Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

iPhone Owners Demand To See Apple Source Code

Posted by kdawson on from the you're-a-brick dept.

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."

2 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the other hand, consider the following formulation: You buy a product. It's your property. The person who sold it to you doesn't like the way you're using it, so they break the product you bought. They don't compensate you for your lost product or offer a refund.

    Are you of the opinion that this is generally acceptable behavior on the part of the vendor?

    Now yes, it's more complicated than that. You have software licensing terms, and you have warranty terms. People arguably broke their own phones while voiding their warranty. And IIRC, Apple wasn't very strict about refusing to replace bricked phones.

  2. Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine by jockeys · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You buy a product. It's your property. The person who sold it to you doesn't like the way you're using it, so they break the product you bought.

    Consider further: before buying the product, the vendor offers to pay for half of the product (making it much more accessible) if you sign a contract to use it the way they tell you to use it, for two whole years.

    I'm not an Apple fanboy by any stretch, but people shouldn't sign the contract if they don't agree to the terms. 'Nuff said.

    --

    In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.