I find it funny that people who have no problem torrenting a movie or an album get all up in arms about doing the same with an iPhone/iPad app. I would even go as far as saying that some people who make apps for the AppStore that complain about people pirating their games have downloaded a movie or song from the internet.
If you are ok torrenting a movie, don't draw some imaginary line with an app from the AppStore.
Anyway, I can't wait to jailbreak my iPad. SBSettings is sorely missed.
That is, of course, nonsense. There is a great deal of value to Apple to having consistency and not being faced with consumer complaints.
And when someone jailbreaks, the warranty is voided and Apple is off the hook with regard to customer complaints. This would make it GOOD for apple for people to jailbreak, seeing as though Apple charges over $100 for a year of warranty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
More importantly, what precedent allows a user to sign a contract and then violate it simply because they want to do something different? That's what you're advocating and it's not supported by any law on the books.
It's a legal theory called "Efficient Breach" put forth by Richard Posner. It's actually supported by our whole body of contracts law which allows a party only to recover for actual damages.
More importantly, what precedent allows a user to sign a contract and then violate it simply because they want to do something different? That's what you're advocating and it's not supported by any law on the books.
Orders for specific performance of contracts are rare. When specific performance would cause economic waste, such orders are nearly nonexistent.
Courts generally do NOT enforce the covenants contained in contracts. Instead, they require that the non-breaching party be put in as good a position as if the contract were fulfilled.
Indeed, specific performance of contractual terms is an extraordinary remedy.
Someone asked whether jailbreaking the iPad was wrong or not. According to Alsup's decision, it is clearly wrong - a violation of both the EULA and DMCA (regardless of whether you do it for commercial or personal reasons). The court has ruled that it's wrong.
Whether Apple is going to go after you for doing it is a completely different, and irrelevant, topic.
Violating a contract such as an EULA is wholly different from doing something criminal. Just because the law allows a plaintiff to get damages in a civil suit from the defendant doesn't mean the defendant was doing something morally wrong in any way.
Is it wrong to pay for food instead of rent when you only have enough money to pay for one? No. But can you be sued for it? Yes.
Orders for specific performance of contracts are rare. When specific performance would cause economic waste, such orders are nearly nonexistent.
Courts generally do NOT enforce the covenants contained in contracts. Instead, they require that the non-breaching party be put in as good a position as if the contract were fulfilled.
Indeed, specific performance of contractual terms is an extraordinary remedy.
Exactly. Specific performance is only allowed when the plaintiff cannot be made whole again by a monetary reward. The only application in the courts of this remedy has been in real estate contracts, since no two pieces of land are alike.
It's the only part that is relevant because it's the only reason Apple went after Psystar. Is it technically breaking a legal precedent? Sure, but that should be as disconcerting as driving 58mph in a 55mph zone. Technically it's illegal but there is virtually zero chance of ever being an issue.
I have no idea why anyone cares how people use their device. I much prefer the people that find solutions, like jailbreaking, than simply complain without ever trying to solve a problem for themselves.
PS: I like your posts on this forum and I did initially read your "the decision" comment to mean Apple's decision to sue not the judgement for Psystar, but it doesn't change the reason why Apple filed to begin with. If Psystar never tried to sell illegal Mac clones there would be no court case for use to be discussing. We can infer a great deal about their reasoning for suing Psystar and only Psystar.
PPS: I was thinking the other day how it's nice to longer have Psystar as a topic. Oh well. \
Exactly. Specific performance is only allowed when the plaintiff cannot be made whole again by a monetary reward. The only application in the courts of this remedy has been in real estate contracts, since no two pieces of land are alike.
And even where the plaintiff cannot be made whole, specific performance is often denied.
For example, in contracts which require a specific person to perform the agreed-upon task (an artist who took a commission, a singer who agreed to perform a concert) specific performance is not granted despite the fact that the plaintiff cannot be made whole with dollars.
Violating a contract such as an EULA is wholly different from doing something criminal. Just because the law allows a plaintiff to get damages in a civil suit from the defendant doesn't mean the defendant was doing something morally wrong in any way.
Is it wrong to pay for food instead of rent when you only have enough money to pay for one? No. But can you be sued for it? Yes.
Orders for specific performance of contracts are rare. When specific performance would cause economic waste, such orders are nearly nonexistent.
Courts generally do NOT enforce the covenants contained in contracts. Instead, they require that the non-breaching party be put in as good a position as if the contract were fulfilled.
