Not really. Verifying the validity of the Gift Card is the issue. Ask a Canadian or any foreign visitor what happens when they try to pay in their own currency. Works the same in many countries for Americans as well. In particular, more often recently with the down turn of the US dollar.
And you think that you could send a gift card to a cousin in the UK and he/she should be able to go to any Apple store and use it. A gift card that could easily be replicated and outputted on your computer attached to virtually any usb inkjet printer.
I agree with most of what you said but I want to point out that it IS legal to "use" your iPhone however you wish, but doing so may void your warranty. Apple can restrict cash purchases; they can pursue legal action with redistributors; they can refuse support for Jailbroken/unlocked/bricked phones. They cannot, however, pursue legal action, at this time, for the unlocking of phones for use with another carrier.
Just thought I'd make that clarification.
-Clive
Thanks for the clarification, Clive. I didn't mean to suggest it would be illegal for the consumer to use the iPhone as they wished (unlock it, or whatever), once they purchased it. Rather, my comment was directed at those misguided persons who think that it is somehow illegal for Apple to restrict the iPhone to a single carrier in the U.S. (AT&T, for now), or to restrict sales of the iPhone to consumers whom Apple thinks intend to use it with an AT&T contract. These are the same posters who start crying out "class action!" every time they don't like something about the conditions of sale or service offered, mistaking their "wants" with "rights."
P.S.
Other countries have other applicable laws, where it may in fact be illegal to sell only locked phones--France, for example.
I've been as big of a fan of Apple as anyone over the last 15 years, but doesn't this smell of monopoly to anyone else? Set aside the fact that this is not the Apple of yesteryear that was scrambling to get 3rd party software developers interested in the Macs, isn't this similar to what Microsoft was sued for?
If it's a matter of not wanting other people to profit off of the limitations they, perhaps foolishly, imposed on the iPhone it seems to display how the idea was a bad one to begin with. Of course people are not going to be happy to be told that they must use one and only one phone service. If they did the same thing with their computers for online service, would everyone be as understanding? If you don't want people making profit off of your work, illiminate the middle man - remove the limitations and you won't have opportunistic folk profiting off of the iPhone.
When you purchase a product, how dare anyone tell you how you can use it? How dare anyone tell you they will remove support for your product if it locks up because you went to some alleyway idiot who assured you he knew what he was doing?
I own a G4 that still runs better than it did when I first got it, two iMacs and an iPod. I may not be a 'share holder' but considering my modest budget, they've gotten more money from me than any other computer/software developer, and always with a huge smile, as excited as I was when I was a child at Christmas whenever I buy the latest OS X that comes out.
I've been as big of a fan of Apple as anyone over the last 15 years, but doesn't this smell of monopoly to anyone else? .
Not really.
Not unless you are suggesting that there are no substitutes, that the iPhone is a product category unto itself, and that there is no current or impending future competition for this product (and moreover, that Apple was preventing such competition).
Just for clarification, where did you get the idea that Apple was contemplating such action?
I wasn't. Sliced Bread's post was borderline-implying that Apple could control how we buy and use iPhones. While they can control the purchase and defend their methods with legal means, they cannot do so with how people choose to use their iPhones. This is all
What stinks about this is the girft cards. I can see not accepting cash, because people can use a Credit/Debit card, and then pay the cash on their card.
But if someone had a $400 gift card and wanted to buy an iPhone, they would be pretty upset if they told them no. If they used a Credit Card to buy the phone, they would have another $400 to spend at the apple store.
Not really a problem for me, but I can see how this would stink if the card was a gift, etc.
Seems like I heard that people were collecting gift cards from Birthdays, Christmas, etc, and saving for an iPhone.
Maybe they could void out the card(s), and give you a credit back on the card, or something...
Not unless you are suggesting that there are no substitutes, that the iPhone is a product category unto itself, and that there is no current or impending future competition for this product (and moreover, that Apple was preventing such competition).
Makes sense the third time I read your post... but doesn't remove the stink altogether. Saying it's legal to limit the phone service to only one company doesn't make the fart smell any less awful.
I've been as big of a fan of Apple as anyone over the last 15 years, but doesn't this smell of monopoly to anyone else? Set aside the fact that this is not the Apple of yesteryear that was scrambling to get 3rd party software developers interested in the Macs, isn't this similar to what Microsoft was sued for?
