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
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).
Dear Apple:
Please also include a pony with the next release of the iphone software.
kthxbi,
iPhone owners
No kidding. The day Apple has to hand over their source code? That’d be a cold day in Hell...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
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.
I don't get what that saying is all about. I mean, doesn't it even get cold enough to snow in Texas? Seems cold enough to me.
http://www.chaotickingdoms.com
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/
cold indeed as frosty as the sheen on brushed aluminum.
"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...
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.
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.
I agree that anyone who jailbroke their phone was an idiot for allowing updates.
On the other hand, the difference between "Ooops, your changed binary got patched in the wrong place" and "if AuthenticBinary() then NukeDevice() else Patch()" is roughly the same as what happens to a burglar when he steps on the broken glass after breaking into my house Vs me planting bear traps next to each of my windows.
The first is schadenfreude, the latter legally actionable.
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.
Doh!
InAuthentic()
Regardless, if Apple and AT&T are guilty of anti-trust law violations, it only seems appropriate that their products are what expose them.
Did it ever occur to you that the EULA could have been DESIGNED to obscure such violations?
EULAs are bullshit. Corporations use them to deny customers LEGAL rights, intentionally complicate them with endless legalese, obfuscate their own questionable actions, and very often, use them as a place to bury shit that they simply do not want the customer to know yet are compelled by LAW to disclose.
And, yeah, people need to learn to read them before hitting the "accept" button. I am fully convinced that if everyone did, about 50% of the EULAs out there would NOT be accepted.
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.
And, yeah, people need to learn to read them before hitting the "accept" button. I am fully convinced that if everyone did, about 50% of the EULAs out there would NOT be accepted.
I am fully convinced that if everyone was FORCED to read the EULA, about 50% of the customers would not continue the sale. Yes sir, I'm naming a LOT of customers lazy and/or stupid. (never mind the analphabetic and dyslectics, their percentage is quite low, not their fault anyway)
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
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.
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.
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
"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."
:(
Sounds a bit like the shitstorm from the XBox Live bans. Hard to believe there's terms of services on hardware devices, but it's a brave new world.
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
All that's very well, but customers are forced to buy the locked version. They should instead let customers buy the unlocked phone without a contract for $700 (say) if they want, and then say that if they bought the subsidized version, they can't unlock it/jailbreak it. But those who paid in full can do what they want with their device that they fully paid for.
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.
Corporations use them to deny customers LEGAL rights
Name some? (not a troll, I'm curious... and stupid or ignorant and can't think of any off the top of my head)
If you live in a place where the latter is legally actionable, you live in a land of idiots. The burglar is responsible for his injuries in either case. In both cases, had he not been breaking the law and violating the homeowners rights, he would never have been injured.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
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!
Nobody paid for half of my iPhone.
I didn't jailbreak my phone and my phone was never bricked. I don't really have a horse in this race. I'm really just suggesting that if Apple really bricked phones on purpose, that doesn't seem quite right to me, even if it's legal.
Consider even further: you do play by the rules and use the product as specified by AT&T and their contract for that two whole years. The way the iPhone is currently set up you still can't "legitimately" unlock it even though both sides have fulfilled all contractual obligations. So what happens when this is the case and you end up hacking a phone that is your property... only to have the phone bricked and totally useless (in theory) by the next software upgrade (yes, even if you should know better).
On numerous occasions I have seen people get frustrated when installing an App/Game.
"What the fuck? The "agree" button is all grayed out. It won't let me click it!"
The problem? The developers made it so you had to actually scroll down the slider on the EULA before the "accept" button was functional. In short, they were frustrated because they DID NOT READ THE EULA, even after the the developers attempted to get them to do exactly that.
I once wrote a paper for a class on the very subject, "accept" buttons and EULAs. I followed up by doing a short poll of the class(hand up, or not) by asking a simple question.
"Do you read the EULAs provided with products?"
Not a single hand went up out of approx. 25 students. Take that as you will. I take it as just another reason why EULAs are totally ineffective in terms of what they are supposed to achieve, and as such, should be abandoned for such purposes.
Furthermore, I asked the students WHY they did not read the EULAs. Number one answer?
"I paid for it, what does it matter?"
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.