Indeed, specific performance of contractual terms is an extraordinary remedy.
Who is arguing for specific performance? Yet another straw man argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
It's the only part that is relevant because it's the only reason Apple went after Psystar. Is it technically breaking a legal precedent? Sure, but that should be as disconcerting as driving 58mph in a 55mph zone. Technically it's illegal but there is virtually zero chance of ever being an issue.
I have no idea why anyone cares how people use their device. I much prefer the people that find solutions, like jailbreaking, than simply complain without ever trying to solve a problem for themselves.
You may not care, but the creator of the product obviously cares enough to have put terms into their EULA and to have created software safeguards to prevent it.
Once again, the fact that Apple doesn't go after individuals for jailbreaking doesn't mean they agree with it. If they agreed with it, they wouldn't have terms in their EULA prohibiting it, nor would they implement software safeguards.
It is only people who wish to violate Apple's intellectual property who claim that it's OK. Apple certainly never agreed with that.
[QUOTE=freddych;1606026]And when someone jailbreaks, the warranty is voided and Apple is off the hook with regard to customer complaints. This would make it GOOD for apple for people to jailbreak, seeing as though Apple charges over $100 for a year of warranty./QUOTE]
Apple is most certainly not off the hook for customer complaints. First, they have to deal with people wasting their time on a broken phone - only to find out later that it wasn't covered. That costs Apple money. Second, there's the reputation issue. Do you remember all the news reports recently about the iPhone virus? It turns out that it only affected jailbroken phones, but that wasn't reported in the press. Instead, Apple got a big black eye. Not to mention the "my friend has an iPhone and it won't work" kinds of complaints that affect Apple's reputation.
Apple has the top reputation (by far) in the computer industry because they have a well-integrated solution. They have every right to want to protect that reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych
It's a legal theory called "Efficient Breach" put forth by Richard Posner. It's actually supported by our whole body of contracts law which allows a party only to recover for actual damages.
Unfortunately for your argument, that doesn't apply here. There is no economic advantage to you by breaking the contract, nor is there any way for you to reimburse Apple for the damage to its reputation, so the Efficient Breach principle doesn't apply.
Unfortunately for your argument, that doesn't apply here. There is no economic advantage to you by breaking the contract, nor is there any way for you to reimburse Apple for the damage to its reputation, so the Efficient Breach principle doesn't apply.
And you too have no way to "value" the costs and benefits to each party. All we have to look at is the decisions that are actually being made. You have many people jailbreaking their devices, full well knowing that they are destroying their warranties. Since people generally act rationally, we know that jailbreaking to them is worth more than the warranty.
You have Apple, sitting there not suing the people creating the hacks or the jailbreakers themselves. If they DID value all those things you were talking about, they WOULD sue. Since Apple acts rationally, it's reasonable to say that Apple simply doesn't give a damn.
I travel out of the country and I have to have two phones with me. My iPhone and an unlocked SONY phone that I had before I upgraded to the the iPhone. ATT gave me the unlock code for the SONY after owning it for a year, all legal. Why can't Apple give us an unlocking code. I want to buy a local SIM card when i travel and use one phone. I find it really annoying that after 3 years they still won't allow it. I have unlocked my earlier iphones (2E &3G) with no problem and when I see OS4 I'll think about upgrading my iPhone 3GS to it and wait and see what the hacking community says. What harm can it do to have customers the freedom to use other service providers when they travel. Is it just because ATT wants everyone to pay a $1 a minute when they travel out of the country.
And you too have no way to "value" the costs and benefits to each party. All we have to look at is the decisions that are actually being made. You have many people jailbreaking their devices, full well knowing that they are destroying their warranties. Since people generally act rationally, we know that jailbreaking to them is worth more than the warranty.
You have Apple, sitting there not suing the people creating the hacks or the jailbreakers themselves. If they DID value all those things you were talking about, they WOULD sue. Since Apple acts rationally, it's reasonable to say that Apple simply doesn't give a damn.
Those are all silly arguments.
1. How many people have jailbroken their phones? If the number is less than 50% (as it surely is), then you destroyed your own argument. The majority of people have clearly decided that Apple's way is better.
2. Most jailbreakers do not make the kind of analysis you are suggesting. They realize that they can simply restore the original firmware and get warranty coverage if they need it - so there is no incremental cost to them for jailbreaking.