If it's a matter of not wanting other people to profit off of the limitations they, perhaps foolishly, imposed on the iPhone it seems to display how the idea was a bad one to begin with. Of course people are not going to be happy to be told that they must use one and only one phone service. If they did the same thing with their computers for online service, would everyone be as understanding? If you don't want people making profit off of your work, illiminate the middle man - remove the limitations and you won't have opportunistic folk profiting off of the iPhone.
When you purchase a product, how dare anyone tell you how you can use it? How dare anyone tell you they will remove support for your product if it locks up because you went to some alleyway idiot who assured you he knew what he was doing?
I own a G4 that still runs better than it did when I first got it, two iMacs and an iPod. I may not be a 'share holder' but considering my modest budget, they've gotten more money from me than any other computer/software developer, and always with a huge smile, as excited as I was when I was a child at Christmas whenever I buy the latest OS X that comes out.
But this is not yesterday's Apple.
I, too, am a long-time Apple fan (20+ years) who is a non-shareholder (to my own regret!) and on a tight budget.
No, it's not illegal for Apple to restrict the types of tender they accept; no, it's not illegal for them to limit the number of phones you can purchase; no, it's not illegal (in the U.S.) for them to officially partner with a carrier. YES, you have the right to unlock your phone to use with any carrier you choose (courtesy of the DMCA exemptions) but Apple is not obligated to support your phone. While I personally think Apple should step up and create an iPhone "virginizer," they are not obligated by law to do so, nor are they obligated to support phones that are used in violation of their terms of use. They've followed all the legal guidelines so if you have a problem with how they are acting, you actually have a problem with our legal system, which is okay. Take it up with your local congress-people and fight for changing the laws.
Like, in France, for example, Apple cannot exclusively sell a phone without offering an unlocked version. If you think our lawbooks need a similar clause, seriously, take it up with your lawmakers. That's what they're there for.
Also, as a disclaimer, I do not own an iPhone, so I am not pro-Apple-biased, though I do want one. If I owned an iPhone, I would unlock it and knowingly use it sans warranty. You have the right to do the same, but at this point in time, Apple is not doing anything illegal by not supporting you.
I, too, am a long-time Apple fan (20+ years) who is a non-shareholder (to my own regret!) and on a tight budget.
No, it's not illegal for Apple to restrict the types of tender they accept; no, it's not illegal for them to limit the number of phones you can purchase; no, it's not illegal (in the U.S.) for them to officially partner with a carrier. YES, you have the right to unlock your phone to use with any carrier you choose (courtesy of the DMCA exemptions) but Apple is not obligated to support your phone. While I personally think Apple should step up and create an iPhone "virginizer," they are not obligated by law to do so, nor are they obligated to support phones that are used in violation of their terms of use. They've followed all the legal guidelines so if you have a problem with how they are acting, you actually have a problem with our legal system, which is okay. Take it up with your local congress-people and fight for changing the laws.
Like, in France, for example, Apple cannot exclusively sell a phone without offering an unlocked version. If you think our lawbooks need a similar clause, seriously, take it up with your lawmakers. That's what they're there for.
Also, as a disclaimer, I do not own an iPhone, so I am not pro-Apple-biased, though I do want one. If I owned an iPhone, I would unlock it and knowingly use it sans warranty. You have the right to do the same, but at this point in time, Apple is not doing anything illegal by not supporting you.
-Clive
Um... working two jobs I have barely enough energy to argue with the grocery check out girl about my out-dated coupons. I'm probaby just bitter because it seems like more and more the individuality is being removed from Apple. The OS X software that only works with a superdrive of their making; the lack of support of the older apps that ran on OS 9 after a very short time; the iPhone that limits which phone service you are allowed to use.
Hmmm... sounds like an old man bitchin' about the younger days... nevermind.
Apple Retail Employees are forced to use those stupid hand held cash machines because it gets Apple two things, your credit card number and your email address.
Those hand held cash machines that run on Microsoft windows applications that Apple doesn't want you to know about. An employee at the store filled me in that they run Windows behind the scenes in the back of the Apple stores. YeGods!!!
Apple Retail Employees are forced to use those stupid hand held cash machines because it gets Apple two things, your credit card number and your email address.
Those hand held cash machines that run on Microsoft windows applications that Apple doesn't want you to know about. An employee at the store filled me in that they run Windows behind the scenes in the back of the Apple stores. YeGods!!!
When you consider how much stock Microsoft owns of Apple, it isn't really surprising at all.
Paying off a debt is different. As long as the denominations are suitable. Can't for example, pay off a thousand dollar loan in pennies if the lender so refuses.
