or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › US government legalizes iPhone 'jailbreaking,' unlocking
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US government legalizes iPhone 'jailbreaking,' unlocking - Page 3

post #81 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Jailbreaking has never been illegal... this new "rule" changes nothing.

Apple disagrees with you.
post #82 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

No, I don't think they will be pressured to that extent. Other companies, perhaps google, might be willing to set up a 'legitimized' alternative app store where things like that would be accepted.

My hope would be some of the more arbitrary rejection or rejections that were meant to target companies no longer in their good graces (GV). If the app meets their current opinion of what is socially acceptable and actually provides a useful service or feature to their users and if their users now can easily get the apps elsewhere, maybe, just maybe, they might loosen up, just a bit.

I still doubt this small change will make any significant difference. The vast majority of people who buy a product like the iPhone do so it to use the way the manufacturer intended it to be used. The really big issue is the payoff for the added risk. I have not heard of anything compelling that a jailbroken iPhone can do that an out-of-the-box iPhone cannot -- but we do know that it can be hacked and bricked. How many people really want to screw around with this? Does making it "legal" actually change the equation?
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #83 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

I wouldn't like the government telling me how to run my business. For some reason, I just can't get excited about this.

What's next?

Pretty sad that the "right" of an artificial entity (e.g. business) is considered more important to protect than the individual right of a consumer (e.g. person) to do what they want with a piece of property they purchased.

Luckily, the Library of Congress decided differently. Your attempt to frame it as some government intrusion is just annoying, when in fact the opposite just happened. The government protected the rights of individuals.
post #84 of 220
First, Apple has always argued this is illegal, and they spent money in court arguing that jailbreaking is illegal. They will probably issue a statement saying they are disappointed, and who knows if they have legal challenges left.

http://www.legalzoom.com/intellectua...f-jailbreaking

Apple argued:

"Current jailbreak techniques now in widespread use [utilize] unauthorized modification to the copyrighted bootloader and OS, resulting in infringement of the copyright in those programs."

To which the EFF responded:

"One need only transpose Apple's arguments to the world of automobiles to recognize their absurdity. Sure, GM might tell us that, for our own safety, all servicing should be done by an authorized GM dealer using only genuine GM parts. Toyota might say that swapping your engine could reduce the reliability of your car. And Mazda could say that those who throw a supercharger on their Miatas frequently exceed the legal speed limit.

But we'd never accept this corporate paternalism as a justification for welding every car hood shut and imposing legal liability on car buffs tinkering in their garages. After all, the culture of tinkering (or hacking, if you prefer) is an important part of our innovation economy."

Second, this changes a lot of things. Mainly, those coding the jailbreaks can come out and collaborate with others about improving the jailbreaking experience without fear of retribution from Apple. [Edit: WHOOPS, strike that, I'm reading in other publications that Apple may still want to go after the Dev Team]. Apple has been very slow compared to the thousands of very clever coders out there (sanctioned and unsanctioned) to customize the iPhone experience to the end-users needs. Plenty are fine with the iPhone as it stands - its your choice to not jailbreak. But for others, tweaks to the operating system, the core apps, (heck just being allowed to delete those annoying Apple preloaded apps), and allowing third-party apps that Apple rejects like browsers, Flash support, and tethering, are worth jailbreaking.

Finally, it also prevents other OS manufacturers (Microsoft, HP/Palm, and Google) from doing the same (saying its illegal, that is).

When you buy it, its your phone. Ownership means an owner has certain rights. I paid Apple and I finished my contract with AT&T. The phone is mine.
post #85 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

A big question is- will Apple be required to honor the warranty?

I don't see why they would be obligated if you run unauthorized mods.
Dumping water inside your computer (or tv or whatever) is not illegal but it most certainly voids a warranty.
post #86 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaporland View Post

since we can now jailbreak iPhones, can we also run OSX on a Dell or HP computer without fear of prosecution, if we've bought a legal copy of OSX?