Why is leaving bear traps next to each window legally actionable? It isn't legally actionable if no burglar ever breaks into your house, so why should it be when a burgler does? It's not like you're actively hurting the burglar. If you have a gun in your house and the burglar takes the gun and then shoots himself with it, are you suddenly legally actionable? The burglar could have asked you to remove the bear traps, so it's not like he didn't have any options (yes, obviously the option would have ruined his purpose for being there, but that's not the issue).
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
What of the what, now? You buy a product with software that is titled iPhoneOS 1.1. You jailbreak the phone to do what you want to it. You can continue to do what you want to it, unless you decide to download 1.1.1 which means, with the jailbreak software you added, your phone no longer works and you need to wipe and reinstall.
So when you say "they break the product you bought" what you really mean is "by downloading a new version of the phone's OS, you broke the product you bought".
Unless you mean an owner was surprised they bricked their own phone, and that I can understand. But you know...you just customized heavily your own phone's software, then you apply someone else's code to it? What do you expect, really?
Why should they, besides the fact that you want them to do so?
Your statement boils down to "They should do this because that is what I want them to do because it benefits me and not them."
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I'd take it one farther than that. Consider also: Years down the road, AT&T gets out of the wireless phone business. Your iPhone still works great, and you're really attached to it. Even though the contract is expired and the service provider who's interests were being protected is defunct, you STILL cannot make use of something YOU legally own.
If I read every EULA, I'd have no time to use the product.
Thanks god I live in a country where EULA's aren't legally binding, since they're only disclosed after completion of sale.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Honestly, I think all you'd really need to do is:
1) Verify that bear traps are not barred by law, and
2) Post signs that say "WARNING: Bear traps in use! Do not enter!"
IANAL
The very first EULA I read and COMPLETELY refused to accept was a EULA that the makers of ICQ (an instant messenger) included with one of their upgrades.
While I do not have the EULA itself to quote, the EULA essentially gave the owners of ICQ the right to upload the entire contents of my hard drive. No, thank you.
The last version of ICQ I ever used was ICQ 2003b, so I imagine it was the following version, ICQPro, I think.
Essentially the makers of ICQ wanted to me to sign away my right to privacy in order to use their product (a FREE product, no less. Kind of implies what they were after in the first place. Not my money obviously.).
The thing that really ticked me off about that was that the EULA was such incomprehensible legalese that I had to read the damn thing several times before I actually understood what they were requiring of me (that obfuscation thing I mentioned).
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?
Why should they, besides the fact that you want them to do so?
a) They can change carriers at will - maybe get a pre paid plan on their phone
b) They can just stop using the phone if they don't want to keep paying for two years
c) When they move to another country they can just pull out the SIM and dump in another local one
d) They can buy another phone after just a few months if they want and throw the last one into the dustbin.
Seriously dude, there are soooo many benefits to having a non contractual fully unlocked phone. I'm surprised I have to point them out to you.
... 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.
When you have an EULA for every device that says effectively the same thing, no matter from what manufacturer, do you really have a choice?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
The argument is that the use of deadly force is not allowed if the burglar isn't an immediate threat to the life of someone; and if you can't use deadly force yourself when they enter, you cannot do it through a mechanical device, either. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney (The legal briefs linked on the bottom will probably be more useful). Obviously this ruling is by-state, and I have no idea about non-US countries.
The main thing that is left out is that the iPhone was not "bricked" until users downloaded and installed the last patch. In this case it was 1.1.1. If the user did not download the last patch, it was fine. Small but important distinction.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Nobody forced anybody to buy anything.... Unless you claim Steve Jobs has psychic powers that forced you to buy iPhones....
The entire practice of subsidizing the phone with a contract is designed with the purpose of making back the money lost on the phone in customer payments for continued service. That is to say:
- Customer wants to buy a phone.
- Provider sells the phone at a loss of about $100 (we'll say) but ties it to a contract binding the customer to pay $70 a month for, let's say, 24 months. Let's say only about $10 of that is markup or somesuch. They make their loss back after the first 12 and continue to make a profit for the next 12.
In this way, there was no real loss on the phone since it ends up making them more than they lost, just over a significant period of time. This is also why they're hesitant to allow an unlock and provider switch with the phone, and why the cost of premature termination is so freakin' high -- they're making their loss back on the phone at least, just not for your business. However, there is the risk that a customer will terminate early, eat the loss for the provider and then just take their business elsewhere.