I've seen no instance where the law allows any distinction in denominations. Now, maybe prosecutors won't touch it, because it would be silly to try to enforce it. The idea does seem to have a dead-letter feel to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ensign Pulver
It's just as illegal here and I'm astonished they're getting away with it.
"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"
You can't refuse cash.
It is debts as in, you've already eaten the food, and now you owe the establishment. Or accepted some other service and now owe the person or company. But you don't owe Apple any money during any part of the transaction. You pay them and then they give you the device in exchange for the money, not they give you the device and now you owe them.
I agree with this move, but it would probably achieve the same result to just limit cash unit sales to a single phone per person per week, something like that. That way cash customers would not be out of luck.
If you pay cash, how do they know when the last time you stopped? One might pop in once a day and see a different cashier. Someone says they need an email address. I can make up an address at one of my domains on the spot and my "catch-all" email account will get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krsd
Legally Cash in the US is legal tender as well. A lot of companies are pushing that law though and so far from what I have seen have gotten away with it because no one has made a big enough legal issue of it. Granted a lot of the times the companies not accepting cash do it for practical reasons, but that doesn't make it right or legal.
Specific instances I have encountered where cash was not being accepted include:
Apartment complexes for rent
Airlines for in flight movies (which I refuse to pay for as a result)
And though not technically refusing, most bills that are paid via mail.
I think the problem with sending cash in the mail is that it's much harder to trace theft, so it's actually to your best interest too. The people handling the payments for the corporation can just pocket your cash and destroy any evidence that you sent the money. If you mailed a check then you'd have evidence through the bank. It would be a bit tough for some mail room lackey to cash a check in the company's name anyway.
I've seen no instance where the law allows any distinction in denominations. Now, maybe prosecutors won't touch it, because it would be silly to try to enforce it. The idea does seem to have a dead-letter feel to it.
Actually, the law is quite clear. As previously posted, Quote:
There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
Pennies are out if the private business, a person or an organization doesn't want to accept them. They can dictate the form unless a state law says otherwise.
I don't know how the law is in the US but they certainly couldn't do that in the UK. Cash is legal tender. If they are selling something to the public they are obliged to accept cash.
Yeah well, see how far that gets you on November the 9th. I've already been told by two branches of O2 and three branches of Carphone Warehouse that you can only buy one iPhone and it has to be via a chip & pin CURRENT ACCOUNT card.
And if you don't agree with that, there will be plenty of people behind you in the queue who are happy to comply in order to get their paws on an iPhone come launch night.
Interestingly, I've had a number of O2 sales staff telling me that they have been explicitly instructed not to say ANYTHING about the iPhone or its price plans etc. This seems a bit stupid to me. Also, nobody, including O2, can tell me for sure if I can upgrade my existing contract to an iPhone plan. It seems as though the answer is no ? that'll I'll have to sign up to a new 18 month contract and let the remaining six months of my current contract run.
Given all of this, will I be signing-up for an iPhone? Or will I just get an unlocked handset from Ebay or France?
Actually, the law is quite clear. As previously posted,
Pennies are out if the private business, a person or an organization doesn't want to accept them. They can dictate the form unless a state law says otherwise.
Well, there is an important distinction which JeffDM has already acknowledged and you seem not to have noticed.
If you already have an account in arrears with any private business, person, or organization, then it constitutes a debt. And if any private business, person, or organization refuses an offer of legal tender in payment of those arrears, then said business, individual or organization may be argued to have forfeited their right to expect any form of payment. (Well, constitutionally, I guess, the only permitted legal tender in any State is gold dollar coins. But it appears that it's silently become the accepted norm, however, to pretend that the Feds have the power to define government-authorized notes, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender as well. The so-called Legal Tender Cases in the Supreme Court have lent the force of law to this view.)
In Canada, at least, there are regulations stating, for example, that $0.25 is the largest portion of a single debt that may settled using pennies, unless the debtor and creditor reach a separate agreement to the contrary.
However, before said arrears have come into existence, that is, when you first walk up to the store clerk and express your interest in buying something, the seller has every right to refuse to enter into a sales agreement, and there is no transfer to your ownership of any goods or services. Before the transfer of ownership happens, the store clerk may ask, "And how will you be paying for this today, Sir?" (Or words to that effect.) If the response is "Cash", then the clerk can say, "Sorry, we cannot accept cash for this purchase." Therefore the sale never occurs, no debt exists, and the whole argument of legal tender never comes into play.