3. If Apple doesn't give a damn, why in the world did they spend money creating terms in their EULA which specifically forbid the practice?
4. If Apple sued, it would cost them a significant cost for every person they sued and they would likely be unable to recover significant financial damages even if they win. If Apple is rational, why would they enter a large number of lawsuits against customers which would cost them millions of dollars to win - and then they wouldn't recover much --- no matter how sure they are of winning? Isn't it far more plausible that Apple doesn't approve of it, but it's not worth the bother of addressing?
5. There's the matter of ill-will which would be generated. Look at the record companies. No one will any sense of morality would argue that it is OK to freely distribute 10,000 copies of a song to your Napster 'friends' (although I know some people tried to argue it). Yet when the record companies tried to protect their rights, they created a lot of ill will. Apple may have decided not to go there, even if they were 100% sure they could win.
I travel out of the country and I have to have two phones with me. My iPhone and an unlocked SONY phone that I had before I upgraded to the the iPhone. ATT gave me the unlock code for the SONY after owning it for a year, all legal. Why can't Apple give us an unlocking code. I want to buy a local SIM card when i travel and use one phone. I find it really annoying that after 3 years they still won't allow it. I have unlocked my earlier iphones (2E &3G) with no problem and when I see OS4 I'll think about upgrading my iPhone 3GS to it and wait and see what the hacking community says. What harm can it do to have customers the freedom to use other service providers when they travel. Is it just because ATT wants everyone to pay a $1 a minute when they travel out of the country.
That part I completely agree with. There should be a mechanism for freeing your phone from constraints once you've completed the AT&T service contract. I wish Apple would have made this an issue when setting up the program with AT&T, but frankly, I doubt if anyone really considered it an issue. Most people are used to throwing phones out after 2 years. Smartphones which still retain value after that time (both iPhones and others) are a relatively new phenomenon.
1. How many people have jailbroken their phones? If the number is less than 50% (as it surely is), then you destroyed your own argument. The majority of people have clearly decided that Apple's way is better.
2. Most jailbreakers do not make the kind of analysis you are suggesting. They realize that they can simply restore the original firmware and get warranty coverage if they need it - so there is no incremental cost to them for jailbreaking.
3. If Apple doesn't give a damn, why in the world did they spend money creating terms in their EULA which specifically forbid the practice?
4. If Apple sued, it would cost them a significant cost for every person they sued and they would likely be unable to recover significant financial damages even if they win. If Apple is rational, why would they enter a large number of lawsuits against customers which would cost them millions of dollars to win - and then they wouldn't recover much --- no matter how sure they are of winning? Isn't it far more plausible that Apple doesn't approve of it, but it's not worth the bother of addressing?
These are silly arguments:
1. This doesn't take into account people who want to jailbreak but don't know how. Also, economic decisions are made by individuals because individuals have different utility levels for each decision. It doesn't matter that more people choose not to jailbreak. It only matters that there exist people who do.
2. Jailbreakers might not go through the same thought process but the beauty of thinking about their decision from an "economics" (and i mean the social science) perspective is that we can assume that they would rather have a jailbroken device than a non-jailbroken device. Thus they have a gain from jailbreaking.
3. The EULA covers much more than just jailbreaking. I haven't looked at it but it could just be an adapted boiler plate EULA from their other software, meaning it may not cost them much at all.
4. Apple doesn't have to sue each individual jailbreaker to enforce its rights. It need only sue George Hotz or MuscleNerd to stop the majority of people from jailbreaking. The fact that they haven't sued ANYONE for jailbreaking is more indicative of the fact that they don't give a damn. Afterall, they DID sue Psystar, which didn't have much if any assets anyways.
5. Apple sued Psystar. That didn't cause them any ill will. Suing iPhoneDevTeam probably wouldn't create any either. Besides, these are things that go into whether it is worth it to Apple or not to enforce their own rights. All of this plays into the efficient breach theory.
That part I completely agree with. There should be a mechanism for freeing your phone from constraints once you've completed the AT&T service contract. I wish Apple would have made this an issue when setting up the program with AT&T, but frankly, I doubt if anyone really considered it an issue. Most people are used to throwing phones out after 2 years. Smartphones which still retain value after that time (both iPhones and others) are a relatively new phenomenon.
So basically, its fine if its AT&T. Its illegal and morally wrong if its Apple.
Comments
What's with this stuff about iPads not being able to make phone calls!?
Heard of Skype? Truphone? Text+?
