Slashdot Mirror
Apple May Be Breaking the Law With Policy On iPhone Unlocks
an anonymous reader writes "Apple's recent decision to void warranties for folks that unlocked their iPhones may wind them up in legal hot water. The site Phone News points out that Apple appears to have broken a key warranty law relevant to SIM unlocks. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a law decades old, would seem to prevent Apple from voiding warranties in the way it is threatening to do with the iPhone, or so the site argues. 'The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act states that Apple cannot void a warranty for a product with third-party enhancements or modifications to their product. The only exception to this rule is if Apple can determine that the modification or enhancement is responsible [for] damaging the product in question ... The legal [questions are]: Is the SIM Unlock process that has become mainstream doing damage to iPhone? And, also, is Apple designing future software updates to do damage to iPhone when said SIM Unlock code is present?'"
It's not about unlocking phones.
It's about the radio firmware being altered in an unknown way, or even damaged. (Note: this is DIFFERENT from jailbreaking, OS hacking, and installing third party apps.)
Why should that be covered under warranty?
[...] is Apple designing future software updates to do damage to iPhone when said SIM Unlock code is present?
NO!
Absolutely not.
Apple has already explicitly stated that they are not going to intentionally or proactively do anything to unlocked phones. Even a small amount of logic would reveal that when the baseband radio firmware is in an unknown state (this is different from the OS on the phone, and doing the "hacking" to install third party applications, and so on), future updates, either to the firmware or the OS or both, may break things. Even a software update that expects the radio to accept commands or interact with the OS in a particular way could end up breaking things.
Oh, I know a lot of you really want to believe Apple is actually going to intentionally damage phones that are unlocked. Sorry to disappoint, but that is simply not the case.
If there is any legal issue that erupts over this, Apple will very easily be able to prove that there is no way for it to predict the state of the hardware when it does updates when it has been altered, perhaps irreparably depending on the method, in an unknown fashion by the user.
Further, I think it's funny that some seem to carp about how Apple will be "fixing" the mechanism via which phones are currently unlocked, as if it's evil. Of course they will! It's a general buffer overflow that happens to be used in the unlock process. Should Apple not fix an exploitable buffer overflow in the OS just so people can continue to unlock phones? The arguments on this topic are laughable.
Moreover, while end-user unlocking of handsets is legal in the US under the current DMCA exemption, the vendor is under NO OBLIGATION to support the phones in such a state with future software/firmware updates. I can hear all the "But what about the UK?" people chiming in now. Apple will do whatever is required by law in any jurisdiction. If a certain jurisdiction REQUIRES unlocked phones, Apple may skip that market entirely (for now). Even in the UK it isn't as clear as some people like to think it is, because the phone technically isn't subsidized, meaning that it may not have to be unlocked after the subsidy is repaid - because there is no subsidy. And a large part of Apple's iPhone strategy with carriers is tight integration for things like the activation process: things that simply aren't supported with anyone but the partner carrier.
Remember: it's "legal" to do a lot of things which also might end up voiding the warranty of a particular product. Something being "legal" doesn't imply all of these things people seem to think it does. A lot of odd arguments appeared in the last story about this, saying that since the DMCA exemption allows handset unlocking, somehow, Apple must actively enable it. Wrong.
Customers have a choice:
- Don't ever apply a software update after unlocking (unless applying said update to a phone unlocked using your exact mechanism has been confirmed to work by others), and your phone will stay unlocked
- Don't buy an iPhone
Don't act like Apple is somehow bound to support all unlocked phones via any mechanism, some which may damage the phone, in any and all future software updates, especially when it can't possibly predict all iterations. You don't have to buy an iPhone.
And if you want to argue about simlocking in general, it's a very common practice the world over, and your beef isn't with Apple. If Apple just sold all iPhones unlocked, like some people think they should, there would be nowhere near the tight integration with any and all carriers, the pleasant do-it-yourself activation process that is part of what makes the iPhone genius, not to mention the economic arguments, where
...from a few days ago is a better lithmus test for this act, don't you think?
iPhones can probably play the same crap. As long as they warn you that 3rd party software or hardware may brick the system, they're fine. Nintendo just did that with Metroid Prime 3. There is a warning saying that upgrading the firmware will most likely brick machines with mods, and even gave instructions on how to circumvent the installation. You couldn't play the game, but at least you don't have a brick.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
Who said it's mainstream? I know of no one that has actualy unlocked their iphone.
This entire problem occurred because Apple partnered with AT&T. It was a sink-the-company idea for Apple, in my opinion, guaranteed to get Apple some VERY bad press.
People have a legitimate need to use other SIM cards in their phones. For example, if you travel to Europe or Asia or South America, it is common to buy a SIM card there (GSM phones only) because then you get a local number, making it much cheaper for local people to call you and for you to call them.