Comments
Not really. Verifying the validity of the Gift Card is the issue. Ask a Canadian or any foreign visitor what happens when they try to pay in their own currency. Works the same in many countries for Americans as well. In particular, more often recently with the down turn of the US dollar.
And you think that you could send a gift card to a cousin in the UK and he/she should be able to go to any Apple store and use it. A gift card that could easily be replicated and outputted on your computer attached to virtually any usb inkjet printer.
Huh?
I agree with most of what you said but I want to point out that it IS legal to "use" your iPhone however you wish, but doing so may void your warranty. Apple can restrict cash purchases; they can pursue legal action with redistributors; they can refuse support for Jailbroken/unlocked/bricked phones. They cannot, however, pursue legal action, at this time, for the unlocking of phones for use with another carrier.
Just thought I'd make that clarification.
-Clive
Thanks for the clarification, Clive. I didn't mean to suggest it would be illegal for the consumer to use the iPhone as they wished (unlock it, or whatever), once they purchased it. Rather, my comment was directed at those misguided persons who think that it is somehow illegal for Apple to restrict the iPhone to a single carrier in the U.S. (AT&T, for now), or to restrict sales of the iPhone to consumers whom Apple thinks intend to use it with an AT&T contract. These are the same posters who start crying out "class action!" every time they don't like something about the conditions of sale or service offered, mistaking their "wants" with "rights."
P.S.
Other countries have other applicable laws, where it may in fact be illegal to sell only locked phones--France, for example.
If it's a matter of not wanting other people to profit off of the limitations they, perhaps foolishly, imposed on the iPhone it seems to display how the idea was a bad one to begin with. Of course people are not going to be happy to be told that they must use one and only one phone service. If they did the same thing with their computers for online service, would everyone be as understanding? If you don't want people making profit off of your work, illiminate the middle man - remove the limitations and you won't have opportunistic folk profiting off of the iPhone.
When you purchase a product, how dare anyone tell you how you can use it? How dare anyone tell you they will remove support for your product if it locks up because you went to some alleyway idiot who assured you he knew what he was doing?
I own a G4 that still runs better than it did when I first got it, two iMacs and an iPod. I may not be a 'share holder' but considering my modest budget, they've gotten more money from me than any other computer/software developer, and always with a huge smile, as excited as I was when I was a child at Christmas whenever I buy the latest OS X that comes out.
But this is not yesterday's Apple.
I've been as big of a fan of Apple as anyone over the last 15 years, but doesn't this smell of monopoly to anyone else? .
Not really.
Not unless you are suggesting that there are no substitutes, that the iPhone is a product category unto itself, and that there is no current or impending future competition for this product (and moreover, that Apple was preventing such competition).
Just for clarification, where did you get the idea that Apple was contemplating such action?
I wasn't. Sliced Bread's post was borderline-implying that Apple could control how we buy and use iPhones. While they can control the purchase and defend their methods with legal means, they cannot do so with how people choose to use their iPhones. This is all
But if someone had a $400 gift card and wanted to buy an iPhone, they would be pretty upset if they told them no. If they used a Credit Card to buy the phone, they would have another $400 to spend at the apple store.
Not really a problem for me, but I can see how this would stink if the card was a gift, etc.
Seems like I heard that people were collecting gift cards from Birthdays, Christmas, etc, and saving for an iPhone.
Maybe they could void out the card(s), and give you a credit back on the card, or something...
Not really.
Not unless you are suggesting that there are no substitutes, that the iPhone is a product category unto itself, and that there is no current or impending future competition for this product (and moreover, that Apple was preventing such competition).
Makes sense the third time I read your post... but doesn't remove the stink altogether. Saying it's legal to limit the phone service to only one company doesn't make the fart smell any less awful.
I've been as big of a fan of Apple as anyone over the last 15 years, but doesn't this smell of monopoly to anyone else? Set aside the fact that this is not the Apple of yesteryear that was scrambling to get 3rd party software developers interested in the Macs, isn't this similar to what Microsoft was sued for?
If it's a matter of not wanting other people to profit off of the limitations they, perhaps foolishly, imposed on the iPhone it seems to display how the idea was a bad one to begin with. Of course people are not going to be happy to be told that they must use one and only one phone service. If they did the same thing with their computers for online service, would everyone be as understanding? If you don't want people making profit off of your work, illiminate the middle man - remove the limitations and you won't have opportunistic folk profiting off of the iPhone.