I have skype and an account with a phone number for when I travel abroad. Does it work over the 3G network as well as wifi?
If you are ok torrenting a movie, don't draw some imaginary line with an app from the AppStore.
Anyway, I can't wait to jailbreak my iPad. SBSettings is sorely missed.
I have skype and an account with a phone number for when I travel abroad. Does it work over the 3G network as well as wifi?
I don't have the 3G model yet (eagerly waiting for it), but I don't see why not?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125486091615268647.html
I don't have the 3G model yet (eagerly waiting for it), but I don't see why not?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125486091615268647.html
I just tried it on my iPhone.
"You need WiFi to call over Skype. Skype calls over 3G networks are currently not allowed due to contractual restrictions."
That is the error message I get.
That is, of course, nonsense. There is a great deal of value to Apple to having consistency and not being faced with consumer complaints.
And when someone jailbreaks, the warranty is voided and Apple is off the hook with regard to customer complaints. This would make it GOOD for apple for people to jailbreak, seeing as though Apple charges over $100 for a year of warranty.
More importantly, what precedent allows a user to sign a contract and then violate it simply because they want to do something different? That's what you're advocating and it's not supported by any law on the books.
It's a legal theory called "Efficient Breach" put forth by Richard Posner. It's actually supported by our whole body of contracts law which allows a party only to recover for actual damages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach
More importantly, what precedent allows a user to sign a contract and then violate it simply because they want to do something different? That's what you're advocating and it's not supported by any law on the books.
Orders for specific performance of contracts are rare. When specific performance would cause economic waste, such orders are nearly nonexistent.
Courts generally do NOT enforce the covenants contained in contracts. Instead, they require that the non-breaching party be put in as good a position as if the contract were fulfilled.
Indeed, specific performance of contractual terms is an extraordinary remedy.
That's all completely, 100% irrelevant.
Someone asked whether jailbreaking the iPad was wrong or not. According to Alsup's decision, it is clearly wrong - a violation of both the EULA and DMCA (regardless of whether you do it for commercial or personal reasons). The court has ruled that it's wrong.
Whether Apple is going to go after you for doing it is a completely different, and irrelevant, topic.
Violating a contract such as an EULA is wholly different from doing something criminal. Just because the law allows a plaintiff to get damages in a civil suit from the defendant doesn't mean the defendant was doing something morally wrong in any way.
Is it wrong to pay for food instead of rent when you only have enough money to pay for one? No. But can you be sued for it? Yes.
Orders for specific performance of contracts are rare. When specific performance would cause economic waste, such orders are nearly nonexistent.
Courts generally do NOT enforce the covenants contained in contracts. Instead, they require that the non-breaching party be put in as good a position as if the contract were fulfilled.
Indeed, specific performance of contractual terms is an extraordinary remedy.
Exactly. Specific performance is only allowed when the plaintiff cannot be made whole again by a monetary reward. The only application in the courts of this remedy has been in real estate contracts, since no two pieces of land are alike.
That's all completely, 100% irrelevant.
It's the only part that is relevant because it's the only reason Apple went after Psystar. Is it technically breaking a legal precedent? Sure, but that should be as disconcerting as driving 58mph in a 55mph zone. Technically it's illegal but there is virtually zero chance of ever being an issue.
I have no idea why anyone cares how people use their device. I much prefer the people that find solutions, like jailbreaking, than simply complain without ever trying to solve a problem for themselves.
PS: I like your posts on this forum and I did initially read your "the decision" comment to mean Apple's decision to sue not the judgement for Psystar, but it doesn't change the reason why Apple filed to begin with. If Psystar never tried to sell illegal Mac clones there would be no court case for use to be discussing. We can infer a great deal about their reasoning for suing Psystar and only Psystar.
PPS: I was thinking the other day how it's nice to longer have Psystar as a topic. Oh well.
Exactly. Specific performance is only allowed when the plaintiff cannot be made whole again by a monetary reward. The only application in the courts of this remedy has been in real estate contracts, since no two pieces of land are alike.
And even where the plaintiff cannot be made whole, specific performance is often denied.
For example, in contracts which require a specific person to perform the agreed-upon task (an artist who took a commission, a singer who agreed to perform a concert) specific performance is not granted despite the fact that the plaintiff cannot be made whole with dollars.
Other remedies exist in these cases.