What does a jailborken iPhon have to do with running OSX on a Dell or HP? These are FCC rules which govern communications.
post #87 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

verizon


9


apple will seel 300000 on this news

And every purchaser will be deeply disappointed to learn that Verizon uses CDMA and not GSM, so their iPhone won't work on the Verizon network.
post #88 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

I don't see why they would be obligated if you run unauthorized mods.
Dumping water inside your computer (or tv or whatever) is not illegal but it most certainly voids a warranty.

It doesn't void the warranty, it just wouldn't be covered by the warranty. By the same token, I can see Apple still refusing to replace an iPhone that's been bricked by jailbreaking.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #89 of 220
If I take my iPhone to Europe, I want a local number there to call and be called by my friends there. That's easy with a pre-paid SIM if the phone is unlocked.

I don't want to cancel my existing AT&T contract, and will continue to pay it while I'm not even using it. I just want to be able to use my phone there with a local SIM.

So I do hope that this ruling helps them along the "unlock" path. They have lost a couple of Court rulings and will already unlock any phone except iPhone. This may be the push they need.
post #90 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

When was it "officially illegal"?

Until yesterday. JB was a violation of the DCMA, but no one really did anything to enforce it. Apple could have gone after the iPhone Dev Team the same way recording studios put Limewire out of business. Instead, Apple periodically modified its firmware and baseband in a cat-and-mouse game.
post #91 of 220
In other HUGE news:

A federal court in New Orleans found:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/23/29099.htm

Judge Garza stated:

"Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the (Digital Millennium Copyright Act's) anti-circumvention provision. The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners. The owner's technological measure must protect the copyrighted material against an infringement of a right that the Copyright Act protects, not from mere use or viewing."

That means you are free to strip DRM off your legally owned stuff. Prepare for lots of challenges to this one.
post #92 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by msuberly View Post

Until yesterday. JB was a violation of the DCMA

No, Apple said it was a violation/illegal but to my knowledge, there was never even single court caset, let alone was ruled on.
post #93 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaporland
since we can now jailbreak iPhones, can we also run OSX on a Dell or HP computer without fear of prosecution, if we've bought a legal copy of OSX?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post

What does a jailborken iPhon have to do with running OSX on a Dell or HP? These are FCC rules which govern communications.

You're both wrong. First, we don't know legally whether a purchased copy of OSX can be installed on non-Apple hardware. Apple's EULA says it is not permitted, but that's never been legally tested. The Psystar case only tested whether copied versions of OSX violate Apple's copyright when installed on computers. Read the court decision.

Second, no FCC rule or decision is involved here. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) expressely forbids bypassing digital protections on content. One exception allows the Librarian of Congress to decide every three years whether certain exemptions should be permitted. In this situation, the Librarian of Congress ruled that jailbreaking and unlocking are exempt from the digital protection restriction. That's it. There's nothing that changes anything else. Apple doesn't have to honor warranties on jailbroken and/or unlocked phones. The mobile operator can still hold you to the service contract. It doesn't give you license to install non-licensed software.
post #94 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Shouldn't that make people mistrust 'the powerful' even more?

Hasn't it always been the case? But, The force that can defeat the powerful is a greater power, not simply mistrust. To paraphrase Leo Tolstoy (War and Peace):

"... That if all vicious men are bound together and constitute a force, then all honorable men ought to do the same ..."

In history, this usually takes the form of revolution -- violent (France) or peaceful (India, Philippines 1986, Checkoslovakia split, etc.). This does necessarily always lead to a more progressive society because some of the powerful supporters in the new order may then exploit the new system to their own advantage. If one is a cynic, one will simply give up -- because of the idea that "nothing changes". But there will always be the dreamers in our midst who wouold always hope for the better.

CGC
post #95 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I still doubt this small change will make any significant difference. The vast majority of people who buy a product like the iPhone do so it to use the way the manufacturer intended it to be used. The really big issue is the payoff for the added risk. I have not heard of anything compelling that a jailbroken iPhone can do that an out-of-the-box iPhone cannot -- but we do know that it can be hacked and bricked. How many people really want to screw around with this? Does making it "legal" actually change the equation?

I don't disagree with you. Like I said, it is only a hope. But, to your questions. How many people really want to screw around with this? Does it change the equation? I think it has the potential to change the equation and this would increase the number of people willing to 'take the risk.'