When you purchase a product, how dare anyone tell you how you can use it? How dare anyone tell you they will remove support for your product if it locks up because you went to some alleyway idiot who assured you he knew what he was doing?
I own a G4 that still runs better than it did when I first got it, two iMacs and an iPod. I may not be a 'share holder' but considering my modest budget, they've gotten more money from me than any other computer/software developer, and always with a huge smile, as excited as I was when I was a child at Christmas whenever I buy the latest OS X that comes out.
But this is not yesterday's Apple.
I, too, am a long-time Apple fan (20+ years) who is a non-shareholder (to my own regret!) and on a tight budget.
No, it's not illegal for Apple to restrict the types of tender they accept; no, it's not illegal for them to limit the number of phones you can purchase; no, it's not illegal (in the U.S.) for them to officially partner with a carrier. YES, you have the right to unlock your phone to use with any carrier you choose (courtesy of the DMCA exemptions) but Apple is not obligated to support your phone. While I personally think Apple should step up and create an iPhone "virginizer," they are not obligated by law to do so, nor are they obligated to support phones that are used in violation of their terms of use. They've followed all the legal guidelines so if you have a problem with how they are acting, you actually have a problem with our legal system, which is okay. Take it up with your local congress-people and fight for changing the laws.
Like, in France, for example, Apple cannot exclusively sell a phone without offering an unlocked version. If you think our lawbooks need a similar clause, seriously, take it up with your lawmakers. That's what they're there for.
Also, as a disclaimer, I do not own an iPhone, so I am not pro-Apple-biased, though I do want one. If I owned an iPhone, I would unlock it and knowingly use it sans warranty. You have the right to do the same, but at this point in time, Apple is not doing anything illegal by not supporting you.
-Clive
I, too, am a long-time Apple fan (20+ years) who is a non-shareholder (to my own regret!) and on a tight budget.
No, it's not illegal for Apple to restrict the types of tender they accept; no, it's not illegal for them to limit the number of phones you can purchase; no, it's not illegal (in the U.S.) for them to officially partner with a carrier. YES, you have the right to unlock your phone to use with any carrier you choose (courtesy of the DMCA exemptions) but Apple is not obligated to support your phone. While I personally think Apple should step up and create an iPhone "virginizer," they are not obligated by law to do so, nor are they obligated to support phones that are used in violation of their terms of use. They've followed all the legal guidelines so if you have a problem with how they are acting, you actually have a problem with our legal system, which is okay. Take it up with your local congress-people and fight for changing the laws.
Like, in France, for example, Apple cannot exclusively sell a phone without offering an unlocked version. If you think our lawbooks need a similar clause, seriously, take it up with your lawmakers. That's what they're there for.
Also, as a disclaimer, I do not own an iPhone, so I am not pro-Apple-biased, though I do want one. If I owned an iPhone, I would unlock it and knowingly use it sans warranty. You have the right to do the same, but at this point in time, Apple is not doing anything illegal by not supporting you.
-Clive
Um... working two jobs I have barely enough energy to argue with the grocery check out girl about my out-dated coupons. I'm probaby just bitter because it seems like more and more the individuality is being removed from Apple. The OS X software that only works with a superdrive of their making; the lack of support of the older apps that ran on OS 9 after a very short time; the iPhone that limits which phone service you are allowed to use.
Hmmm... sounds like an old man bitchin' about the younger days... nevermind.
Somebody is taking action on Piracy. I am not upset in the least.
Piracy - when you consider the word's origins and history, it is kind of funny how it is used today.
Apple Retail Employees are forced to use those stupid hand held cash machines because it gets Apple two things, your credit card number and your email address.
Those hand held cash machines that run on Microsoft windows applications that Apple doesn't want you to know about. An employee at the store filled me in that they run Windows behind the scenes in the back of the Apple stores. YeGods!!!
Apple Retail Employees are forced to use those stupid hand held cash machines because it gets Apple two things, your credit card number and your email address.
Those hand held cash machines that run on Microsoft windows applications that Apple doesn't want you to know about. An employee at the store filled me in that they run Windows behind the scenes in the back of the Apple stores. YeGods!!!
When you consider how much stock Microsoft owns of Apple, it isn't really surprising at all.
Paying off a debt is different. As long as the denominations are suitable. Can't for example, pay off a thousand dollar loan in pennies if the lender so refuses.
I've seen no instance where the law allows any distinction in denominations. Now, maybe prosecutors won't touch it, because it would be silly to try to enforce it. The idea does seem to have a dead-letter feel to it.