Violating a contract such as an EULA is wholly different from doing something criminal. Just because the law allows a plaintiff to get damages in a civil suit from the defendant doesn't mean the defendant was doing something morally wrong in any way.
Is it wrong to pay for food instead of rent when you only have enough money to pay for one? No. But can you be sued for it? Yes.
That is an excellent point.
Orders for specific performance of contracts are rare. When specific performance would cause economic waste, such orders are nearly nonexistent.
Courts generally do NOT enforce the covenants contained in contracts. Instead, they require that the non-breaching party be put in as good a position as if the contract were fulfilled.
Indeed, specific performance of contractual terms is an extraordinary remedy.
Who is arguing for specific performance? Yet another straw man argument.
It's the only part that is relevant because it's the only reason Apple went after Psystar. Is it technically breaking a legal precedent? Sure, but that should be as disconcerting as driving 58mph in a 55mph zone. Technically it's illegal but there is virtually zero chance of ever being an issue.
I have no idea why anyone cares how people use their device. I much prefer the people that find solutions, like jailbreaking, than simply complain without ever trying to solve a problem for themselves.
You may not care, but the creator of the product obviously cares enough to have put terms into their EULA and to have created software safeguards to prevent it.
Once again, the fact that Apple doesn't go after individuals for jailbreaking doesn't mean they agree with it. If they agreed with it, they wouldn't have terms in their EULA prohibiting it, nor would they implement software safeguards.
It is only people who wish to violate Apple's intellectual property who claim that it's OK. Apple certainly never agreed with that.
[QUOTE=freddych;1606026]And when someone jailbreaks, the warranty is voided and Apple is off the hook with regard to customer complaints. This would make it GOOD for apple for people to jailbreak, seeing as though Apple charges over $100 for a year of warranty./QUOTE]
Apple is most certainly not off the hook for customer complaints. First, they have to deal with people wasting their time on a broken phone - only to find out later that it wasn't covered. That costs Apple money. Second, there's the reputation issue. Do you remember all the news reports recently about the iPhone virus? It turns out that it only affected jailbroken phones, but that wasn't reported in the press. Instead, Apple got a big black eye. Not to mention the "my friend has an iPhone and it won't work" kinds of complaints that affect Apple's reputation.
Apple has the top reputation (by far) in the computer industry because they have a well-integrated solution. They have every right to want to protect that reputation.
It's a legal theory called "Efficient Breach" put forth by Richard Posner. It's actually supported by our whole body of contracts law which allows a party only to recover for actual damages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach
Unfortunately for your argument, that doesn't apply here. There is no economic advantage to you by breaking the contract, nor is there any way for you to reimburse Apple for the damage to its reputation, so the Efficient Breach principle doesn't apply.
Apple certainly never agreed with that.
The wishes of corporations rarely, if ever, align with mine.
Unfortunately for your argument, that doesn't apply here. There is no economic advantage to you by breaking the contract, nor is there any way for you to reimburse Apple for the damage to its reputation, so the Efficient Breach principle doesn't apply.
And you too have no way to "value" the costs and benefits to each party. All we have to look at is the decisions that are actually being made. You have many people jailbreaking their devices, full well knowing that they are destroying their warranties. Since people generally act rationally, we know that jailbreaking to them is worth more than the warranty.
You have Apple, sitting there not suing the people creating the hacks or the jailbreakers themselves. If they DID value all those things you were talking about, they WOULD sue. Since Apple acts rationally, it's reasonable to say that Apple simply doesn't give a damn.
And you too have no way to "value" the costs and benefits to each party. All we have to look at is the decisions that are actually being made. You have many people jailbreaking their devices, full well knowing that they are destroying their warranties. Since people generally act rationally, we know that jailbreaking to them is worth more than the warranty.
You have Apple, sitting there not suing the people creating the hacks or the jailbreakers themselves. If they DID value all those things you were talking about, they WOULD sue. Since Apple acts rationally, it's reasonable to say that Apple simply doesn't give a damn.
Those are all silly arguments.
1. How many people have jailbroken their phones? If the number is less than 50% (as it surely is), then you destroyed your own argument. The majority of people have clearly decided that Apple's way is better.
2. Most jailbreakers do not make the kind of analysis you are suggesting. They realize that they can simply restore the original firmware and get warranty coverage if they need it - so there is no incremental cost to them for jailbreaking.
3. If Apple doesn't give a damn, why in the world did they spend money creating terms in their EULA which specifically forbid the practice?