HOWEVER, were the same company to sell unlocked phones at full price, it could go like this:
- Customer wants to buy a phone, unlocked.
- Provider sells the phone at zero loss, doesn't tie to a contract necessarily (but the customer can opt into one if they so choose -- there could be some incentive for doing so) but already is looking good out of the gate with one new customer and zero loss.
In that second instance, there's very little risk (if any) involved for the cell phone company besides the omnipresent one that the customer may choose to switch at any time -- which is still true for the first instance, it's just pricier.
tl;dr: all selling the phone unsubsidized and unlocked does is change who's paying for the phone and how much gain the provider actually makes in the end.
I think he was approaching it from the "why is this a good business decision" angle, not "how does it benefit the consumer." There's a case for both and it mostly involves moving the risk around (maybe eliminating, possibly not) in the former.
In the US there is a DMCA exemption that legally allows one to carrier unlock a cell phone that they own to work with another carrier.
If Apple is bricking phones that have been carrier unlocked (which an owner has the LEGAL right to do) then they should be held accountable.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
"I paid for it, what does it matter?"
Sure they paid, but the EULA probably stated they didn't OWN the software. (did they REALLY pay for the software? Just curious, my students somehow just have the software)
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
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.
Unfortunately your logic can also be applied to justify any number of anti competitive and monopolistic behavior.
Perhaps you believe that there should be no anti trust cases. Perhaps you believe that AT&T in its early years was doing nothing wrong.
Perhaps you believe that the "free market" is actually free.
Oh wait....
Hell is supposed to be constant hellfire... Taking that it is pretty friggen unlikely that it will be cold.
Unless you were saying that Texas is worse than hell which may or may not be true.
Apparently this doesn't apply to the iPhone
Yeah, my first thought was:
Sigh, then I actually read the post... so,
IAALStudent. Covered this exact sort of thing last year, except it was a shotgun rigged to fire a shell toward a doorway when the door was opened. The lack of #2 was the important bit. As long as you put up a sign that says "Hey! There's a bear trap underneath this window, don't even try it", then you're probably not going to be liable if you injure the burglar.
My criminal law professor did say, though, that if somebody breaks into your house and you feel inclined to defend yourself, "you'd better kill the f*cker. If he survives, you can be sure he's going to sue, but dead men give no testimony."
<include standard_dislclaimer.h>
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.
Where do you live? I can almost guarantee you live in 'a land of idiots'. Think of it from a more proactive point of view... If someone is looking in my window I can't sneak up behind him and hack his feet off. Why then would a bear trap be ok?
Why should they, besides the fact that you want them to do so?
Your statement boils down to "They should do this because that is what I want them to do because it benefits me and not them."
Oh, I see. So it's a contract of adhesion since there is no unlocked version. If you listen to your legal team (who will approach the issue from the "what's the easiest case to argue" angle and not the "what can we maybe technically get away with" angle) you'll sell an unlocked version.
IANAL.
$ make available
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.
You did not say "someone looking in my window". You said "a burglar when he steps on the broken glass after breaking into my house Vs me planting bear traps next to each of my windows" which implies both are inside your home.
Please keep your arguments straight and not try to change things after the fact.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Not necessarily. According to Dante, the ninth circle of Hell is a frozen wasteland reserved for the most severe traitors and betrayers.
Now, if only the Beltway were the first circle, then the Capitol/White House would be the ninth... damn traitors to the Constitution.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Those are all benefits to you, not they, who would be AT&T and Apple.
The question is:
Perhaps you should read the comments before commenting.
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
People do not honor the EULA, jailbreak their iPhones into iBricks and then cry out loud apple bricked their jailbroken devices.
Honor the EULA? Why should someone honor an EUL? [*] And yes, if Apple brick the phone that the customer bought, I'd say they should be liable for a replacement, at least.
But sure, the correct answer is to not use Apple.
[*] If you disagree, you can honor the EULA to pay me $100. You agree to it by clicking "Reply To This".
That is all very well and good, except you didn't answer the question:
Both AT&T and Apple benefit from their exclusive distribution deal. How would they benefit from what you suggest?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I'm an Electrical Engineer with two kids. I have never owned a cell phone and I have never missed having one. I've been offended by the "go fuck yourself" fees that the carriers put on the bills. 911 / system access / wireless access -- they're all just bullshit fees that only go to the bottom line. So really, anyone with a cell is a victim of marketing. (You might as well be wearing Axe.)
