Can Apple + AT&T Shut Down iPhone Unlockers? 318
aalobode writes "Do Apple and AT&T have the legal right to stop hackers from selling unlocked iPhones? Under their terms, only AT&T may sell iPhones, and Apple gets a commission. When unlocked iPhones are used on other providers' networks, AT&T and hence Apple get nothing beyond what they earned on the initial sale of the hardware. Can they prohibit unlocking? Reselling? The article in Businessweek gives the for and against arguments, but leans toward the view that the hackers may have the law on their side for once."
Heres what the BBC says: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since some European countries, such as Finland, do not allow the sale of phones that are locked to a provider, and many of the other countries have regulations that require operators to unlock the phones they sell on request, or after a certain (usually pretty short) amount of time, wouldn't Apple need to use the time they have t
Re:BBC is usually wrong about US law (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO the legal right of Apple or AT&T to stop someone selling unlocking software will probably become a moot point, simply because if a company can do it, eventually some cracker somewhere will create a freely distributable version and release it onto p2p. Once that happens the only thing can Apple can do is update the firmware, which I would guess they have every right to do if they choose to.
In a nutshell, I think that allowing it to be unlocked would be beneficial to Apple's sales, but perhaps may cause (possible legal) problems in their relationship with AT&T.
Re:BBC is usually wrong about US law (Score:4, Insightful)
The best way for Apple and AT&T to stop people from unlocking their phones is to develop software-as-a-service products that are only supported by the AT&T network. Maybe that means seamless integration between the AT&T network and the iTunes store, maybe it means streaming music & video that automagically syncs to your desktop computer's iTunes library, or maybe it means things none of us have even considered yet. Apple's whole business strategy revolves around the idea that people will pay for better quality, though.
If 'unlocking the iPhone' means 'keeping all the really good features of the iPhone and ditching the expensive suck factor of AT&T service', then unlocking will rule no matter what Apple and AT&T do. If 'unlocking the iPhone' means 'I ditched AT&T, but lost a bunch of cool features in the process', then only a handful of people will bother.
There are two main reasons Apple won't try to play the lock-in card.
First, Apple doesn't own enough of the cellphone market to have a 'lock' on anything. Their stated goal is to own 1% of the smartphone market by the end of 2008. Meanwhile, Nokia's goal is to own 40% of that same market. Apple isn't in a position to get pushy about anything right now. All that will do is alienate customers, and alienating customers doesn't help them increase their market share.
Second, Apple doesn't compete by locking out alternatives. It competes by offering the best package it can, and trusting consumers to think the package is worth the price.
The unlock is different now (Score:3, Informative)
No $#%!, Sherlock (Score:3, Funny)
What will I do with this new-found freedom?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No $#%!, Sherlock (Score:4, Funny)
It's Stimpy and the Brain
One's an eediot and the other's a rodent!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I bought a computer and have the right to modify it and subsequently turn around and sell it? Amazing!
...the same thing we do every night, Stimpy: try to take over the world!
What will I do with this new-found freedom?
The issue isn't necessarily as simple as that. While I do think the DMCA is mostly crap to begin with, it's what the country is currently abiding by so it's what we have to look at.
FTA:
Experts believe that AT&T and Apple will point to the DMCA's section 1201, stating that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
Apple did take technological measures to assure their business agreement with AT&T was fulfilled and they do have technological measures to assure their device is not tampered with so there is actually quite a bit of room on Apple and AT&T's side for debate.
The article does make a good point though that this is si
Re: (Score:2)
The article does make a good point though that this is similar to car stereo manufacturers purposely producing stereos that would only work with their cars and preventing others from making such stereos. Because the carmaker was the only manufacturer of the stereo, they could charge whatever they wanted because of their forced monopoly in the market.
The case is similar because of the control circumvention, but one point the article did not point out is that case is also very different because there is no forced monopoly.
The car was the initial base cost and the stereo (when it breaks or needs replacement) was an uncompetitive and forced monopoly. In the case of AT&T, the iPhone is the base cost, but you still are given competitive rates. If AT&T began charging much more than usual rates strictly for iPhone customers, then the case would be identical, but because of other offerings it does not produce the same monopoly. If this were any other phone but the iPhone with network circumvention nobody would even care (I know because almost all phones are only made to run on one network.) Some may also argue this to be a bad business decision and plan to "liberate Apple from themselves" by hacking the iPhone, but if they made a bad decision, the best way to let them know is to not invest in their product which is already being done looking at iPhone sales.
Nevertheless, I think this case may be more of a nail-biter than most slashdotters would like to think.
