Slashdot Mirror
iPhone Owners Demand To See Apple Source Code
CWmike writes "iPhone owners charging Apple and AT&T with breaking antitrust laws asked a federal judge this week to force Apple to hand over the iPhone source code, court documents show. The lawsuit, which was filed in October 2007, accuses Apple and AT&T of violating antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, by agreeing to a multi-year deal that locks US iPhone owners into using the mobile carrier. On Wednesday, the plaintiffs asked US District Court Judge James Ware to compel Apple to produce the source code for the iPhone 1.1.1 software, an update that Apple issued in September 2007. The update crippled iPhones that had been unlocked, or 'jailbroken,' so that they could be used with mobile providers other than AT&T. The iPhone 1.1.1 'bricked' those first-generation iPhones that had been hacked, rendering them useless and wiping all personal data from the device. The plaintiffs say that the source code is necessary to determine whether all iPhones were given the same 1.1.1 update, and whether it was designed to brick all or just some hacked iPhones."
First brick
may not be a good year for AT&T.
Good.luck.with.that.
Tired of my customary (Score:1)
So long as we're demanding things we're not going to get, go for broke I say.
Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now, the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it. I'll bet a cookie that the terms of the service agreement let Apple & AT&T do more or less what ever they want with what is legally still their hardware.
So even if it comes out of all of this that the "bricking" was targeted, I doubt it will change anything in the end.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I wonder which side of the battle the general comments are going to take on this story vs the xbox banning story.
On one side (Xbox): Kick rocks, you modded, MS gimped your console.
I suspect for this article: Apple gimped your phone, die die die.
(P.S.: Posting this from my new iMac).
Lawsuits are really getting asinine. There has to be some sort of additional punitive costs associated with stupid lawsuits like this. People do not honor the EULA, jailbreak their iPhones into iBricks and then cry out loud apple bricked their jailbroken devices. If you jailbreak - why the hell you have apple software to update your device?
Dear Apple:
Please also include a pony with the next release of the iphone software.
kthxbi,
iPhone owners
I don't recall the phones being bricked, but having been re-locked. I highly doubt Apple maliciously destroyed/disabled hardware for being jailbroken, so much as returned it to a known state with the update and the only people who noticed what it was doing were (unsurprisingly) those who significantly altered the state of the device.
how much anyone actually "owns" a cell phone.
Should'a, Could'a, Would'a... Did'na
Let me know how it works out for you-
Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
That pony included with your iPhone will only eat iFood, use iWater, and can only be housed in iStable. Unfortunately, all of which must be purchased from Apple as well.
They have to know that they're never going to get the source code. A) It'd be an incredibly earth-shattering precedent, and B) it's beside the point to what they're charging. It doesn't matter of Apple and AT&T colluded to brick one hacked phone, odd-numbered hacked-phones, or even hacked phones on Verizon's network. If the issue is the practice of tying the purchase of an iPhone to the purchase of an AT&T service plan, the source code is not relevant. It's a contractual question, not a technical one. This kind of tangential waste of time on a pointless bit of discovery that's obviously not germane to the charges, but only serves to yank the chain of the defendant, could backfire by pissing off the judge.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
"The plaintiffs say that the source code is necessary to determine whether all iPhones were given the same 1.1.1 update, and whether it was designed to brick all or just some hacked iPhones."
In unrelated news, underhanded c contest winners' employability sky-rockets...
So, yeah, the iPhone's great and everything, but I don't think Apple has even 20% of the smartphone market. How exactly does an antitrust suit work against a player that doesn't have anything resembling monopoly power in the market in which it operates?
Not only that -- why exactly would relief by gained by Apple turning over the source to the iPhone OS? Canceling copyright is pretty serious business, there'd better be a pretty compelling reason to do it, both in terms of justifying the cancellation and strength of benefits that'd follow it.
I don't like some of the Apple/AT&T restrictions either. Or the idea of signing a contract with AT&T, particularly for the advertised prices. That doesn't mean they've broken the law.
