Apple sued over iPhone locking, DRM patent violations

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 118
    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
  • Reply 82 of 118
    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 83 of 118
    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 84 of 118
    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 85 of 118
    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
  • Reply 86 of 118
    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
  • Reply 87 of 118
    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
  • Reply 88 of 118
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    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.
  • Reply 89 of 118
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    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...
  • Reply 90 of 118
    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
  • Reply 91 of 118
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    An illegal act committed to facilitate a legal act is still illegal.



    Jailbreaking your iPhone doesn't connect it to any network.
  • Reply 92 of 118
    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
  • Reply 93 of 118
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    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.
  • Reply 94 of 118
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    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.
  • Reply 95 of 118
    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
  • Reply 96 of 118
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    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.
  • Reply 97 of 118
    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
  • Reply 98 of 118
    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 99 of 118
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    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.
  • Reply 100 of 118
    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?
Sign In or Register to comment.