Locking the iPhone while charging the full price for it was an attempt to squeeze more money from buyers, most of whom don't fully understand all the ways cellular phone companies, and now Apple, can abuse them, in my opinion.
AT&T is no longer the old AT&T, because the name was sold to SBC. My understanding is that the SBC trademark was worse than useless because the company is so abusive. So, the managers decided to use another name. Those interested in how that happened can watch Stephen Colbert explain in a 1 minute 14 second video: The New AT&T.
SBC taking the name AT&T is, in my opinion, a kind of legal fraud, but fraud nevertheless. People are bound to be confused and misled. AT&T had a very good reputation. SBC-AT&T is a completely different company, and has no connection in its culture with the old AT&T. At the very least, the SEC should require the company to disclose in the first sentence of any prospectus for its stock that there is no connection whatsoever.
I don't know if you've written any software yourself, but the first rule about deploying patches to consumer software is that you are NOT allowed to make any assumptions about the state of the hardware or software.
The reason people are up in arms is because apple has raised the possibility of this update permanently bricking your iPhone. That possibility is unacceptable. Any decent programmer would just have the update checksum the software and firmware and overwrite any hacked copies with the new version. None of your arguments about altered radio firmware and so on have any bearing on the issue...what does it matter which piece of firmware we're talking about? If an update requires consistency on the part of other elements of the phone, it needs to ensure that they are consistent, and if they are not, either fix them or fail gracefully.
The bottom line is that there is a lot of precedent for hardware warranties being unaffected by the actions a consumer takes with his software. Any manufacturer who causes users 4-600$ dollars worth of hardware loss via a software update would be liable. End of story.
Believe me, if PC manufacturers could have voided your warranty for installing a different operating system (as they would be able to according to your arguments), they would have years ago.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
The author is no doubt referring to 15 USC 2302(c): "No [company] may condition [a] ... warranty ... on the consumer's using ... an[] article or service ... which is identified by brand ... or corporate name; except ... if the [company can show] that the warranted product will function properly only if the ... service ... is used in connection with the warranted product."
What this literally means is that Apple's warranty cannot say "This warranty is void if you use the iPhone with a company other than AT&T." However, Apple's warranty doesn't say that. It says that the warranty is void if you mess with the firmware. It HAPPENS TO BE that the only way to make it POSSIBLE to use another company's service requires doing something else that will void your warranty, but the warranty terms themselves aren't anti-competitive, the firmware is.
Even if the terms of the warranty did say this, Apple is probably still safe because it wouldn't be hard to argue that the iPhone isn't "function[ing] properly" if Visual Voicemail is broken.
Any case brought under this law would be without merit and would probably be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Most of the "they can't do X" crap, stems from a misinterpretation of one specific part of the act:
The clause is to prevent, say, a vacuum cleaner company from requiring used of their own brand of bags (unless they provide them free). It doesn't mean you can modify your car for more horsepower, and expect the manufacturer to cover the engine under warranty when it breaks. It also doesn't mean a manufacturer can't put a clause in the warranty which says the car's warranty is voided if you hang fuzzy dice from the mirror. It means that they can't put a clause which says "Use of any brand fuzzy dice other than ACME brand fuzzy dice will void the engine warranty."
Specific to the case at hand, since Apple provides firmware "without charge" during the warranty period, Magnuson-Moss does not require that they allow third party or modified firmware to be used under the warranty terms, and Apple is within the law if they require that only their firmware be used to maintain a valid warranty.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I read through some of the information on this Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and it seems that the purpose here was to ensure that manufacturers provided the consumer with a document that is both easy to understand, and not ambiguous. However, it does not put any stipulation on that manufacturer to prevent them from invalidating the warranty if you don't use the device correctly.
However, this act falls a little short in the realm of electronics and firmware. Sure, Apple can't go around saying that your warranty will be void if you use a Motorolla bluetooth headset instead of an Apple one. But, can they say that the warranty is void if you use a different firmware? It seems to me that there's a gray area there. Firmware is required to make the device work, but it's provided by the manufacturer. So, can the manufacturer prevent you from using someone else's firmware by invalidating the warranty?
I suppose the underlying question is, what does the warranty cover? If it's merely electronics, then perhaps the manufacturer cannot dictate the firmware used, but, in the event of a failure, they can surely attempt to load the device with "official" firmware in an effort to determine the problem. Of course, if the unit is completely dead, that won't help. In that instance, the question becomes more of a "what caused the failure" type of question.
That's where 3rd party firmware can become a problem. How do you prove that the firmware was the cause and not the hardware? I'm sure it can be done, but to the satisfaction of the customer? And is it really Apple's responsibility to determine if the firmware was the cause? In the end, it may cost Apple quite a lot of money to make that determination, only to turn back to the customer and refuse the warranty claim. It's sort of a lose-lose situation.
XenoPhage
Technological Musings