Slashdot Mirror


Can Apple + AT&T Shut Down iPhone Unlockers?

aalobode writes "Do Apple and AT&T have the legal right to stop hackers from selling unlocked iPhones? Under their terms, only AT&T may sell iPhones, and Apple gets a commission. When unlocked iPhones are used on other providers' networks, AT&T and hence Apple get nothing beyond what they earned on the initial sale of the hardware. Can they prohibit unlocking? Reselling? The article in Businessweek gives the for and against arguments, but leans toward the view that the hackers may have the law on their side for once."

14 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. Heres what the BBC says: by BigBadBus · · Score: 4, Informative
  2. "only AT&T may sell iPhones" by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Informative

    only AT&T may sell iPhones

    Wrong. Apple sells iPhones (through their website and retail locations). The phone isn't activated at the time of sale (it's done at home with iTunes). AT&T announced 146k activations when Apple announced 270k iphones sold. You do the math.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:"only AT&T may sell iPhones" by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 5, Funny

      You do the math.

      (sqrt(270000) * 146000) / pi = 24148205.619474491768596100626108

    2. Re:"only AT&T may sell iPhones" by deander2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      haha....omg, who are the morons who moderated this informative? =p

    3. Re:"only AT&T may sell iPhones" by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The question:

      Form a square with every iPhone sold and mark the phones that are in the first row. Make a phone call from every marked iPhone to every activated iPhone. Place the phone bills in a circle, what is the circle's diameter?


      If that is the question, then the answer is wrong. You cannot place a call to your own phone.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  3. a thought by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Collecting bonus money from activations isn't really in Apple's business model. So why should they even bother with trying to hault cracking of the iPhone? The product has already been sold. Apple made their official dollar off of it. Their interests should really die there. It's not like crackers are replacing the Apple components of the software; just defeating the AT&T parts.

    Here's an article that better explains my point of view because I'm an ineloquent rambling idiot.

    --
    The game.
  4. I guess it comes down to by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess it comes down to who owns the phone.

    If when you buy an iPhone you are actually buying the ownership to the phone, you can do what the hell you like to it as its yours.

    but...

    If Apple are just selling a licence to use the iPhone (kinda like what Microsoft do with Windows) rather than actually selling the ownership of the iPhone itself, then they could legally and justifiably require you not to unlock it as they still own it.

  5. Do I own it or not by backslashdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it's illegal to unlock the phone, that means I dont own it. Am I leasing it? How the hell else is it possible for me to outright purcahse something and not be able to do whetever the hell i want with it (besides to commit something that is already a crime obviously -like throwing it at someone).

    If I buy a t-shirt can they make it illegal for me to use it as a rag?

    Is it illegal to color the iphone with a marker? Is it illegal to open up the iphone and melt it down? Is it illegal to take the battery out of the iphone and use the large battery in a hobby RC car project? If it is, it damn well shouldn't be.

  6. Re:Yeah by Selivanow · · Score: 4, Informative

    Usually when you "buy" a phone (in the US at least) you are getting a discount in exchange for a lengthy contract. If you don't want the contract you buy the phone outright and can do anything you want with it. This is the same issue that the auto industry had at one point. Manufacturers did not want 3-party parts sold and didn't want people to fix their own vehicles. The auto industry was pretty much shot down. Unless you are breaking a law, ie: modifying a phone to output a stronger signal, you can do as you please with any item you own. That is not to say that you can not be held liable if you do something to an item you own and it ends up damaging someone else's property or another person.

    --
    -- ...trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -Bruce Schneier
  7. Re:I don't even have to RTFA by arodland · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... so they're going to send ninjas with screwdrivers into the streets to steal people's iPhones, make hardware modifications, and then quietly return them?

  8. Subscription fee by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When you sell a mobile phone below cost, you are supposed to make up for the difference in the subscription fees. Which are mandatory to pay in the binding period even if you unlock the phone and use it on another net.

    At least that is how it works with GSM phones in Denmark. You can unlock them and switch to another provider legally, but you have to continue to pay the subscription fee for the binding period. This is common, and accepted by all the service providers.

    Also: The maximum binding period is six month, providers are obliged to tell the unlock key after that, and all advertisement must include the minimum total cost in the binding period (initial price plus subscription fee for six month) in order to make it easy to compare prices.

    Good regulation does wonders to improve the efficiency of a market.

  9. Re:the DMCA finally does something good by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 4, Informative

    It isn't really the DMCA that's doing it. If the DMCA never existed, you would still be allowed to unlock the phone. This is something that someone had to decide that the DMCA didn't cover.

  10. Re:No $#%!, Sherlock by Experiment+626 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple did take technological measures to assure their business agreement with AT&T was fulfilled and they do have technological measures to assure their device is not tampered with so there is actually quite a bit of room on Apple and AT&T's side for debate.

    The DMCA prohibits circumventing technological measures that protect a copyrighted work from unauthorized duplication, not measures that protect a business agreement from becoming unprofitable.

  11. Re:BBC is usually wrong about US law by McFadden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The British BC is usually wrong about the US legal system and even more off about Constitutional matters.
    And your evidence is... Oh wait, you don't have any, because you just made that up.

    IMO the legal right of Apple or AT&T to stop someone selling unlocking software will probably become a moot point, simply because if a company can do it, eventually some cracker somewhere will create a freely distributable version and release it onto p2p. Once that happens the only thing can Apple can do is update the firmware, which I would guess they have every right to do if they choose to.

    In a nutshell, I think that allowing it to be unlocked would be beneficial to Apple's sales, but perhaps may cause (possible legal) problems in their relationship with AT&T.