I've been called out on not owning a cell more than once -- "What? your wife could go into labour at any moment and you don't have a cell?"
"She knows where I am and they have a phone here."
"What if there's an emergency?"
"If it's big enough, cells won't work. Just out of curiousity, do you have pre-arranged meeting areas if there IS a big emergency? Do you have 72 hours of food and water at your house?"
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
"Sure they paid, but the EULA probably stated they didn't OWN the software."
Apparently, the other students in the class are ACCUSTOMED to owning what they pay for.
Odd, I know, but that was the attitude (for the record, I agree with them).
"(did they REALLY pay for the software? Just curious, my students somehow just have the software)"
Have you ever ASKED them? You know what they say about assumptions. I find it interesting that an instructor (you implied this) automatically assumes that all of their students are "pirates". It is no-small-fucking-wonder the RIAA gets what they want in this world when assholes like you fall for their propaganda. Find out for yourself by asking them before you make assumptions. I'm not even an instructor and I take the time to ASK students questions before filling in the fucking blanks.
Great post, thank you. Here's hoping the Mac brigade doesn't turn you into BBQ for it.
Personally, I switched to Linux back then when GTK was a steaming pile of ugly shit, you needed to know how to edit shell scripts, and you had to configure half the system by hand to have a hope of having a decent experience with it. Sure, nowadays it's as easy as putting the CD in and clicking "OK" a couple times, but I still don't regret jumping into it early on: when my friends complained about the stupidization of Windows XP's configuration panels I could tell them I had no such problem, and when they complained about Vista's performance I'd tell them I was still using the same computer as five years ago and still enjoying it.
I'm sure the same will happen eventually on phones, if it hasn't already. Whenever my current PDA and/or phone bites the dust, I'm switching to a Nokia n900 myself. Perhaps it'll be the nightmarish experience that iPhone users warn me it is, perhaps it'll just be Yet Another Nokia Phone but either way, I'm sure the time expense of learning it will be worth it specially once I get a ssh client in there.
You don't get Freedom by asking your overlords nicely for it, you get it by taking an active hand in building it for yourself. And buying a locked-down, brickable-at-any-moment phone isn't a good way to do it.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
The concept of hell has evolved over time. During Dante's time it was believed that God was the source of all warmth and goodness. Since Hell was as far from God's presence while still remaining within creation, it was freezing cold. More recently that has transitioned to the fire and brimstone that we are all familiar with due to the view of Hell as a place of punishment.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
No, you are not a lawyer and you should not be saying what one's lawyers would be telling one.
I doubt this would qualify as a contract of adhesion. The terms are fully explained and the majority of people who obtain an iPhone find the terms to be reasonable and non-oppressive. So, while the it is effectively a "take it or leave it contract", it is not oppressive or abusive.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I think we *should* read all EULAs but I also agree most of them are incomprehensible, specially when they all start the same, so you just think "ok, it's the same as the last time, where's the OK button?".
The solution I found? EULAlyzer
It does a pretty good job at spotting suspicious wording, without having to read the whole thing. Agreed, the best option would be to have a lawyer read the entire text and explain it to you, but since I'm guessing that's not an option for 99.99% of users, this little tool might help you be a bit smarter about this whoel thing.
Disclaimer: I'm in no way related to the company, developers or anything else around the tool....I just like it very much.
Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
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.
This is probably a few hours late, but this is referring to the iPhone 1.1 update. Remember the original iPhone was sold unsubsidized by AT&T. You could do at home activation of the thing. I think it was also possible to get an iPhone as a "Go" phone so you didn't have a contract at all.
Um. You do know what a court order is, don't you? Compliance is not generally viewed as *optional*.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
In hindsight, the name calling was a little harsh.
But seriously, give your students a little credit. They do the same for you. Otherwise, you'd have an empty classroom.
thank you for the clarification.
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
I never read the ICQ EULA, but I didn't use it very long and had a fairly low number. I forget the number though, ha. Interesting though. Now I feel like reading all my EULAs just for the fun of it... :P
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."
Here is a car analogy
That's the sort of thing that goes on with car leases.