Tweet, tweet.
How true. Anyway...
Apple did in fact approach the other carriers (IIRC), but they refused to put into their infrastructure the ability for the iPhone to download messages without the user having to dial up for them. The iPhone owners I've talked to really like that feature and it allows them to jump around messages without having to listen to them all from the beginning of the queue - one of these guys had quite a few voicemails and I can see why he didn't want to have to listen to them all and it allowed him to glance at them all and listen to the one from say, his doctor, without having to start from the beginning.
I refused to get an iPhone because I didn't like the terms and conditions and pricing of the package.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
The plaintiffs say that the source code is necessary to determine whether all iPhones were given the same 1.1.1 update, and whether it was designed to brick all or just some hacked iPhones
That's obviously false, as any decent programmer can tell you. The plaintiffs should stop being lazy, disassemble the code, and find out for themselves.
There are anti-trust laws dealing with that two company colluding stuff. It isn't far off from the other flak that has been coming up lately over the various exclusive phone deals. AT&T/Apple aren't alone on this and there has a been a surge in complaints about this against all vendors. The anti-trust laws are written specifically to prevent these kinds of things from happening and they are just tap dancing around the laws at the moment with silly excuses.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
It is known that this update caused problems on these phones. If it was intentional it would (supposedly) be a violation of the law. Assuming the judge thinks that the plaintiff's case has merit, and Apple cannot provide any other sort of evidence to the contrary, then it seems perfectly reasonable for the him to require that code be submitted as evidence. That doesn't mean that it will be open to the world, just to those people involved in the case who need to see it.
So... Apple says "Don't Jailbreak your phone" and as one of the reason says "We don't QA test against that". Then people do it anyhow, and updates break their phone (as warned). And those people sue, believing that the bugs that Apple said they couldn't test against were intentional? Funny stuff.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Microsoft will produce Windows source code before this happens.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Why not force the carriers to offer official unlocks for all currently locked phones?
I've been making some humble efforts on behalf of my fellow Canadians with Fido and the CRTC.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=817293
I was able to get as far as getting a phone call from the office of the president of my carrier Fido. If enough people did the same with their carriers and their country's regulatory body, we might actually get somewhere.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
It would save these Big companies (Apple, Microsoft, Sony, etc) a lot of grief from the public if they would just say that you are leasing the hardware and not buying it! Selling it to you give one the impression that you can do whatever you want with the hardware. Which is not the case. They produce the hardware and want to control how is used for the life of the device. Which they want to control as well.
Seriously, if you want an open phone then go look at Maemo and the n900. That's some slick shit right there -- two cameras! Crazy Sauce! -- and they even give you root. Hallelujah!
The iPhone? You actually had any aspersions at all that you weren't buying some slick Disney-fied locked-down hood-welded-shut art object? Are you missing a more than a few brain cells?
Me, I'd like an open phone, but the n900 is a little pricey so I'm trying to find a used HTC G1 for el cheapo that I can root and run Replicant on. Sure, you have to find a way to root the Android phones, but once you do I'm pretty sure that T-mobile isn't going to try to castrate the cojones of your phone by pushing an update to you. They're going to happily take your monthly, no-contract fee and then let you use your phone in relative peace.
I love it. All these iPeoples lining up to plunk down their cash for some pretty looking but pretty-much-guaranteed-to-restrict-your-ass piece of hardware. You know that they have a word for this kind of thing, right? It's called a Siren, and you need to get your crew or your mates or whoever you hang with to keep you off the special sauce that they're serving up, piping hot.
Let's just take a look at that complaint "locks US iPhone owners into using the mobile carrier." Well no shit, Sherlock, time to fire up Spotlight and search for n00b on your Mac.
How many times do us so-called "crazy Free Software folks" have to remind you that you don't get Freedom because BillyG or SteveyJ wants to give you a Christmas bonus. You get capital-F Freedom with your phone and your software when you jump down, turn around, and buy and use the phone that gives you that Freedom. You want source code? Sure, it's all here, including the build scripts so that you can verify that you're building what you want to build and running what you want to run on your phone. If you can't root that phone and hold onto root, then Just Say No.