4. If Apple sued, it would cost them a significant cost for every person they sued and they would likely be unable to recover significant financial damages even if they win. If Apple is rational, why would they enter a large number of lawsuits against customers which would cost them millions of dollars to win - and then they wouldn't recover much --- no matter how sure they are of winning? Isn't it far more plausible that Apple doesn't approve of it, but it's not worth the bother of addressing?
5. There's the matter of ill-will which would be generated. Look at the record companies. No one will any sense of morality would argue that it is OK to freely distribute 10,000 copies of a song to your Napster 'friends' (although I know some people tried to argue it). Yet when the record companies tried to protect their rights, they created a lot of ill will. Apple may have decided not to go there, even if they were 100% sure they could win.
I travel out of the country and I have to have two phones with me. My iPhone and an unlocked SONY phone that I had before I upgraded to the the iPhone. ATT gave me the unlock code for the SONY after owning it for a year, all legal. Why can't Apple give us an unlocking code. I want to buy a local SIM card when i travel and use one phone. I find it really annoying that after 3 years they still won't allow it. I have unlocked my earlier iphones (2E &3G) with no problem and when I see OS4 I'll think about upgrading my iPhone 3GS to it and wait and see what the hacking community says. What harm can it do to have customers the freedom to use other service providers when they travel. Is it just because ATT wants everyone to pay a $1 a minute when they travel out of the country.
That part I completely agree with. There should be a mechanism for freeing your phone from constraints once you've completed the AT&T service contract. I wish Apple would have made this an issue when setting up the program with AT&T, but frankly, I doubt if anyone really considered it an issue. Most people are used to throwing phones out after 2 years. Smartphones which still retain value after that time (both iPhones and others) are a relatively new phenomenon.
Those are all silly arguments.
1. How many people have jailbroken their phones? If the number is less than 50% (as it surely is), then you destroyed your own argument. The majority of people have clearly decided that Apple's way is better.
2. Most jailbreakers do not make the kind of analysis you are suggesting. They realize that they can simply restore the original firmware and get warranty coverage if they need it - so there is no incremental cost to them for jailbreaking.
3. If Apple doesn't give a damn, why in the world did they spend money creating terms in their EULA which specifically forbid the practice?
4. If Apple sued, it would cost them a significant cost for every person they sued and they would likely be unable to recover significant financial damages even if they win. If Apple is rational, why would they enter a large number of lawsuits against customers which would cost them millions of dollars to win - and then they wouldn't recover much --- no matter how sure they are of winning? Isn't it far more plausible that Apple doesn't approve of it, but it's not worth the bother of addressing?
These are silly arguments:
1. This doesn't take into account people who want to jailbreak but don't know how. Also, economic decisions are made by individuals because individuals have different utility levels for each decision. It doesn't matter that more people choose not to jailbreak. It only matters that there exist people who do.
2. Jailbreakers might not go through the same thought process but the beauty of thinking about their decision from an "economics" (and i mean the social science) perspective is that we can assume that they would rather have a jailbroken device than a non-jailbroken device. Thus they have a gain from jailbreaking.
3. The EULA covers much more than just jailbreaking. I haven't looked at it but it could just be an adapted boiler plate EULA from their other software, meaning it may not cost them much at all.
4. Apple doesn't have to sue each individual jailbreaker to enforce its rights. It need only sue George Hotz or MuscleNerd to stop the majority of people from jailbreaking. The fact that they haven't sued ANYONE for jailbreaking is more indicative of the fact that they don't give a damn. Afterall, they DID sue Psystar, which didn't have much if any assets anyways.
5. Apple sued Psystar. That didn't cause them any ill will. Suing iPhoneDevTeam probably wouldn't create any either. Besides, these are things that go into whether it is worth it to Apple or not to enforce their own rights. All of this plays into the efficient breach theory.
That part I completely agree with. There should be a mechanism for freeing your phone from constraints once you've completed the AT&T service contract. I wish Apple would have made this an issue when setting up the program with AT&T, but frankly, I doubt if anyone really considered it an issue. Most people are used to throwing phones out after 2 years. Smartphones which still retain value after that time (both iPhones and others) are a relatively new phenomenon.
So basically, its fine if its AT&T. Its illegal and morally wrong if its Apple.
So basically, its fine if its AT&T. Its illegal and morally wrong if its Apple.
So basically, you're incapable of a rational argument.
There's no way to logically get from my statement to yours.