Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:09 am

	Anonymous wrote:
	To all you Steve Job's bitches out there: Apple could have simply prevented the update from installing on the hacked phones instead of allowing the update to install only to have the phone bricked. Customers have the legal right to modify thier phones to work on other networks.

First, invest in a spell checker, especially one that cuts out inanities and gratuitous obscenities.

Second, while the consumer has the right to "crack" the code on a phone for the SOLE purpose of connecting to a wireless network, the manufacturer does not have the obligation to provide a method for doing this nor to even facilitate it. If you believe that the exception to the DMCA does imply such an obligation, could you please provide a legal argument, with proper citations, to that effect?

Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:51 am

daemon wrote:

Ya know, Apple may not currently be obligated to provide a way themselves of unlocking the iPhone from AT&T service, and may be able to prove their case that they are not legally obligated to honor warranties on iPhones that have had their software altered in ways not authorized by them. However, I find it extremely alarming that the iPhones that have been bricked by Apple's update are not irrevocably damaged. The claim by Apple that unlocking your iPhone does irrepairable damage has now been shown to be false, and that the update is a malicious attack against their userbase who are unwilling to be locked into a single carrier. What is so wrong with wanting the right to choose your carrier when you purchase the phone you want.

Why are you alarmed that the iPhones are NOT irrevocably damaged? Can you show me where Apple used the word "irrevocable" in describing what might happen? (Apple never said that unlocked iPhones would be damaged. (See below.)

From Apple's warranty for the iPhone:

Quote:

This warranty does not apply: (a) to damage caused by use with non-Apple products; (b) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, flood, fire, earthquake or other external causes; (c) to damage caused by operating the product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Apple; (d) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider (“AASP”); (e) to a product or part that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple; (f ) to consumable parts, such as batteries, unless damage has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (g) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to scratches, dents and broken plastic on ports; or (h) if any Apple serial number has been removed or defaced.

(Emphasis added.)

Here's what the update told the user, as reported in ComputerWorld:

	Quote:
	"Warning: Apple has discovered that some of the unauthorized unlocking programs available on the Internet may cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software," the message read. "If you have modified your iPhone's software, applying this software update may result in your iPhone becoming permanently inoperable."

Notice the word may. IOW, they couldn't be sure just what would happen, as they couldn't test against all the hacks and all the other possible configurations. They couldn't guarantee that an unlocked iPhone would work and knew that one might cease to operate. It was a warning, not a promise nor a threat. No one held a gun to any iPhone owner's head and forced her/him to apply the update. Anyone who saw that warning and went ahead has no excuse and no one to blame but herself/himself.

I lived in the Phoenix, AZ, area for a while. Flash floods there can happen very suddenly. Quite a few roads go through a "dry" stream bed, rather than over a bridge. There are signs that tell drivers to not attempt to cross if the road is under water. Still, some do and find their cars floating downstream (the water can flow at 20-30 mph). Some people are injured or killed in cars or when they enter the stream on foot. Those people can blame only their own stupidity. Anyone who applied the update to an unlocked iPhone was equally stupid.

You should read some of the more astute technical articles about the update, especially the blog by Rainer Brockerhoff. The "update" is essentially a total rewrite of the firmware (which includes the OS). In order to put it in place, the designers have to know what the configuration/state of each of the three CPUs in the iPhone is. The unlocking hacks change the configuration/state in various ways--not all are the same, so the results can be unpredictable.

Others have written that this was most likely not a "malicious attack." (Can you PROVE that it was malicious?)

You may certainly want to change carriers, but Apple doesn't have to facilitate it. (You do understand that the only other nationwide carrier that you could use is T-Mobile, don't you? No amount of hacking or unlocking will get the iPhone to work on Sprint or Verizon.) If you want to use T-Mobile, get an iPhone and unlock it. Just don't expect Apple to support it and be careful of system updates.

Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:29 pm

Anonymous wrote:

gslusher wrote: Second, while the consumer has the right to "crack" the code on a phone for the SOLE purpose of connecting to a wireless network, the manufacturer does not have the obligation to provide a method for doing this nor to even facilitate it. If you believe that the exception to the DMCA does imply such an obligation, could you please provide a legal argument, with proper citations, to that effect? You missed the point enitrely. When Apple switched to Intel, it originally said it would not oppose anyone trying to run Windows on their Macs, but they said they wouldn't provide any support for people who tried to do so. Apple could have easily taken this approach instead of actively bricking people's phones. They could have easily PREVENTED the updates from intalling in hacked phones. How do you possibly construe this as providing "a method for doing this nor to even facilitate it?"

First, get a spell checker.

Second, talk about missing a point. You completely flipped the last sentence. I said that Apple does NOT have to provide a method to facilitate users unlocking their iPhones. Indeed, the law does not require that Apple not do anything to prevent unlocking--it allows Apple to take measures to prevent unlocking or make it difficult. All the exception to the DMCA says is that the user cannot be sued nor prosecuted for breaking software to unlock a cell phone for the sole purpose of connecting to a wireless network. (Notice that SELLING an unlocked iPhone or even the software or techniques to accomplish the unlocking, may not be covered by the exception, according to several articles by attorneys that I've read.)

Third, Apple gave the user the opportunity to not attempt to install the update. No one was forced to install it; it was not done automatically (as, say, a recent MS update to Vista and XP was). That should be sufficient, unless you think that iPhone owners have the intellectual development of 4-year-olds.

Last, you should read up on the update. It was apparently a nearly complete rewrite of the firmware. The iPhone has three CPUs, each with its own boot ROM (firmware)--including the entire OS, plus flash memory and the SIM card. In order to write the update, the software engineers have to know the configuration from which they are starting. Given the variety and often very invasive nature of the unlocking hacks, there is no way that they could account for every situation.

I've noted that many blogs and forums (including this one) apparently are frequented not just by attorneys, but attorneys who specialize in intellectual property law. They must be attorneys, since they make definitive statements about what is "legal" and "not legal," without qualification. Of course, they may be sloppy attorneys, as they don't back up their definitive statements with legal argument or references, something attorneys apparently learn to do in their first semester of law school (based on the half-dozen law students at the University of Oregon I've worked with).

Do read Rainer Brockerhoff's blog article (linked above) and the article in Wired by Leander Kahney.