Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Patents Remotely Disabling Jailbroken Phones

Posted by Soulskill on from the trying-to-put-the-break-in-jailbreak dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Apple yesterday applied for a patent to allow remotely disabling electronic devices when 'unauthorized usage' is detected. The patent application covers using the camera to take pictures of the unauthorized user and using GPS to determine location, and it involves ascertaining whether the phone has been hacked or jailbroken, using those as criteria for detecting 'suspicious behavior.' The patent would allow the carrier or any other 'authorized' party to disable or restrict the functionality of the device. Is this Apple's latest tool to thwart jailbreaking?"

10 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. Just because it's patented... by jornak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...doesn't mean it's legal, right?

    1. Re:Just because it's patented... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They applied for a patent, they weren't granted one. I'm sure there is plenty of prior art on this type of thing (the cable monopolies come to mind with disabling set-top boxes or the like).

    2. Re:Just because it's patented... by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm rooting for apple on this one. If apple is able to successfully patent remote bricking of products that people own and have paid for, then the consumer electronics universe becomes significantly simpler and easier to navigate.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    3. Re:Just because it's patented... by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, they're trying to patent methods for determining when to disable something remotely. Jailbreaking was just one of the clues they would look at, along with other things that might indicate that the phone has been stolen... something the anonymous submitter either didn't understand, or chose to misrepresent.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:Just because it's patented... by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jesus there are a lot of people out there that think they are freaking experts on this stuff.

      let's start with your first sentence

      No, it means that it's illegal for anybody else to do it without paying apple royalties.

      1. It's not illegal, it would be a civil issue. 2. If Apple is granted the patent they may license it or may not, and they may or may not charge royalties. Since you are an expert in this area you surly realize that the majority of these filings are defensive, right? That the primary purpose of most of these is so that when a patent troll comes after the deep pocket company like Apple that Apple can say we have patents in this area as well?

      Since this isn't a feature that sane or rational consumers would actually want on their phones

      Really? Since I'm certain that you read the application as I did, then you will see that this is a feature that a lot of people would like to have, including myself. I want them to be able to figure out who douche bag is who stole my phone, where they are and brick the device

      Maybe it's because I haven't had my morning coffee yet, but there is something irritating about sitting down to read /. in the morning and first thing reading a bunch of posts by people that clearly haven't bothered to read the article (I know, this is /. and I shouldn't really expect anyone to read anything) and spouting off bullshit as if it were the gospel.

      Now, RTFA and get off of my lawn.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    5. Re:Just because it's patented... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      B.S. No operator better determine that my phone has been stolen without me reporting it so. Unless apple retains ownership of the device, I suggest they stick their patent where the sun doesn't shine.

    6. Re:Just because it's patented... by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't sound any more privacy invading than what On-star advertises that they will do with your Cadillac if you report it stolen.

      Well, other than the part where GM remote disables your Escalade and dispatches SWAT to your location because you installed non-AC/Delco(tm) spark plugs. Because, you know, only a dirty hippy commie car thief would perform maintenance on a high-end luxury device anywhere but a GM Goodwrench (tm) service center using genuine GM Parts (maybe tm).

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  2. It's probably by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a security measure for stolen iPhones.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  3. Stolen phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ummm, isn't this probably intended for stolen phones?

  4. Sensationalism at its best? by Java+Pimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This has nothing to do with Jailbroken phones. Where did the "anonymous reader" come up with that crap? From the first sentence in the abstract "This is generally directed to identifying unauthorized users of an electronic device." And nowhere in TFA does it say anything about Jailbroken phones. This is simply a twist on lojack.

    --
    Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
    Kull: She told me she was 19!