I don't think this case will actually be prosecuted. I think a cease and desist letter or three would be sent, perhaps even a website take down demand but nothing much beyond that. It seems to me that there is a precedent for modification here that would polarize a whole lot more than just locked down cell phones or related technology's. What about GM telling me I can't pimp my ride? What about any other modification that expands or changes a product from the original manufacturers intention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No $#%!, Sherlock (Score:5, Insightful)
The DMCA prohibits circumventing technological measures that protect a copyrighted work from unauthorized duplication, not measures that protect a business agreement from becoming unprofitable.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had Cingular for two years, and had no problem with them at all. My bill has been less than fifty bucks (it went up once last year from 42), and I've never used all my minutes, always had them roll over.
Then AT&T bought them out. My last bill was a hundred dollars, and it wasn't itemised as it had been previously! On top of that it said that since I'd been on the contract for 12 months, they wouldn't roll over my minutes.
That's pretty funny, since I've had Cingular for ages (too lazy to switch) and when AT+T took over, the only change was in the URL one uses to log into the account for billing purposes. The plan remained the same, no changes in cost, nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
the DMCA finally does something good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:the DMCA finally does something good (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
-matthew
"only AT&T may sell iPhones" (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. Apple sells iPhones (through their website and retail locations). The phone isn't activated at the time of sale (it's done at home with iTunes). AT&T announced 146k activations when Apple announced 270k iphones sold. You do the math.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"only AT&T may sell iPhones" (Score:5, Funny)
(sqrt(270000) * 146000) / pi = 24148205.619474491768596100626108
Re:"only AT&T may sell iPhones" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
24148205.619474491768596100626108 / pi = 7686612.58227964
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Form a square with every iPhone sold and mark the phones that are in the first row. Make a phone call from every marked iPhone to every activated iPhone. Place the phone bills in a circle, what is the circle's diameter?
Re:"only AT&T may sell iPhones" (Score:5, Insightful)
Form a square with every iPhone sold and mark the phones that are in the first row. Make a phone call from every marked iPhone to every activated iPhone. Place the phone bills in a circle, what is the circle's diameter?
If that is the question, then the answer is wrong. You cannot place a call to your own phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless these strange American "cell phones" work differently to British mobile phones and have some additional check in the number as you dial it.
Re: (Score:2)
/It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Re: (Score:2)
downside is that anyone who can spoof the callerID properly can access your voicemail.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If AT&T could do this on lines coming from the Baby Bells, I certainly believe they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Push comes to shove. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's an interesting thought.... (Score:2)
(Some time later)...
"Do you have the info?"
"The info is right here in this envelope, it will cost you $150."
On the envelope:
(There's a key for a locker, and a paper.
On the paper:
"Your unlocked iPhone is in locker #4335 on building XYZ, the combination for the lock is 45-34-27-2."
(Later, on the building:
"Hey, look, the iPhone i had accidentally lost! How kind of them!"
(Is this actually legal, or is there a
No wonder... (Score:2)
a thought (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's an article that better explains my point of view [com.com] because I'm an ineloquent rambling idiot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, Apple is forced to half-heartedly admonishing people not to do it, removing discussion of how to unlock on Apple-run websites, etc.
But I'm sure Steve Jobs would love it if people bought iPhones and unlocked them, if otherwise they wouldn't buy one. He just can't talk about it.
That's why we can't have nice things. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple can't have it both ways (Score:2)
They can't have it both ways. Either the phone is yours to hack (under the DMCA exception for in
I guess it comes down to (Score:5, Insightful)
If when you buy an iPhone you are actually buying the ownership to the phone, you can do what the hell you like to it as its yours.
but...
If Apple are just selling a licence to use the iPhone (kinda like what Microsoft do with Windows) rather than actually selling the ownership of the iPhone itself, then they could legally and justifiably require you not to unlock it as they still own it.
Re:I guess it comes down to (Score:4, Insightful)
What you're looking for is if the end user agreement prohibits modifying or loading new software. I'm sure it prohibits modifying software, but if it's just a matter of a simple hardware hack and ADDITIONAL software, I don't see how there can be a legal standing against.
Probably the reason is because I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me precedence is on our side.
Re:I guess it comes down to (Score:4, Insightful)
If read the fine print correctly I apparently leased an Alco2Jet® Carbonator. [sodaclubusa.com] On the other hand, I never signed a contract of any kind and I refuse to acknowledge an EULA for hardware I buy.
I assume Sodaclub wants my money for their hardware, wants still to poses "my" hardware and wants to charge me for refills.
That last point alone is a reason to "illegally" fill my own "Alco2Jet® Carbonator" with cheap and illegal CO2. And when the secret police shows up at my door step I will tell them to piss off, fry on the chair for that and thus die a martyr for the right to own.
Re:I guess it comes down to (Score:4, Insightful)
Do I own it or not (Score:5, Insightful)
If I buy a t-shirt can they make it illegal for me to use it as a rag?