Time and time again this happens, and every time I hope that people will get the message, but it just never seems to sink in. So hold on just a second, let me slip into these asbestos pants and then you can go ahead and overturn an Apple Cart of fanboi vitriol on me. One day...one day maybe you'll thank us.
coding is life
Minor Nit-pick: the iPhone only has 13.7% of the global smartphone market, however the iPhone has a much higher market share in the North America 23.3% (both figures are q2, 2009 canalsys). Since this is a US suit, NA numbers matter more.
That said, RIM still has more market share in the US, and Nokia has more globally.
However, market share doesn't really matter here.
Section 1 of the Sherman anti-trust act is about agreements that unfairly restrain trade at an inter-state level. You do not have to be a monopoly to violate that section. I strongly expect they're trying to pin Apple and AT&T with drafting an agreement that unfairly restrains trade by preventing buyers of the phone from switching carriers.
Section 2 is all about monopolies, but that section is not the only kind of violation covered under the Sherman anti-trust act.
-Matt
So what's the difference between something like this and say, the G1 only being offered on T-Mobile?
Call it fluffheaded fantasizing on my part, but I could envision the much-maligned iPhone 1.1.1 update as being part of a wonderful Trojan Horse attack.
And no, I don't mean against the industry of hacked or modded iPhones, I mean against the industry practice of locking phones to specific carriers in the first place.
Yeah, it's goofy, I know, but think about it: for a very long time, the mobile networks have been calling the shots and tilting the playing field their way. Phones would be designed to meet those specs and little else. Consider that it took Apple's entry into the cell phone market in the first place to generate this sort of outrage. If it were a lesser device, interchangeable with all the other services out there, do you think enough people would have cared to raise this kind of stink?
If it turns out that Apple really did write phone-bricking code into patch 1.1.1, and they had to do this in order to meet a contractual obligation with AT&T, then I doubt that Apple would be in as much trouble as AT&T. Furthermore, perhaps the FCC, FTC, or some other relevant GOV TLA will give up relinquishing [sic] their duties long enough to investigate just how much the mobile carriers have been stifling their own progress and growth and that of the mobile device industry in the name of quick profits. At least, that's the dream. It's vague and it's fuzzy, but its realization would make me inordinately happy.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
As the owner of a copy of Twilight I have the right to see her naked. My friends and I plan to file a class action lawsuit against the makers of the movie and Miss Stewart. As film owners our rights are being ignored and we won't stand for it!
The source code was leaked, unfortunately it's not too exciting:
Well, you see, Apple is Teh Evil.
Google,T-Mobile, and the G1 are the most awesomest awesome ever conceived of.
Well, until they actually gain some appreciable market share and then we must deride them for the very same things we praised them for once we find the next geeky savior of the world.
I think the answer will be "no".
I believe the bricking is the difference. Does Google deliberately brick G1's at T-Mobile's behest to keep them from going to the competition?
... any different?
Even if HTC offers the same model to another carrier, they aren't offering the SPRINT one. And in line with that is the limit to Spring. I cannot use it on another network if I choose. I am forced to exclusively use my hardware on a Sprint network.
Anti-trust crap happens all day all over the place. It is almost funny to see how few of these blatant offenses to competition actually get pursued.
I just want them to be forced to unlock the phone after we've paid our contractual obligations. Sigh.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Rather, you're probably not going to be liable if you injure the buglar with a bear trap ... provided that bear traps are legal in your area, even when not actively hunting for bears. Bad form to respond to my own post, I know. So sue me. Figuratively speaking, of course.
You do understand that if they try to use your theory they will fail miserably, right? The reason is that what you have described is not "restraint of trade". It is an exclusive distribution deal. AT&T and Apple have the same kind of exclusive arrangement as a band and a record label.
