US Government May Not Be Able To Fix Cell Phone Unlocking Problem 203
An anonymous reader writes "We recently discussed what appeared to be a positive response from the Obama administration on the legality of cell phone unlocking. Unfortunately, the Obama administration may not be able to do anything about it. It has already signed away our rights under a trade agreement with South Korea. Lawyer Jonathan Band, who works for the Association of Research Libraries, wrote, 'The White House position, however, may be inconsistent with the U.S. proposal in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and existing obligations in the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) and other free trade agreements to which the United States is a party. This demonstrates the danger of including in international agreements rigid provisions that do not accommodate technological development.'You can read more about this issue in a short eight page legal primer by Jonathan Band (PDF). An interesting, related note that the U.S.-KOREA FTA is possibly inconsistent with our domestic patent/drug law in the Hatch-Waxman Act as well. The trade agreement requires us to grant injunctions until the patent is invalidated as opposed to thirty months under current domestic law."
Re:other countries have laws that phones must be u (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Invade another country? "No problem. We'll just have to change the rules."
Make it legal ( again ) to unlock phones? "We want to do it but our hands are tied."
Of course it is bullshit!
They are not doing it because their corporate owners don't want them to. They just want to make it seem like they are on our side. If they are, then who is this mystical other side that makes this impossible. This is bullshit.
This has nothing to do with the carriers (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the carriers which are responsible for the locking. The suppliers don't give a rat's tail about whether a phone is locked or not. The carriers make the requests and the suppliers deliver on that request. Suppliers have no dog in the fight over locked vs. unlocked beyond the mild fact that a locked phone will likely stay in the region in which it was procured. But people who relocate and wish to take their phones with them are an insignificant minority.
I get the feeling this is a blame and information deflecting piece intended to point people in directions which are not relevant.
Re:Why not just ignore people who break the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are already more laws than anybody could ever know about. We are already at the point where it is easy to be breaking multiple laws without knowing it. The police, even good police, like having this situation because it lets them arrest anyone they want at any time, if they can just figure out one of the many laws they are breaking, even if it is a stupid one. Of course they like this situation because it makes their jobs easier, and they think that their "gut feelings" are 100% correct 100% of the time.
Do you really want to live in that kind of world? Well, whatever your answer, you already do. But do you want to make it worse?
Secret Treaty? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the most worrisome part of the story:
The draft text for TPP is secret, but the U.S. proposal for the IP chapter was leaked two years ago. The leaked proposal contained KORUS's closed list of exceptions.
How can the US sign a treaty that is secret from the citizens of the US? The government shouldn't be allowed to sign (or even consider) a trade treaty with secret terms. How else can the people know if they want to be party to the treaty?
Re:Secret Treaty? (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to how the Republicans and Democrats operate. They are both utter scumbags.
Re:other countries have laws that phones must be u (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, fuck you, that's why.
Re:Why not just ignore people who break the law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your naivete shows.
Silly traffic laws are enforced when it suits the police to enforce the laws. Haven't you watched "Law and Order" where laws are stretched to fit people ADA Jack McCoy wants to persecute? Police do this also and use the silliest of laws to facilitate their harassment.. Every regulatory entity does this. To think that they don't is quite pollyana-ish.
Re:IANAL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What? Yes it can. (Score:5, Insightful)
Selective Enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)
Having "unenforced" laws on the books that everyone breaks is dangerous because it allows police to selectively enforce those laws when they need to punish a specific individual or group (cracking down on homeless people for loitering for example, or the overly broad "computer hacking" law which was used to go after Arron Swartz).
Re:So what happened? (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened is the US government found a good excuse for saying one thing and doing another to make it appear like it was on your side without that actually being so.
Welcome to politics.
NO IANAL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress can fix this problem. Congress just doesn't want to fix this problem. See the difference?