If you "buy" a car, but take a loan against it and refuse to pay it back, the bank can take it back. In most of US, the repo man can hot-wire and take the car as long as he does not break in to your property. In rest of the world, you can't do it unless you get a cop to be around.
Either way, it is not acceptable to trash the car or trash the personal items left in the car (they must be returned to you). Apple deleting the contact list etc. would be considered destruction of personal property.
IANAL, nor a judge.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
That's the problem. They will not do it therefore they must be forced to.
Their behavior is monopolistic and anti competitive and is only meant to squeeze the customer without offering a concrete benefit.
You owe me, I sprayed coffee all over my monitor... 4G indeed...
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
LOL. Says ATT. For no reason other than 'we wont do it for you'. Nothing amazing about the JesusPhone that makes it immune to such legislation, whatever some might believe.
Most of Dante's hell was fiery ... The 9th circle was icy to be hip and different. Seriously, Dante was a writer that's all... it was just a popular version that's all.
I didn't know that next to implied inside. let me reword...
Where do you live? I can almost guarantee you live in 'a land of idiots'. Think of it from a more proactive point of view... If someone is in my house near a window I can't sneak up behind him and hack his feet off. Why then would a bear trap be ok?
Did you buy it or lease it with a 'ownership clause' at end of contract term?
I have never read the contracts, have you?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
How many buttons will it have?
Hmm. Yes, your property, but NOT your network. You are completely free to throw your iPhone into a blender and make it into soup, but you assume that someone jailbreaking an iPhone is NOT going to use it (and the network it happens to be attached to) for purposes it was not intended for, such as playing movies direct from Hulu. The "owner" of the network subsidized phone may decide to stay with AT&T, or they may take that subsidized phone to a competitor, which would make AT&T look pretty foolish, yes?
That's the problem. They will not do it therefore they must be forced to.
Their behavior is monopolistic and anti competitive and is only meant to squeeze the customer without offering a concrete benefit.
you're fuckin dense. the iphone isnt the only phone on the market. if you don't like the terms of the agreement required to purchase it, don't. buy a different phone.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
eh, here's a more accurate car analogy:
you lease a car with a LoJack, and sign a contract saying you won't drive the car a certain way: speeding, etc.
if it's in the contract, the car company is well within their rights to LoJack the car and disable it if they become aware that you are speeding.
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
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!
Perhaps not, but at least here in Colorado I can shoot and kill a burglar in my house as long as reasonably felt like I was in danger...
Ok, I'm going to repeat this once more - listen carefully.
"Their behavior is monopolistic and anti competitive"
Reason enough to force them to do the right thing.
That's all going to change. AT&T's behavior is anti competitive and monopolistic and will be brought to book.
The FCC and other Senators are already putting the gears in motion.
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
No, not “optional”, but corporate lawyers will make it take years if not decades.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
But you can't shoot them in the back, you can't shoot them if they are unarmed, and you can't shoot them if they do not pose a threat. The law isn't based off of feelings, but rather actual physical threats.
Erm... When I went from a 2.5 G iPhone to a 3GS I just popped the SIM out of the old one and into the new. The 2.5 G then just said NO SIM next to the WiFi menu and continued to work just fine as a iPod Touch.
If you want to update the OS on it you will need an inactive SIM or be able to swap them back. Apple has the whole thing documented here. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3406
Eventually my wife tired of her Sony phone so we put her ATT SIM into the old iPhone, itunes prompted her to add the 2.5G $20 data/text plan to it and she was done.
The 2 year contract is with AT&T, not Apple.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
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.
"Sure they paid, but the EULA probably stated they didn't OWN the software."
Apparently, the other students in the class are ACCUSTOMED to owning what they pay for. Odd, I know, but that was the attitude (for the record, I agree with them).
"(did they REALLY pay for the software? Just curious, my students somehow just have the software)"
Have you ever ASKED them? You know what they say about assumptions. I find it interesting that an instructor (you implied this) automatically assumes that all of their students are "pirates". It is no-small-fucking-wonder the RIAA gets what they want in this world when assholes like you fall for their propaganda. Find out for yourself by asking them before you make assumptions. I'm not even an instructor and I take the time to ASK students questions before filling in the fucking blanks.
