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 3

post #81 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


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.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post

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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 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 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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post

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
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 #84 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post

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
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 #85 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post

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
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 #86 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

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.
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 #87 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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

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".

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...
post #88 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

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
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 #89 of 116
An illegal act committed to facilitate a legal act is still illegal.

Jailbreaking your iPhone doesn't connect it to any network.
post #90 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

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
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 #91 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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.
post #92 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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.
post #93 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

"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
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 #94 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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

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, 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.
post #95 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

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...

-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 #96 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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...

-Clive

No, 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.
post #98 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 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 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?
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post




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.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post

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.
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 #101 of 116
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.
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 #102 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

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.
post #103 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #104 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.

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
post #105 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

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".

Access to a phone network is not a copyrighted work.
post #106 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

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.
post #107 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post

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.

Quote:
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.
post #108 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

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.
post #109 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

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.
post #110 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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.

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
post #111 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 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 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
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 #112 of 116
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.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #113 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

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.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #114 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

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.
post #115 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post




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.
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 116
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.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

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