There is a huge market of iPhones that are now out of contract and out warranty, so this by itself is big potential market place. If and when known and trusted sources (to the masses) come out and offer services to 'open' iPhones for consumers, anyone out of warranty might be tempted. Perhaps you want to be able to buy a used phone and use it just for voice on T-Mobible. Perhaps you want to use it as a portable wifi router for your 3G signal (for which you are paying the tethering fee of course). Perhaps google makes Google voice and Google Latitude available now that it is clearly legal. Those under warranty might not take part as much, but as is obviously the case now, there are those under warranty that are jailbreaking and that number is unlikely to shrink as a result of this change.

The equation has changed. It doesn't mean it will change the results.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #96 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post

Don't think the rules force apple to support iPhones that have been jail broken. The rules simply make it officially legal to jail break an iPhone.

And of course in the U.S. Where will you go for a different carrier. Verizon? No. T-mobile? Maybe if the coverage doesn't suck.

Correct. You are legally protected to jailbreak and Apple is legally protected to void your warranty and not required to support your product once you jailbreak that device.

Enjoy.
post #97 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Hahaha Apple. Now what?

Class Action Suit for Apple not warranting a Jail Broke iPhone!

You heard of the Apple Tax...

Here comes the Federal Tax! So what else is new with this gang...

So, to end class action suit, Apple Care will cover iPhones and Jail Broke iPhones alike! Just not at $69.00... Try 469.00!


That's What!
/
/
/
/

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #98 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

It doesn't void the warranty, it just wouldn't be covered by the warranty. By the same token, I can see Apple still refusing to replace an iPhone that's been bricked by jailbreaking.

As well they should. While you might now be legally allowed to mod your property, if you damage it by doing so, you are on your own.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #99 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Why yes I do own an i4. I also don't jailbreak because I don't have a need to. I just think it's funny that Apple goes on and on to try to make jailbreaking illegal on their phones and they get told to eat crap and die by the feds. Good for the government telling them that their crap does stink and they have to follow the rules like everyone else. This doesn't mean that Apple won't make it as hard as possible to JB and existing rules that void the warranty will still remain in place.

AFAIK it's always been legal, just not easy. So, nothing has changed... it's just politicians trying to make points.

Also, hello AI... where is the link to the actual ruling, versus citing AP. Link? Please?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #100 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Hahaha Apple. Now what?

I don't even see why this is newsworthy. Nothing has changed. It never was illegal to jailbreak your phone or unlock it. And there is nothing in this ruling that requires either Apple or ATT to unlock your phone for you or to assist you in jailbreaking your phone.

About the only thing that might have changed is Apple couldn't refuse to fix a hardware problem (like half your screen developing dead pixels) on an unlocked phone. But I've never heard of anyone having an issue like that in getting warranty service.

So can anyone explain what new rights we've gained (in regards to cell phones)? I think this ruling is more proactive than reactive to any current situations.
post #101 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

Pretty sad that the "right" of an artificial entity (e.g. business) is considered more important to protect than the individual right of a consumer (e.g. person) to do what they want with a piece of property they purchased.

Luckily, the Library of Congress decided differently. Your attempt to frame it as some government intrusion is just annoying, when in fact the opposite just happened. The government protected the rights of individuals.

Not true at all. There is already plenty of competition among phone manufacturers, so the government has inserted itself into an issue that would normally be sorted out by competition. There appears to be relatively little demand for jailbroken phones, so it has not been a consumer-driven issue.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #102 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I don't even see why this is newsworthy. Nothing has changed. It never was illegal to jailbreak your phone or unlock it. And there is nothing in this ruling that requires either Apple or ATT to unlock your phone for you or to assist you in jailbreaking your phone.

About the only thing that might have changed is Apple couldn't refuse to fix a hardware problem (like half your screen developing dead pixels) on an unlocked phone. But I've never heard of anyone having an issue like that in getting warranty service.

So can anyone explain what new rights we've gained (in regards to cell phones)? I think this ruling is more proactive than reactive to any current situations.