I watched them install and crack it on their on machines during schoolhours, so yes, I guess that's an answer? (unless they PAID yet prefer the cracked version). Anyway they did enough research on free/OSS alternatives, it's just that other instructors prefer to teach the commerial suites (school gets pretty cheap licenses) so students prefer the real software and not an unsupported (schoolwise that is) application.
They're in the development-business themselves, they know what piracy is, they also have a reasonably sophisticated notion when to pirate and when not to pirate, I only keep pressing them to keep the AV-software working and updated. The fact that I see them do RIAA-unapproved things, doesn't mean I disagree ;) Credit where credit due.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
It isn't too uncommon for source code to be confidentially handed over in legal disputes. But this does not entail publicly releasing the source or a right to do so, nor does it somehow make them lose copyright over the code, so its not too unreasonable. It means some lawyer will get to give it to expert(s) to review for the alleged evidence. In this case it seems reasonable as we only have Apple's word that they treated all phones equally in this upgrade with did demonstrably cause some devices to stop functioning properly. Since they were not supported Apple would not normally be liable, but they still have no right to act maliciously and destroy property in the process as alleged.
Yeah, watching them crack a .exe is pretty obvious.
As far as them possibly preferring a cracked version, you are probably correct.
I must admit, I go out, buy a game, then promptly torrent it to avoid SecuROM and such. Only reason I open the package is to get at the maps/manuals. If I ever get called on it by the RIAA, I have receipts and the original boxes to drag into court. It may not mean anything in court, but I sleep well at night.
"they also have a reasonably sophisticated notion when to pirate and when not to pirate"
Sounds like I'd fit right in.
Again, sorry for the name-calling. Made my own assumptions, now didn't I?
I don't mind reading a one page EULA. I don't have time to read and translate from legalese 60+ page documents (to be conservative), not to mention cross linked documents, every time I install a program / patch.
The majority of people who own an iPhone are stupid and brainwashed by what the baby boomers are calling "kapitalizm." Really, this is asshole companies (namely Apple and Microsoft) who are taking advantage of people who don't have technical knowledge about computers and electronics or the concept of property.
They sell something, then claim you "licensed" or "rented" it after the sale and limit what you are allowed to do with the device. And no, paying half up front, then 2 years of absurdly high payments does not justify them saying you do not own the device.
Their behavior make Richard Stallman's rants seem reasonable. As for what the users think: I imagine if you did a poll in China, the people would say their government is "reasonable and non-oppressive." It does not make it true.
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...
Yeah, watching them crack a .exe is pretty obvious.
As far as them possibly preferring a cracked version, you are probably correct.
I must admit, I go out, buy a game, then promptly torrent it to avoid SecuROM and such. Only reason I open the package is to get at the maps/manuals. If I ever get called on it by the RIAA, I have receipts and the original boxes to drag into court. It may not mean anything in court, but I sleep well at night.
"they also have a reasonably sophisticated notion when to pirate and when not to pirate"
Sounds like I'd fit right in.
Again, sorry for the name-calling. Made my own assumptions, now didn't I?
I myself have several DVD's that will not play properly in non-Windows environment: menu-controls that don't work, subtitles that are not available, or just not mounting. That is easily solved with a fine torrent and accompanying .srt :) Behaviour that is recognised by my students and appreciated. And my collection keeps expanding as the most interesting movies are over 5 years of age and at a $7 price-level (typically 3 for $20 inc. p&p)
Re name-calling: as English is my first nor second language, such typicalities (though being interesting) mostly miss the target. Don't sweat it.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
// 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..
Many of the hackers never signed those contracts, and bought it outright.
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.
Consider furthest: we're talking about the 1st generation iPhone, which wasn't subsidized by AT&T at all. As the customer, you bought the hardware outright.
"Just out of curiousity, do you have pre-arranged meeting areas if there IS a big emergency? Do you have 72 hours of food and water at your house?"
No ... But our meeting place was gonna be at your house, so it sounds like we should be all set!
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.
Perhaps you didn't expect your device to be maliciously targeted. Its one thing to have an update that creates an unforeseen bug. Its a completely different thing to have an update that maliciously, and purposefully, destroys data. For an analogy, if I'm balancing on a railing and fall, its my fault I fell. If I'm balancing on a railing, you walk up and shove me, the fact that I'm balancing on the railing doesn't make it okay for you to shove me.
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
Again, you did not answer the question, rather your argument begs the question.
