the butt. but not that issue is over. so there isn't even that excuse

also, these suits make out like Apple is sitting there looking for ways to screw with folks that broke the rules. like the updates were made with the sole purpose of destroying locked phones. which is unlikely the case. Apple improved the software based on the version they created, which they knew if someone had messed with their unit might cause problems. expecting them to know all the hacks and how to repair them is as crazy as expecting them to know how to repair every handheld in the world, how to fix problems with every cable modem in the world etc.

frankly I think that folks should stop their whining at Apple and go after ATT if they have issues. Because that's the key reason for the complaining "ATT is too expensive" "ATT has crappy coverage in my area" (add to that now "ATT hasn't got 3G in my area and I have to have this new toy. I want it, I want it, I want it"). Find a way to make ATT bring their prices to a reasonable level and work out some kind of arrangement to have data coverage in areas they aren't yet.

also on the warranty/TC issue. companies for years have been putting limits on warranties. including going in and messing around on your own. If i crack open the case to my tivo and screw it up, I can't have them repair it for free or replace it. they might to be nice, but I can't demand it after I willfully broke it. this is really the same game. Apple warned folks that hacking the software could cause issues. to do it at your own risk. but if you do it, they aren't going to clean up your mess. why should they have to. perhaps we need a lawsuit that says limits on warranties are illegal and now my car can be repaired for life for free, along with my computer etc. maybe I can get back the $300 in extended warranties fees I"ve paid for my computer and ipods.