Apple sued over iPhone locking, DRM patent violations

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 118
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    One more try.

    1) Apple has no responsibility to build its business model around hand-holding geeks with nothing better to do than hack their phone, break it, and cry to mama.

    2) "But its MY PHONE!!!"

    Yup. Your phone, Apple's software/firmware. (Read your contract.) You can saw it in half and glue a propeller on it to try to fly, but that's not Apple's responsibility.

    3) But they NEED US!!!

    AAPL: \t167.91 ( +6.4601 )

    The market disagrees. In fact the case can be made that the more the Apple cat keeps bitch-slapping the trespassing mice, the more users with an interest in platform stability will embrace it.
  • Reply 22 of 118
    scottibscottib Posts: 381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GQB View Post


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



    While I left the fold years ago, dig out your copy of Atlas Shrugged.

    Ayn lays it out pretty well, bless her perverted little heart.



    Indeed (an Objectivist that's left the fold, as well).
  • Reply 23 of 118
    physguyphysguy Posts: 920member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


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



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



    OK, one more time.

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



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



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


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



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



    Cheers.
  • Reply 24 of 118
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


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

    -Clive



    That seems contradictory. Unbricking unlocked or software modified phones

    IS supporting them. Do you think users should pay a fee to have their bricked

    phones unbricked, or are you saying Apple should have to eat the expense

    of doing it?
  • Reply 25 of 118
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by scottiB View Post


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



    There must be a 'recovered Objectivists' support group out there somewhere.

    Appropriate nostalgia for post #100.
  • Reply 26 of 118
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Why do so many folks think here is any law in the US that expressly requires phones to be unlockable? There isn't. Period.



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



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



    So now let's quit with the false legal posturing and get on with a reasonable discussion. If you think locking is morally reprehensible, that's totally fine. But separate your opinions from legal requirements, they are completely different things.
  • Reply 27 of 118
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post


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



    Lawyers want money. They'll sue anyone for anything you want to sue them for.
  • Reply 28 of 118
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    OK, one more time.

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



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







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



    Cheers.



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



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    That seems contradictory. Unbricking unlocked or software modified phones

    IS supporting them. Do you think users should pay a fee to have their bricked

    phones unbricked, or are you saying Apple should have to eat the expense

    of doing it?



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



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



    -Clive
  • Reply 29 of 118
    physguyphysguy Posts: 920member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


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



    Here Here!!! Now if we could only get them to focus on suing each other we might create that snake that ate its own tail
  • Reply 30 of 118
    physguyphysguy Posts: 920member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


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







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



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



    -Clive



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



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



    Is this just? Maybe, maybe not. Various opinions abound. Does Apple have any legal responsibility - no.
  • Reply 31 of 118
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


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



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



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worm_Ouroboros
  • Reply 32 of 118
    t.o.mt.o.m Posts: 8member
    Judges should start locking up stupid MF's like this who waste my money to get rich because of there unbridled greed. They need to be required to serve 1000 + hours of community service cleaning toilets for people who have the runs to make up for this greedy f*****g attempt at wealth. Hell, we all want to be rich, what we're willing to do to get it is the only difference. We'll see. I wish Apple and other company's would crush there soul and make them wish they'd never been born for this kind of sh*t. Including Microsoft!!!!
  • Reply 33 of 118
    johnqhjohnqh Posts: 242member
    Interesting .... nobody does the patent suit bashing on the DRM lawsuit this time?



    Well, the patent's priority date was in 98. iTunes was released in 2001. Can anyone think of any prior art before 98? It looks like a solid patent to me.
  • Reply 34 of 118
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GQB View Post


    And Apple does not force anyone to come into the 'arena'.

    If this nonsense gets pointed where it belongs (at the cell carriers and their tools in the legislature and regulatory agencies), then perhaps some good will come of it in the long run.

    But Apple is just the most convenient 'deep pocket'.



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

    That's the only thing I can think of that might result in the pathological ranting going on.



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



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



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



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





    More people should take the approach. I still laugh when I read about people being pissed that Leopard still using aqua scroll bars, who gives a shit I could care less about how Leopard looks all I care about is what is offers me as an OS.
  • Reply 35 of 118
    physguyphysguy Posts: 920member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by johnqh View Post


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



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



    OK. There are 4 independent claims in the patent 1, 21, 32 and 37. In reading these, to me, they seem to be variation of cookie-based web access to a site, with and without encryption, etc. They involve an automated login process with a unique key. This is analogous to a cookie base login where the 'unique key' is your login information and the automated process is the web browser getting the information from the cookie and transmitting to the server. Then add ssl for encryption, etc. There are some differences but I could certainly argue obviousness based on the above analogy. What I can't say for sure (from my memory) is if the cookie based interaction was in place in 1998.
  • Reply 36 of 118
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by johnqh View Post


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



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



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Suit over DRM patent violations



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



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



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



    Here's prior art before '98...
    Quote:

    Recordable Audio CD's use SCMS (Serial Copy Management System), an early form of digital rights management (DRM), to conform to the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act).



    Quote:

    Mon, 7 Apr 1997 01:02:57 +0200





    Hello DAT-Heads ...



    > >1) Are all commercially produced CDs bought from our local music store

    > >(HMV, SAM the record man, TOWER Records, Sunrise or whatever) able to be

    > >digitally transferred to DAT with NO PROBLEMS?

    >

    > Almost all CDs have the SCMS code 11, which means 1 more copy, so you

    > can copy them digitally to a consumer dat deck (but you'll get a tape

    > with 10, which cannot be copied digitally to a consumer deck). (The

    > scms code for CDs was defined that way, which explains the unintuitive

    > numbering scheme. CDs don't really have SCMS, but they have a

    > "copyright asserted" bit (which is the first bit of their "scms"), and

    > a "generation" bit (which is always 1, since CDs aren't masters)

    > (which was used as the second bit of their "scms").)



    http://www.fet.uni-hannover.de/~purnhage/dat/scms.txt



    SCMS came before this patent.
  • Reply 37 of 118
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


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



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



    Dave





    A good thing there are actually people with brains here who can argue facts. You're not one of them....
  • Reply 38 of 118
    johnqhjohnqh Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post


    Here's prior art before '98...

    http://www.fet.uni-hannover.de/~purnhage/dat/scms.txt



    SCMS came before this patent.



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



    Please, read and understand before you post.
  • Reply 39 of 118
    johnqhjohnqh Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


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



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



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



    This is the second patent lawsuit against Apple which I consider valid (last one was the one against Nike/Apple).
  • Reply 40 of 118
    ros3ntanros3ntan Posts: 201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post


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



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



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



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