You're viewing an article in iPO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site: Former FCC Commissioner Condemns iPhone Hacking

News

Former FCC Commissioner Condemns iPhone Hacking

Monday, August 27th, 2007 at 1:55 PM - by

Hackers are attempting to thwart the contract between Apple and AT&T and steal intellectual property, according to former FCC commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth at the New York Sun on Monday.

The thesis was that Apple and AT&T have entered, of their own free will, into a mutually beneficial contract. In similar cases, such as the agreement J.K. Rowling has with Scholastic, no one has approved of pirates.

"Last week, a series of newspaper articles described several individuals around the world who engaged in dubious activities such as the hacking of the iPhone's specialized software, the breach of Apple's and AT&T's intellectual property, and the interference with these companies' exclusivity contract. A common judgmental theme of the articles was that Apple had erred in its exclusive contract with AT&T," wrote Harold Furchtgott-Roth.

"...descriptions of hackers attacking Apple, AT&T, and their contract often lionized the thieves," he continued and concluded that moral standards are in trouble. "Increasingly, in news coverage of stories about advanced telecommunications such as the Internet and wireless services, traditional moral standards about the sanctity of property and contracts are eroding. People who are appalled at shoplifting may admire those who hack into new technologies."

Mr. Furchtgott-Roth had the opinion that the celebration of the assault on this agreement, assaults on corporate measures to enforce it, and the resulting thievery will incur a price in the future. Soon, companies may be reluctant to bring to market their offerings, protected by such agreements, fearing that their work will be undone, and as a result, consumers will suffer.

"...will property and contracts be looted by thieves encouraged by a myopic public? Only time will tell," the former FCC Commissioner concluded.

16 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

daemon said:

member since 17 May 2007 with 344 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:00 pm

Mr. Furchtgott-Roth is too worried about protecting corporations' contracts and not enough about what is good for the consumer.

Quote this post ↓

brett_x said:

member since 24 Jan 2006 with 322 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:05 pm

He's got some good points, except for "Instead, it chose an exclusive contract with AT&T, self-evidently because it was in Apple's financial interest to do so. A different distribution plan would have been less profitable for Apple, or else Apple would have chosen it."

He's assuming that Apple is in this for the short term. Apple might have chosen AT&T not for the most profit, but for the most consistent user experience. Ultimately, this will lead to higher profits in the long run, but by that time, it may be with a different carrier. It's so easy to think of everything in financial interest terms and to discount everything else.

Quote this post ↓

brett_x said:

member since 24 Jan 2006 with 322 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:39 pm

daemon wrote:
Mr. Furchtgott-Roth is too worried about protecting corporations' contracts and not enough about what is good for the consumer.

I disagree. I think they did have the consumer in mind when they signed the deal with AT&T. Do you think it would be better for Apple to release the iPhone without any vendor support? Of the reviews of the iPhone that I have read, the biggest complaint is that you have to sign a contract to get one. Think of what that means- there are so many new technologies inside the iPhone and they all work relatively well.

Now imagine if you didn't have to sign one, and could pick whatever carrier you preferred. 1st of all, it would have to be burdened with supporting more than one kind of network (maybe an extra chip or 2= not quite as slim?). Then there's the coverage. What if your coverage sucks? Can Apple help that? Not if they don't have a carrier agreement that specifies they will resolve issues on Apples demand.

The bottom line is that Apple wants to control the user's experience, if not just for the initial rollout of the iPhone, maybe forever. They just couldn't release this product and hope that the carrier's service didn't lead to completely bad experiences. It almost definitely would have if they didn't have a carrier and a signed contract to lean on. After the contract runs out (maybe 5 years?) there may be enough evidence that the iPhone is a great product, so if you're having problems, it might be your service. But for the introduction of a new product, the experience means too much for Apple to just let it go.

Quote this post ↓

Small White Car said:

member since 02 Jul 2004 with 1960 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:56 pm

brett_x wrote:
The bottom line is that Apple wants to control the user's experience, if not just for the initial rollout of the iPhone, maybe forever.

Right. Or, simply put, the iPhone is locked to one carrier for the exact same reason you can't install OSX on a Dell.

It's not even worth arguing about "should have" and "could have." When you look at it that way (and if you understand Apple) it becomes quite clear that Apple isn't going to change their plan with the iPhone anytime soon.

I'd love to see Apple sell an un-locked phone too! But it ain't happening anytime soon.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:59 pm

His argument for "stealing intellectual property" and comparing it to Pirates and the Harry potter books is a slap in the face to anyone with common sense. J.K. Rowling created something and deserves to get paid for it what did AT&T create? A network I don't want any part of? It isn't like AT&T subsidized the cost of the phone to get my business. They haven't created any software that is being copied/broken/circumvented so what "intellectual property" has been stolen? Apple is being completely compensated for their device/software at the checkout. When a person has spent 600 USD for a phone and doesn't want to use AT&T's service there really shouldn't be a problem if they would like to go to a different service and pay for it. I just don't see how when the manufacturers and service providers IN USE are compensated, the term "theft" can be tossed around. It makes it sound like anyone using this hack would be stealing AT&T's service, or not paying for an alternative.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:09 pm

Conversely, no-one is holding you for ransom or forcing you to buy an iPhone. It is sold with certain conditions; if you don't like them, it's entirely practical not to buy it.

