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."
All in all it's just another brick in the iWall
I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.
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?"
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.
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 own all my cell phones. But then I pay around 400$ for an unlocked model direct from the maker.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
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.
I'm not sure it'd be totally irrelevant. If you'd go so far as to brick my phone as an "f-you" to protect your partners network exclusivity, I'd guess that maybe that's an argument for unfair collusion of the antitrust sort? I am not a lawyer, of course.
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.
"They have to know that they're never going to get the source code."
While I don't know what they "have to know," I do know that source code does get disclosed in litigation--oftentimes under protective orders to avoid commercial disclosure. The breath test machine cases are an excellent example of this. Copyright cases are another kind of case where this kind of material gets disclosed.
Saying (in italics) that "the source code is not relevant" does not advance the argument. The test for evidence discovery is whether or not the material is evidence or TENDS TO LEAD to evidence. That interpretation cannot be made without a thorough understanding of the issues and sub issues that the case will (or may) spawn.
As always, take all slashdot legal opinions with an enormous grain of salt.
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.
I believe there is an important difference:
XBox: Hack xbox, get banned from server (offline only).
iPhone: Hack iphone, phone no longer boots at all.
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
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.
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!
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?"
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.
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.
In response/support to what I was saying, a true competitive market is as this:
Some companies make phones
Some companies offer service
That's it. The europeans do it well. I loved it when I lived there. My phone had a swiss number, a german number, and an italian number. All depending on which SIM card I put in it. I paid for minutes and texts as I used them.
Why oh why is the american business model becoming "do as much anti-trust as you can, abuse the consumer, and pay penalties if you're caught".
WHY? Because we're not actually pursuing the blatant infringes on competition and the penalties are LOWER than the benefits reaped.
Everyone is doing it. Microsoft, IBM, big oil, big telco. Anyone on the planet that has used AT&T knows from their customer service that they don't care about you at all and don't need to because they are part of gigantic oligopolies.
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.
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!
Really? You need the source code to determine the phone was locked into a carrier?
How about reading the service agreement.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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...