The exclusive distribution deal between Apple and AT&T does not restrain the trade of other carriers or the customers. It does not prevent customers from buying and/or using phones with other carries. What it does do is limit the availability of iPhones to the customers of AT&T. One does not need to have an iPhone. There are other smart phones, many of which are exclusive to a specific carrier (G1 and T-mobile, Droid and Verizon, etc.).
Customer desire does not an anti-trust case make.
Just look at the soft drink industry for an example.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Really? You need the source code to determine the phone was locked into a carrier?
How about reading the service agreement.
So, who is going to review the code in this closed process? The judge? :) Hehehe... I can see him now powering up is new Mac Book pro, reviewing the source code and exclaiming "There it is... the smoking gun!"
In all seriousness, how would they manage this process? Would the plaintiff and defendant hire expert programmers to comb through the code looking for evidence? Would it then be presented to the judge and he would decide? Would he even know how to decide?
I can see it now - "Your honor, you can clearly see here where Apple overloaded the xxYY class with functions that are clearly..... " Watching the judge's eyes glass over, you would have to wonder how something like this would actually come to a "successful" conclusion for either side.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
IANAL, the lawyers reading this can correct me as needed.
If the burglar gets hurt due to a trap you have set, it's a crime not a tort. The burglar is not suing you, the police are arresting you on evidence of setting a trap. The crime is "Reckless Endangerment" if no one is hurt, various others if someone *is* hurt.
Traps are illegal because lots of people can be in your home without your consent: firefighters, police chasing a suspect, gas line repairmen,and the super. You must keep your house reasonably safe for that reason. It's a bit of a grey area if the burglar trips over a rug and breaks his leg, depending on the circumstances.
The burglar can sue for damages because we have the presumption of innocence. At the time of the break-in, he had not been convicted of the crime. I believe that this varies from state-to-state, so check your local laws.
Interesting link
IANAL, the lawyers reading this can correct me as needed.
If the burglar gets hurt due to a trap you have set, it's a crime not a tort. The burglar is not suing you, the police are arresting you on evidence of setting a trap. The crime is "Reckless Endangerment" if no one is hurt, various others if someone *is* hurt.
Traps are illegal because lots of people can be in your home without your consent: firefighters, police chasing a suspect, gas line repairmen,and the super. You must keep your house reasonably safe for that reason. It's a bit of a grey area if the burglar trips over a rug and breaks his leg, depending on the circumstances.
The burglar can sue for damages because we have the presumption of innocence. At the time of the break-in, he had not been convicted of the crime. The "deadly force" argument may or may not be valid, since the trap may very well be non-lethal, like restraining the burglar with a net.
I believe that this last bit varies from state-to-state, so check your local laws.
Interesting link
For those posters who talk about putting up signs, note that the trespasser could be a small child who hasn't yet learned to read, or am adult who only reads a different language.
Correction: I should have said: "If the other service providers refused..." instead of "If AT&T refused...". Obviously, I made a mistake when I wrote that (but I hope you still got the main gist of what I was saying otherwise).
The First is the Exclusivity of the iPhone. Keep in mind that people could buy it from an Apple Store without the AT&T contract, which is one of the arguments in this case. All Other phones (Droid as example) can only be purchased from Verizon or an Authorized Retailer with Contract. No Ifs/Ands/Buts about it. You have to have the contract or Verizon wont send you the phone.
Second is the Doctrine of First Sale. If the exclusivity of the contract is invalidated due to the Apple Store selling them without AT&T contracts, then you can apply the Doctrine of First Sale to the purchase, which means the 1.1.1 update that bricked products is now called into question.