Their behavior is not monopolistic nor is it anti-competitive because there are plenty of other smart phones available. In order for their behavior to be monopolistic and/or anti-competitive, there would have to be only one smart phone, the iPhone and AT&T and Apple would have to collude to prevent other companies from acquiring a smart phone of their own.
You really need to buy a dictionary, or something.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
A) A bear trap doesn't hack off one's feet.
B) Who says you can not do to an intruder what a bear trap would do, which is subdue and hold by the leg(s), possibly breaking said leg(s) in the process?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Do you have any idea how arrogant you are? You are basically claiming that you know better than everyone else. Maybe we should just elect you dictator for life and you can run the world for the betterment of all of us "stupid and brainwashed" people.
Your argument boils down to "I'm right and your wrong because I believe I am better than everyone else."
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
But it's the wrong analogy. I'm balancing on a rail. Apple throws a bowling ball within reach. I lunge for it and fall. I could have kept balancing.
It's like forking a linux distro, customizing the kernel, then trying to upgrade your kernel with the old distro's new kernel. Why would I do that?
AT&T may not have reason to do so, but I think it's safe to say that there are a far greater number of customers available to Apple if they ditched their exclusivity. Couple that with distribution deals with each company and Apple would make some huge gains. The opportunity will be open to them soon enough and it may not necessarily matter what AT&T wants by then, since ultimately Apple is the one holding the cards when it comes to potentially renewing an agreement.
My dear chap, you really don't understand the full scope of either anti trust laws or anti competitive laws do you? In any case, most other phones in the US are also sold with a contract, so the whole "go to another carrier" is bullshit.
I think you're under the assumption that this is a free market. It's not. It's an Oligopoly and desperately needs regulation so that companies can't collude to charge higher prices without offering the customer a tangible benefit.
The intent of Anti trust laws is to prevent the collusion of companies for the sole purpose of greed. That is what's happening here. Since you don't seem to get this fundamental principle in spite of all that's been written till now, there's no further point in trying to convince you. Over and out.
OK, you have just proven you are an idiot who knows very little about the cell phone industry or anti-trust law. And, there is no point in trying to explain it to you. You apparently read some blogs and now think you are well informed and therefor completely right.
But, I will point you in the right direction so you can see how foolish you are:
Go to any cell phone carrier and ask them how much it is to buy a phone without a contract.
Until you actually do your research, there is no point in talking to you.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I see you didn't research the AT&T/Apple deal or the cell phone industry either.
Go do some research instead of making assumptions.
Here is a hint: Find out how many high-end smart phones, besides blackberries, are available on multiple networks in the U.S. Then research how RIM and the blackberry got where they are today.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I think our analogy is getting closer to the truth. But say the ball is painted to look like a beach ball, but instead is a lead sphere.
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
I would love it if Ford started repossessing cars that have stickers on them.
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
Educate yourself.
FCC regulations require that any cell phone, even one without minutes or a plan, must be able to call 911. If it's not 911, it's not an emergency, it's an inconvenience. Therefore, your 70+ year-old parents who are buying minutes every month (because they expire after 30 days, right?) are indeed marketing victims. QED.
The fees that LOOK like government fees are not. They are made-up fees made to look like they come from the government. Unless I am mistaken, the industry that makes you believe in falsehoods is marketing.
I may be a jackass, but I am a correct jackass, unlike you, who, as alexo points out, knows nothing about cell phone bills, being ripped off, or complex sentence structure.
Cell phones aren't convenient. You've been told that they are by marketers. They are expensive, cumbersome, irritating, and unneccessary.
However, I'm sure that your body spray makes you irresistable.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
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
"Arrogant," like the car enthusiast who rolls his eyes when he sees his friends pay $10,000 for a repair which consisted of replacing a fuse or tightening a bolt.
Go ahead and use computers where you need permission from the manufacturer to crap your pants. Though I certainly won't be happy if everything has to be jailbroken just to do basic common things. If it comes to that, maybe I should be allowed to yell "FUCK YOU" in your ear each time I am hindered from doing something because of DRM.
Maybe you like being under the gun of a dictator, but I don't. Then again, you probably think you will become the dictator yourself.
No, you are arrogant like a fucking dictator, shithead. You need to have your head removed from you asshole. That, or a fucking bullet put in both.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.