Is it illegal to color the iphone with a marker? Is it illegal to open up the iphone and melt it down? Is it illegal to take the battery out of the iphone and use the large battery in a hobby RC car project? If it is, it damn well shouldn't be.
Re:Do I own it or not - analogy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good, so I can delete the software (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If you only took the hardware, completely erased all the software (up to OS, bootloader, whatever), and then installed something else from scratch, that'd be fine (at least I think so).
But the guy who hacked it used the existing iPhone OS built in on the device in order to operate the phone. Even if all his modifications were hardware-based, he still uses the OS (which now gets signals from a separate piece of hardware) to make calls, use i
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Game over, Phoenix Wright.
Simple Echnomics... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just about every mobile phone ever made has probably had at least a few geeks pull it apart to tinker on the insides, you just didn't hear about it unless you went looking for the information. But in the case of the iPhone, Apple (and others) have already done th
Re: (Score:2)
If you bought it without a 3yr AT&T deal then At&T lost a potential customer but Apple lost nothing. If you bought it with a 3yr deal then AT&T and apple have lost nothing. AT&T may attempt to extort Apple to lock them down better or differently or per sue unlockers individually but Apple is in a
Re: (Score:2)
Looking forward to an easy unlocker (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/like-the-iphone/meizu-
Re: (Score:2)
If not, I'll just wait for one of the Chinese knockoffs to appear at my local shopping mall in Beijing.
What constitutes a "proper" knock-off?
:-)
They've done blatant ripoffs of the Nintendo DS [youtube.com] and the PSP [youtube.com]. I'd assume you're looking for a higher quality "clone" than those things
Warranty (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Warranty (Score:4, Informative)
Apple + AT&T? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
knowing lawyers there's a clause that covers denies, for a time, the ability for Apple to sell, license, or otherwise profit by using another network.
Yeah...but what if they 'accidentally' make the thing easy to hack, which results in a quadupling of their sales? ;)
What was one of Apple's old ad campaigns? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For all of Apples faux non-conformity, they are really not very different from companies like Microsoft, except perhaps the fact that they actually make stuff people want. At least Apple continues to earn its single-digit market-share. Microsoft hasn't earned anything in about a decade.
On the other hand, they can litigate and stomp all over users with the best of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, come on. Toolbars have got to be worth something.
I don't even have to RTFA (Score:2)
Re:I don't even have to RTFA (Score:5, Funny)
Hacking iPhone vs Hacking XBox (Score:2)
Hackers also unlock video game consoles with mod chips to play backups of the games they purchased* and play games from anywhere in the world, yet they get raided by the FBI and their international equivalents.
I guess TFS was right to say "for once." Because evidently one law is all we get to protect ourselves from companies happily selling us things
the question really is (Score:2, Insightful)
Doctrine of First Sale-Nobody Knows The Rules (Score:4, Insightful)
However, manufacturers have managed to prevent you from modding your game console after you own it, or at least prevent other people from selling you mod chips and modding services, so now it's murky.
Wouldn't Ford love to only have you put Genuine Ford Advantage replacement parts in your car? They can't. Nor can they force you to only buy Ford approved gasoline from licensed dealers.
Yet Apple can't prevent you from putting non-iTMS purchased music into your iPod -- although that's probably because you'd never have bought the iPod if you couldn't rip your own albums and play them in it.
So what can, and cannot, Apple and AT&T do here? Besides scaring off potential unlockers, whatever the courts are willing to allow them to get away with. Clearly these days, there is no bright shining line of what's allowed, and what isn't.
Loan your new CD to your friend to listen to and the RIAA probably won't come knocking. Let him get the tracks through KaZaA and you may have an ugly time of it. Nobody knows the real rules any longer!
Re: (Score:2)
Dear driver, you might be using a counterfeit engine. Contact Ford immediately to verify that your engine is indeed a real one, and not some piece of cardboard with "VROOM" written on it. Keep your credit card handy. You will have to wait at least 5 seconds every time you want to start your car, and every now and then your windshield wipers will pop up into view to remind you that your honestly purchased car may not contain a true Ford engine.
Isn't it a good thing for Apple? (Score:2)
TO boost the initial entrance into the market, Apple chose an exclusive carrier, but I don't think it's a long-term strategy. Isn't unlocked iPhone going to give Apple more revenue and market share? Of course right now it's bound by its contract with AT&T so it could not do so yet, but if someone else does it for Apple, why wouldn't Apple secretly love it?
And so does AT&T have the right to sue?
Mod Chips (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Precedent. We know both situations are technologically the same but in court cases concerning these technologies haven't. Also the difference may be how vigorously they are defended. Apple makes money both ways but MS/Sony/Nintendo loses money if piracy is too easy. AT&T may lose potential revenue as well but since it's not their technology
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The purpose of a modchip is to disable or circumvent a copy protection mechanism built into the console. The DMCA makes anything designed to do this expressly illegal.