Third is the Sherman Anti-Trust issues which follows on the heels of the prior issues. WIthout a ruling on both them them in favor of the plaintiffs, you have no further case so I'm hopefull that the ruling goes in the plaintiffs favor as it means some expert will get to examine the 1.1.1 update source code and explain whether it did/not deliberately brick jailbroken phones. If the issue it suspposedly fixed was caused by the jail-breaking and there has been a decision that yes the arguments have standing (Exclusivity is not proven/Doctrine of First Sale) then you have a possible Anti-Trust decision against AT&T along with damages awarded to the Non-AT&T iPhone purchasers who's phones were bricked.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Probably because, while monopolies are specifically a subject of antitrust law, they aren't the only thing it covers. Antitrust laws deal with a wide range of anticompetitive and unfair practices in trade.
The demand for the source code isn't as a remedy, its a discovery motion. The plaintiffs' reason for it is addressed in TFA, which quotes the motion itself: "Unless Plaintiffs are given access to Version 1.1.1 source code, their ability to prove the size and scope of the Class affected by Version 1.1.1 will be severely compromised and unfairly prejudiced."
I know it's cool to hate Apple these days, but seriously, get the facts first...
The people who had 1.1.1 phones "bricked" were people who had unlocked their phones with the original (buggy) version of AnySIM that subtly corrupted the seczone where phone locks and IMEI were stored. It was corrupted in such a way that it wasn't obvious until the baseband was upgraded to the next version (which occurred in 1.1.1) where things totally stopped working.
Apple never deliberately tried to break anyone with an unlock, it just so happens that the unlockers had damaged their seczones and prevented the update from being applied cleanly.
NetShadow
In my opinion, phones aren't really subsidized. The service provider isn't paying for the phone, they're breaking up the balance into small payments and building that into your bill. You're paying for the whole thing over time. It's kind of like financing a car. The users own the phones, not Apple and not AT&T. If they breach their contract, they could be disconnected and have to pay the exit fee. But bricking the phone and deleting their data is vandalizing their personal property.
How many buttons will it have?
If you don't like how AT&T and/or Apple operate... go to Verizon and/or buy a BlackBerry or something.
* Don't get me wrong, I agree - if Apple bricked the devices on purpose, that's pretty bad - and at the very least the policies should have been spelled out clearly in the first place - every other phone on AT&T can be unlocked with a short call to customer service.
Why, no, I haven't meta-moderated lately. Thanks for asking!
The /. community has already decided that Apple is not evil, so there's no harm, no foul!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The only reason the iPhone exists and multi-year contracts with AT&T exist is because consumers bought the iPhone, and signed with AT&T. The root problem is not Apple, but with the people who bought Apple's iPhone. The conspiring consumer is the necessary precondition for Apple's and AT&T's alleged antitrust activity. To end this anti-competitive behavior, ALL PURCHASERS OF THE APPLE IPHONE must be sued for damages, and an emergency injunction must be granted, preventing consumers from purchasing any more iPhones, before any more harm can be done by them.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Oh yes, great deals from a site somewhere in china that has been in business for weeks now!
You cledit cald safe, me plomise!
Domain Name : coolforsale.com
PunnyCode : coolforsale.com
Creation Date : 2009-11-02 12:25:21
Updated Date : 2009-11-02 12:25:21
Expiration Date : 2010-11-02 12:24:27
Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now,
That doesn't make it right. In fact, in many countries, what Apple is doing with the iPhone is illegal and Apple must sell them without a contract, or unlocked with a contract.
I'll bet a cookie that the terms of the service agreement let Apple & AT&T do more or less what ever they want with what is legally still their hardware.
Legally? Are you kidding? You paid for the phone, it's yours. Yes, even with a contract, because if you break the contract (or the phone), you have to pay the difference. It's your phone.
the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care
And that seems like the perfect opportunity to get something changed in the US phone market, because the US cell phone market is extremely inefficient and overpriced. And Apple, far from changing this, has been perpetuating the problem.
> Then people do it anyhow, and updates break their phone (as warned).
Nice phone you got there. Shame if something were to happen to it.
Which reminds me, are you interested in this iBridge I have for sale? They say it was once used by Steve Jobs...
I'd very much like to see Apple's jail-breaker-bricker update gone over with a fine toothed comb.