It's just as illegal here and I'm astonished they're getting away with it.
"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"
You can't refuse cash.
It is debts as in, you've already eaten the food, and now you owe the establishment. Or accepted some other service and now owe the person or company. But you don't owe Apple any money during any part of the transaction. You pay them and then they give you the device in exchange for the money, not they give you the device and now you owe them.
I agree with this move, but it would probably achieve the same result to just limit cash unit sales to a single phone per person per week, something like that. That way cash customers would not be out of luck.
If you pay cash, how do they know when the last time you stopped? One might pop in once a day and see a different cashier. Someone says they need an email address. I can make up an address at one of my domains on the spot and my "catch-all" email account will get it.
Legally Cash in the US is legal tender as well. A lot of companies are pushing that law though and so far from what I have seen have gotten away with it because no one has made a big enough legal issue of it. Granted a lot of the times the companies not accepting cash do it for practical reasons, but that doesn't make it right or legal.
Specific instances I have encountered where cash was not being accepted include:
I think the problem with sending cash in the mail is that it's much harder to trace theft, so it's actually to your best interest too. The people handling the payments for the corporation can just pocket your cash and destroy any evidence that you sent the money. If you mailed a check then you'd have evidence through the bank. It would be a bit tough for some mail room lackey to cash a check in the company's name anyway.
Somebody is taking action on Piracy. I am not upset in the least.
That's a bizarrely repurposed word.
I've seen no instance where the law allows any distinction in denominations. Now, maybe prosecutors won't touch it, because it would be silly to try to enforce it. The idea does seem to have a dead-letter feel to it.
Actually, the law is quite clear. As previously posted, Quote:
There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
Pennies are out if the private business, a person or an organization doesn't want to accept them. They can dictate the form unless a state law says otherwise.
I don't know how the law is in the US but they certainly couldn't do that in the UK. Cash is legal tender. If they are selling something to the public they are obliged to accept cash.
Yeah well, see how far that gets you on November the 9th. I've already been told by two branches of O2 and three branches of Carphone Warehouse that you can only buy one iPhone and it has to be via a chip & pin CURRENT ACCOUNT card.
And if you don't agree with that, there will be plenty of people behind you in the queue who are happy to comply in order to get their paws on an iPhone come launch night.
Interestingly, I've had a number of O2 sales staff telling me that they have been explicitly instructed not to say ANYTHING about the iPhone or its price plans etc. This seems a bit stupid to me. Also, nobody, including O2, can tell me for sure if I can upgrade my existing contract to an iPhone plan. It seems as though the answer is no ? that'll I'll have to sign up to a new 18 month contract and let the remaining six months of my current contract run.
Given all of this, will I be signing-up for an iPhone? Or will I just get an unlocked handset from Ebay or France?
Somebody is taking action on Piracy. I am not upset in the least.
Yeah, piracy.
It's funny how SJ wasn't so bothered about piracy back in the days of phreaking...
I think I should change my signature to: "The definition of irony is Steve Jobs trying to stop people from reverse engineering a phone."
Actually, the law is quite clear. As previously posted,
Pennies are out if the private business, a person or an organization doesn't want to accept them. They can dictate the form unless a state law says otherwise.
Well, there is an important distinction which JeffDM has already acknowledged and you seem not to have noticed.
If you already have an account in arrears with any private business, person, or organization, then it constitutes a debt. And if any private business, person, or organization refuses an offer of legal tender in payment of those arrears, then said business, individual or organization may be argued to have forfeited their right to expect any form of payment. (Well, constitutionally, I guess, the only permitted legal tender in any State is gold dollar coins. But it appears that it's silently become the accepted norm, however, to pretend that the Feds have the power to define government-authorized notes, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender as well. The so-called Legal Tender Cases in the Supreme Court have lent the force of law to this view.)
In Canada, at least, there are regulations stating, for example, that $0.25 is the largest portion of a single debt that may settled using pennies, unless the debtor and creditor reach a separate agreement to the contrary.
However, before said arrears have come into existence, that is, when you first walk up to the store clerk and express your interest in buying something, the seller has every right to refuse to enter into a sales agreement, and there is no transfer to your ownership of any goods or services. Before the transfer of ownership happens, the store clerk may ask, "And how will you be paying for this today, Sir?" (Or words to that effect.) If the response is "Cash", then the clerk can say, "Sorry, we cannot accept cash for this purchase." Therefore the sale never occurs, no debt exists, and the whole argument of legal tender never comes into play.