or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple sued over iPhone locking, DRM patent violations
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple sued over iPhone locking, DRM patent violations - Page 2

post #41 of 116
When will people learn...
If you don't like the terms of the iPhone, then don't get one!
20" Aluminum iMac (August 2007) - Snow Leopard 10.6.4
13" MacBook Pro (2.53 Ghz) - Snow Leopard 10.6.4
64 GB iPad Wifi
32 GB iPhone 3GS
8 GB iPhone (Original)
2 iPod Minis (Blue, 4GB)
Reply
20" Aluminum iMac (August 2007) - Snow Leopard 10.6.4
13" MacBook Pro (2.53 Ghz) - Snow Leopard 10.6.4
64 GB iPad Wifi
32 GB iPhone 3GS
8 GB iPhone (Original)
2 iPod Minis (Blue, 4GB)
Reply
post #42 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnqh View Post

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.
post #43 of 116
post #44 of 116
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.
post #45 of 116
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.
post #46 of 116
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.
post #47 of 116
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.
post #48 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

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:
Quote:
(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.)
post #49 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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.
post #50 of 116
Greed vs. Stupidity.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #51 of 116
"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.
post #52 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

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.
post #53 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

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.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #54 of 116
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
post #55 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobWeber View Post

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.
post #56 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

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
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #57 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

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

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #58 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

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.
post #59 of 116
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?
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #60 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

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.


-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #61 of 116
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
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #62 of 116
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.

If they did not want to be deal with AT&T and the iphone go somewhere else. 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. 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.

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. Remember Apple never said they are baring you from moding or doing what every you want with the phone, 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. 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
post #63 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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.
post #64 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by ros3ntan View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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.


-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????
post #66 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

(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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMCA

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.

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
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #67 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

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????

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
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #68 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

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.

}
post #70 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post

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
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #71 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post

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
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #72 of 116
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.

It's legal to remove your money from the bank, but you can't do it at gunpoint.
post #73 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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
post #74 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

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.

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
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #75 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post

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.)
post #77 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

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
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #78 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post

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
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #79 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

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
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #80 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple sued over iPhone locking, DRM patent violations