Unlocking a phone has nothing to do with circumventing copyright and hence an iPhone modchip (if such a thing existed) would be legal. However, a software based unlock is more interesting as the DMCA also generally forbids modification of binary software (e.g. reverse engineering) except in certain circumstances. Luckily I believe one o
If it's legal (Score:2)
Warranty? (Score:2)
practical non-issue (Score:2)
To me, this seems like an issue that could be an important legal precedent, but that, in practice, should be a non-issue for individual users. Realistically, why should Apple care, considering that this is unlikely ever to get popular? The percentage of people modding their iphones like this is likely to be about as big as the percentage of people buying a mac so they can run Yellow Dog Linux. To make that percentage even smaller, Apple can announce that they refuse to give you support if you modify the pho
Subscription fee (Score:5, Interesting)
At least that is how it works with GSM phones in Denmark. You can unlock them and switch to another provider legally, but you have to continue to pay the subscription fee for the binding period. This is common, and accepted by all the service providers.
Also: The maximum binding period is six month, providers are obliged to tell the unlock key after that, and all advertisement must include the minimum total cost in the binding period (initial price plus subscription fee for six month) in order to make it easy to compare prices.
Good regulation does wonders to improve the efficiency of a market.
Re: (Score:2)
The phones being unlocked were likely bought at full retail. Honestly even if Apple sold at the subsidized price they'd still likely make money. Apple generally sells high margin products. Do you really think an iPod costs $399 in raw materials and labor?
I doubt anybody bought the 3yr contract
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All parties got their money, both Apple and AT&T. And quite a lot of it.
So I think they are really overdoing this digital rights thing by additionally locking the iPhone to AT&T cards.
Competition Solves "Problems" (Score:2)
Cell phone companies may not like it, but what it the fear? People pick a cell phone "provider" (I hate the word) because they get the coverage they need & quality of connections or they pick another one. It is always up to the "provider" to be able to compete, so they have to continually improve.
For the user who want
property and the information age (Score:2)
increasingly, many companies have found that the common understanding of property does not work very well any more. informaion is more easily copied than transferred - and the recipient has a lesser right usual
Can't Use DMCA... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they try to sue using DMCA, they will almost certainly lose.
the "complex" hardware unlock touted in media... (Score:2, Informative)
What he has done immensely well is put various people's work together with their agreement, including some of his own, and explain the process, then give a
Law, schmaw -- this time, the tech is your problem (Score:3, Insightful)
This product is not "merely" a phone, and the success of conventional unlocking techniques can't be relied upon indefinitely. Just look at the multitude of copy-protection (i.e. anti-interoperability) techniques that various industries are legally allowed to implement (even legitimized by laws like DMCA) and you will get some whiff of the disgusting things that Apple could put into a software update.
Sure, workarounds for these things will happen, but it won't exactly be easy, and it'll keep the users who take advantage of them at a disadvantage for purposes of (legitimate) software maintenance.
There's considerable precedent for the law allowing phone owners to use their phones however they wish, so I don't think that is worth worrying about.
If you want to worry about phones, the real issue is that you don't know what they're doing. [com.com] I think that phones are going to become THE poster-child for the risks of proprietary software, in a way that makes concerns about desktop operating systems, printer drivers, etc, seem trivial and superficial. The need for open and trustworthy phones is extreme, even if Joe Schmoe doesn't get it yet -- and the government is helping us quite a bit these days, in revealing that urgency.
Apple's viewpoint (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, unlocking the phone might void the warranty, saving Apple even more costs down the road.
While Apple might not have the legal grounds to prevent unlocking the phones, they can make the unlockers' lives a living hell. Most phones never require a firmware upgrade once they're released (and thus are feature-fixed). But the iPhone prides itself on bug-fixes and new features available via firmware upgrade. Apple probably have the rights to refuse to firmware-upgrade any unlocked phones.
Or perhaps Apple can force iTunes to refuse even syncing with unlocked phones, thus making loading music/pictures/videos a huge pain. But why would Apple want that? Any device that can access iTunes Music Store is like free money for Apple.
My bets will be if anyone is upset over the locked phones, it should be AT&T and not Apple.
Some things never change (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about the iPhone, here. The iPhone is not subsidized by AT&T, but the 2-year contract is still mandatory.
Re: (Score:2)
Because, of course, the cost of development shouldn't be considered at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I don't mean someone's analysis of the parts. I mean actual proof that there's no cost in the design, and price-per-unit is the only cost, and that Apple's acknowledged that the parts come to $200.
Otherwise, you're speculating.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the difference in the UK is that contract phones still have to have the contract paid on them, so you're making up the difference in cost through your monthly base charge, where as PAYG phones don't guaran
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not true that vendor-b