If Apple deliberately bricked jail-broken phones then they need to face HEAVY punitive damages.
Your posts reek of Soviet era propaganda about "kapitalizm." "Kapitalizm is about exploiting the worker [and consumer], comrade." The only difference is you seem to think everyone should submit to the "kapitalizt" overlords.
Your sig: I suppose the KGB would not think "In Soviet Russia" jokes were funny, would you?
I am so sick of these arrogant dumbasses who got their Jesus phone only to violate the TOS, etc. because it wasn't *exactly* what they wanted.
So, they intentionally violated the license - intentionally altered the source the device runs despite it being unsupported - and now *demand* to see source code?
I agree with a previous post - they should ask for a pony and ice cream while they're at it.
A large ping cylindrical member of the male anatomy should be repeatedly slapped back and forth across their foreheads.
If you have to hack it to like it - then how great is it?
Is hacking it a violation of the DMCA? Could it be construed as one?
Apple fanboy conversation:
"look, look how superior my iphone is"
"Wow, all those apps must have been expensive! That's super cool!"
"Naw, I hacked it so it's actually the phone that I want. So I can install anything, like on a windows mobile smartphone!"
"Uh; Soooo, it's not the iphone that's the Jesus phone, but the *hacked* iphone...? So... the iphone sucks if it's not hacked?"
/me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
Problem: you didn't lease your phone.
Ergo it's not an accurate car analogy.
More accurate would be you HIRE PURCHASE your car (you own it) and the contract says you won't speed. The company can demand you pay the balance immediately if you break the contract but they can't disable the car.
You've not read the contract either, else you would not have said "If". So more likely the contract DOESN'T say that.
Added to that that if they take back the phone you don't owe anything if it's not your phone and that ISN'T in the contract, I'd say it definitely counts as a sale.
Lastly if it were that simple, the judge would have dismissed the case immediately.
So, "If" doesn't pertain. It doesn't say "own at the end of the contract".
// Uncomment the next line to brick jailbroken handsets
#define SCREW_OUR_ILLEGAL_CUSTOMERS true
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
First, as I said, Apple isn't the only one coming under fire recetly for this. Second, as far as I know the other phones don't get locked the same way iPhones do. Only being able to purchase one with a specific carrier is different than being tied to that carrier for life.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Fair enough, I wasn't really discussing the validity of the case, I was merely pointing out you don't need a monopoly to create an anti-trust lawsuit.
However, this does go beyond just an exclusive distribution arrangement. Here you're locking a product, which by design can be used on any GSM cellular network, and limiting it's use by the consumer to a specific carrier.
This would be equivalent to a music CD that has features intentionally added so it can only be played on Toshiba CD players, despite the fact that the disc is otherwise redbook compatible.
Your distribution example limits where a consumer can buy a product, but the reality here is they're also limiting where a consumer can use the product as well.
I still don't think it's likely to prevail, but it is a bit less simple than distribution.
And while this cell-carrier agreements are common, that doesn't mean they're unquestionably legal.
-Matt
I see your point, but there is nothing wrong with what you have described as long as the customer knows in advance, which they do.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Well, that's the thing about antitrust. It doesn't really matter what you've told the customer, or what the customer has agreed to. Not telling consumers would be fraud. Antitrust is all about preventing a competitive market.
i.e.: if multiple manufacturers agree to a price-fixing arrangement for some product to raise prices across the market, it doesn't matter what they tell the consumers. They are still illegally colluding to prevent competition in a market.
However, I don't clearly see how this kind of market-impairment argument is likely to succeed in this case. It all boils down to:
Does Apple have the right to modify a product in a way that makes it only operate on one carrier that they have an agreement with, when those modifications serve no other purpose beyond carrier lock-out?
Clearly this does have an impact on competition in the wireless market, but is it a big enough impact to claim that it's restraining trade? Maybe, but it seems a bit of a stretch. These laws are primarily intended to prevent agreements that end up broadly rigging the market, not exclusivity agreements.
-Matt