Apple and the EFF both submitted arguments to the Copyright office arguing whether jailbreaking in and of itself was illegal. Both could not be right, but both had arguments. For now (3 years) the EFF seems to have 'won'. Had Apple 'won' they could have gone after the groups and individuals working on the jailbreaks.

As for what rights you have gained? Well, if you wanted to open your own app store and sell legal apps for iPhone, you could do so now. As a consumer, if someone else did this, they could legally sell you software that you might want that would have otherwise been unavailable to you.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #103 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

...First, we don't know legally whether a purchased copy of OSX can be installed on non-Apple hardware. Apple's EULA says it is not permitted, but that's never been legally tested. The Psystar case only tested whether copied versions of OSX violate Apple's copyright when installed on computers. Read the court decision.

Second, no FCC rule or decision is involved here. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) expressely forbids bypassing digital protections on content. One exception allows the Librarian of Congress to decide every three years whether certain exemptions should be permitted. In this situation, the Librarian of Congress ruled that jailbreaking and unlocking are exempt from the digital protection restriction. That's it. There's nothing that changes anything else. Apple doesn't have to honor warranties on jailbroken and/or unlocked phones. The mobile operator can still hold you to the service contract. It doesn't give you license to install non-licensed software.

Very true.

People sometimes forget that until an interpretation of the law has been tested, it is not certain whether the interpretation is indeed with the spirit of the law, and thus, legal. Having said this, since the judiciary system still constitute judges, who are human, the interpretation of the law can change over time, depending on who is in power. Even the laws, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court have changed in their context -- abortion, affirmative action, copyright and patents, etc.

CGC
post #104 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

It was ambiguous. Apple went to the Copyright office and argued that the act of jailbreaking was itself a copyright infringement. The EFF argued that jailbreaking might make it possible for copyright infringement to occur but was not it itself infringement. They saw it as similar to making copies of your physical media. There are legit and non-legitimate reasons for doing it but that the act itself should be covered by fair use.

The way I remember it the EFF actually "started it" and went to the the Copyright office first, but that doesn't change your analysis.

I find overall that I lament the fact that all of this is supposed to be about "Copyright" when in fact nothing we are talking about has much to do with actually protecting creative works. This is ultimately all about business, about theft, and about who is allowed to make money off of the works.

The bigger picture of the DCMA and copyright law in general is that it has very little to do with what was traditionally called copyright or with protecting the actual works or the artists that create them. It's really just about sales and protecting the markets of the distribution companies. The actual Artists still mostly get the shaft as usual.
post #105 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Wow. That was unexpected.

Excellent move on the freedom front in regards carriers. Really bad, bad, move on the "your allowed to jailbreak" front. I can't see how anyone can have any data security if jailbreaking is allowed.

Next thing you know, General David Petraeus and Pres. Obama will be having a beer with the founder of Wikileaks...

But seriously, the "news" of this on the surface looks more exciting than the reality. Essentially, nothing is changed.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #106 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post

What does a jailborken iPhon have to do with running OSX on a Dell or HP? These are FCC rules which govern communications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Not true at all. There is already plenty of competition among phone manufacturers, so the issue is that the government has inserted itself into an issue that would normally be sorted out by competition. There appears to be relatively little demand for jailbroken phones, so it has not been a consumer-driven issue.

Yet another annoying "the market will solve it" argument. Individuals in a market don't necessarily get their rights protected. Your argument - spoofed by Stephen Colbert - is that "the market has spoken" and therefore is determinative of some inherent "rightness". Competition and the ability to buy another phone through another operator has no bearing on my individual right to do what I want with a piece of property that I own outright ... with the usual caveats that I cannot perform illegal acts or infringe on rights held by others. That's the DMCA's exemption clause. If I own the item, then how can I infringe on someone's copyright by removing the security mechanism? The copyright holder still got fully paid.

The government ought to insert itself in situations where a corporate entity tries to interfere in my property rights. After all, that's one of the core reasons why a government exists.
post #107 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

You are correct. That is pretty funny. The fact that app developers who sell apps on Cydia feel the need to protect themselves from piracy kind of gives lie to the lame protestations we often see that jailbreakers are not doing a significant amount of pirating.