Quote this post ↓

Mikuro said:

member since 15 Jun 2002 with 457 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:32 pm

The J.K. Rowling analogy is absurd. The issue there was that people were enjoying her work without paying for it. With the iPhone, you have to pay for it before you can hack it. Everyone is getting compensation. It is a personal endeavor. It is not akin to stealing a book; if anything, it's akin to buying a book and transcribing it on your computer for your own use. Or burning it. Or eating it. Or doing anything with it not intended by the author. And guess what — that's all legal!

I'm really tired of people likening anything they think is wrong to anything else that everyone thinks is wrong, relevance be damned. I agree that piracy is wrong, for example, but it is NOT the same as theft. Get a dictionary. It doesn't help the cause when you use obviously flawed analogies. It just makes you — and your position — seem unreasonable.

Here's a tip for anyone who disagrees with me: Just liken me to Hitler! That'll show me!

Quote this post ↓

Terrin said:

member since 29 Jan 2006 with 414 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:37 pm

Actually, people keep saying the iPhone is sold with certain conditions. However, it is not sold with any conditions. Apple makes clear that it will only support the device on an AT&T network, and that to use the device you have to activate it with AT&T, but that is that. It doesn't make you sign a contract when buying it. Apple and AT&T have an exclusivity agreement, fine. That agreement doesn't concern me, the consumer who paid for the phone and wants to do with it what I please. I am not asking Apple to support the phone.

Consumers are not trying to steal from AT&T. AT&T didn't do anything. It isn't subsidizing the phone, didn't foot the bill for developing the phone, and I do not want to use its network. A case could be made that you are stealing from Apple if it is true it gets a cut of monthly fees and these fees are used to enhance features. However, if an APple upgrade disables the phone when you choose to upgrade it, you aren't stealing from Apple either.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:07 pm

Hey, daemon! How will the consumer feel when she can only get products designed 30 years ago? You know, products whose patents have run out or those in the public domain?

Quote this post ↓

daemon said:

member since 17 May 2007 with 344 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:47 pm

Guest wrote:
Hey, daemon! How will the consumer feel when she can only get products designed 30 years ago? You know, products whose patents have run out or those in the public domain?

Nice fallacious arguement.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:02 pm

Look, what is best for the consumer is choice. The iphone should be unlockable so that the consumer can choose their network. Its perfectly reasonalble that Apple can say "if you choose a different carrier than AT&T then you get no support". Fine, that will be the customers choice as well.

The problem with this is the same as with all Apple products. They like proprietary designs. Thats why the IBM PC design, and the Windows it runs on, has the majority of the market. They licensed out their technology instead of being proprietary and hoarding it. Apple doesn't like to share and they lost the personal computer market because of it. They could be getting money from Sprint, Alltel, Cingular and the rest if they chose to license the use of the iphone on other networks. Those networks would still have to follow Apples technical policies and so could still control the users experience.

If I buy a Dell PC and format the harddrive and install Windows 3.1 its my choice. So what that they won't support it. If I am the kind who can format my harddrive and install another OS, then I am the kind of user who can tell the difference between an incorrectly working phone or bad service from a provider. I don't need Apple to hold my hand to 'control' my experience. If I want that level of control I could stick with AT&T and get it.

BTW, I don't have or need an iphone. Heck,I think its stupid to put a camera in a phone and try to sell it to me as a feature. Its a phone. I want a good clear audible signal... I don't need a blender/fan/movie studio/restroom/vaccuum cleaner phone. I do use the LED lights to find my house key at night so I do consider that a feature.

Quote this post ↓

Intruder said:

member since 07 Jul 2004 with 3149 posts, TMO Mac Specialist, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:26 pm

Hate to tell ya, but the original IBM PC clones were not licensed at all. They were reverse engineered from IBM's designs, without support or permission from IBM. It wasn't until a few years into PCs that IBM licensed out their designs. Back in the day, many of the PC designs were proprietary. Each one was a little different, either in hardware or BIOS (or both), hence the term "IBM-PC Compatible".

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:07 am

Yes intruder, I agree with you...at the outset. It was a new market and a new day. But after there was an established market for personal computers they did. Apple still to this day makes macs. I haven't seen a clone that I know of. That being said, cell phones are no new market.

Quote this post ↓

Intruder said:

member since 07 Jul 2004 with 3149 posts, TMO Mac Specialist, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:58 am

Apple went through a clone period in the early/mid 90's. UMAX and DayStar were two. It nearly destroyed them, for much the same reason that IBM got pushed out of the PC market (which they created). Difference was that IBM had other business areas to fall back on. Apple did not. Apple spent much more money on R&D than the cloners, and thus were being undercut in price in the marketplace. The clones were the first things that Jobs killed when he came back.

The success or failure of the iPhone will be interesting to watch. Whether or not people like it, it has certainly stirred things up in the marketplace. No cellphone has generated so much buzz and so much controversy.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:20 am

sprint is currently trying to settle a locking class action law suit, apple will be next

Quote this post ↓

Intruder said:

member since 07 Jul 2004 with 3149 posts, TMO Mac Specialist, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:32 am

Difference is that Sprint is a telecom. Apple is a hardware supplier to a telecom. If Nokia were being sued instead of Sprint it would be more relevant. Or ATT instead of Apple.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.