Well Cydia packages have a much smaller potential set of customers, who all can figure out how to get the same app for free, unlike App store apps where there is over 10 million potential customers, where maybe only 500,000 have the ability to pirate.
post #108 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Hahaha Apple. Now what?

I know how dare Apple send Cyanogen a C&D for jailbreaking their OS.

oh wait...
post #109 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

The way I remember it the EFF actually "started it" and went to the the Copyright office first, but that doesn't change your analysis.

I find overall that I lament the fact that all of this is supposed to be about "Copyright" when in fact nothing we are talking about has much to do with actually protecting creative works. This is ultimately all about business, about theft, and about who is allowed to make money off of the works.

The bigger picture of the DCMA and copyright law in general is that it has very little to do with what was traditionally called copyright or with protecting the actual works or the artists that create them. It's really just about sales and protecting the markets of the distribution companies. The actual Artists still mostly get the shaft as usual.

You are likely right on all points.

What are your feelings on C-32 here at home?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #110 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

It's unclear from the information about this released so far, but I believe in the past, Apple has refused to provide warranty services to users who jailbreak, essentially arguing that the warranty terms have been violated. But it would seem now that they will won't be able to claim that the warranties have been voided. Still I don't think that Apple will have to support someone who hoses their iPhone with malware.

Warranties, Service Agreements and End User Licenses have nothing to do with the law. They are basically agreements between the manufacturer and the user. By using the product, the user agrees to specific terms stated in the contracts. Under the warranty, the manufacturer guarantees the product will work as advertised and will replace or fix the product free of charge should an issue arise. However, the warranty only applies as long as the user uses the device as outlined in the contract.

All this new law says, is that Apple cannot sue anyone for providing a method to jailbreak or unlock their devices. Apple can still void the warranty and refuse service as they could before.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #111 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Not true at all. There is already plenty of competition among phone manufacturers, so the government has inserted itself into an issue that would normally be sorted out by competition. There appears to be relatively little demand for jailbroken phones, so it has not been a consumer-driven issue.


The idea that market-driven solutions is necessarily the best solution is not always to the best interest of society. But, that is a perspective that is beyond the scope of what we are discussing here.

While I would not likely jailbreak by phone for my own security, the most difficult laws to pass are those for the protection of the minority or the less powerful.

In the US for example, there was a time that African-Americans did not have the same rights as "whites" -- both as legislated by Congress and interpreted by the US Supreme Court. This was the case also with the rights of women, and at some points, Asians, gay people, etc.

To protect the rights of those who want to jailbreak their phones (most likely in the minority), provided they do not violate the spirit of the law, is another testament to the protection of minorities.


Time changes people though and so do the politicians and judges that make the laws and interpret these laws. Many of the hard fought laws to protect minorities have been erroded or repealed more recently, either through acts of Congress or the judiciary system.

CGC
post #112 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

The problem is that the majority of jailbreaking goes on specifically to enable illegal programs on the device (stolen software). So now everyone will be allowed to jailbreak, but 90% of those doing it will still be breaking the law.

Proof, please. I've had a jailbroken iPhone for years and have yet to run a single pirated app on it. I also do not know anyone else who has ever run pirated software on their iPhones. I jailbreak to run software Apple doesn't allow, but I do pay for it through Cydia or other means. I also like having root access....just because.

I will admit to having researched how to install a pirated app, just out of curiosity. I didn't follow through. It actually seems like a real pain in the ass; I'm not clear why anyone would go thru that for a $3 app.

Unless you have stats to back up your "90% of jailbreakers are pirates" claim, I call shenanigans.
post #113 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Apple disagrees with you.

Apple doesn't make the laws.
post #114 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

It probably will.

Lets not be naive about this. To the extent that this changes anything at all (I would argue things will stay the same to a large degree), it's a change to the worse for everyone except the jailbreaker looking for free programs. Virtually all the effects of this decision will be negative to the end user with one exception.

Either someone will set up a legal second store with the "morally questionable" (girls in bikinis) apps, or Apple will have to relent on their Disney-eque fantasy and allow them in the regular store.

AFAIKS every single other aspect of jailbreaks being legal is a net loss for the average consumer.

(note I'm not talking about unlocking which is a good thing).

This is just crap. The changes give no legal validity to pirating apps and is highly unlikely to drive it. There is zero negative outcomes for consumers and it's overwhelmingly positive.

Where I am almost no one is interested in jailbreaking and the reason for that is the handsets are either never locked or are happily unlocked by the carrier. The big driver of jailbreaking was never about free apps but being able to swap carriers quickly or to ensure that when you travel with your phone you can drop in a local SIM if you need to.

The competitive benefits to consumers of being able to move around between carriers cannot be overstated. This is an important move to begin to abolish just some of the artificial constraints which were designed to limit competition and ensure consumers pay more than they should. Sadly before this move this restraint alone may have helped AT&T pick millions of dollars out of the pockets of iphone users.
post #115 of 220
It is complete bullshit that customers have to stay with AT&T after they have paid them thousands of dollars over the course of the 2-year iPhone contract. There is a lawsuit about this that just gained class action status. I for one hope we (consumers) win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MomentsofSanity View Post

This seems like a very empty ruling on behalf of the government. So my carrier can still force me to use their network after my contract expires if I want to keep my phone UNLESS I jailbreak and unlock my phone and jump through all the hoops that go with that every time there's an update to iOS etc...?

Grow a pair of balls and mandate they be sold unlocked or, at minimum, force unlocking once a contract term is honored be it full term or paying the ECF.
post #116 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Warranties, Service Agreements and End User Licenses have nothing to do with the law. They are basically agreements between the manufacturer and the user. By using the product, the user agrees to specific terms stated in the contracts. Under the warranty, the manufacturer guarantees the product will work as advertised and will replace or fix the product free of charge should an issue arise. However, the warranty only applies as long as the user uses the device as outlined in the contract.

All this new law says, is that Apple cannot sue anyone for providing a method to jailbreak or unlock their devices. Apple can still void the warranty and refuse service as they could before.

Yes, I think you are correct, except I'm not so sure Apple still couldn't sue someone for providing a method if they were so inclined, for purposes of testing the law.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #117 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaporland View Post

since we can now jailbreak iPhones, can we also run OSX on a Dell or HP computer without fear of prosecution, if we've bought a legal copy of OSX?

No, Apple's EULA prohibits their OS from running on non-Apple hardware. You never actually buy a legal copy of OS X, you buy a legal upgrade. This is what most people fail to realize; the boxed version of OS X you buy in the store is actually an upgrade and is only for Mac users. It is provided mostly out of convenience; rather than needing to purchase and download the upgrade online, which would take a long time to do, they make it available at retail outlets. This is in contrast to iOS, which is only purchased and distributed online.

Secondly, Apple has never sued a private individual for installing OS X on non-Apple hardware, all they'll do is refuse warranty service.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #118 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Honig View Post

This makes me proud to be a citizen of the US. I can't help but think apple is slowly loosing its hold and power after the death grip fiasco apple. Its like what Leia said to Tarkin: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers". I love apple but they need to loosen up a bit when it comes to things like third party applications and I don't know...Flash.

Don't glow to much. This will probably only result in Apple locking things down tighter on JB phones. They have to protect the developers of legit apps somehow. Also, the government is not egalitarian. I suspect we will find out why they really did this soon enough and I'm sure it wasn't for "the greater good".
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #119 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaruiKoohii View Post

I don't see how this matters at all.

There is no data security with physical access to the device anyways. Jailbreaking doesn't make this any better or worse.

I think it's a sign that they are finally realizing digital rights to date have focused on protecting content providers but not content consumers.

Though I don't have any interest in jailbreaking this is good, means we are starting to get some reform in the laws instead of having a mirky mess surrounding digital content.
post #120 of 220
They're saying it's not illegal to jailbreak your iphone. They aren't saying Apple needs to treat that device the same as the others.

It's like saying it's legal to buy a car and remove the motor, but the dealership you bought the car from isn't obligated to continue honoring the warranty on that vehicle after you've done something like that.

Seems like a no-brainer to me, but things like this need to be put on the books so that there's no question about it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › US government legalizes iPhone 'jailbreaking,' unlocking