AT&T Taking Action Against iPhone Unlocks?

[ncbill]

You're referring to copyright infringement, both civil and criminal.

Yes, I agree you shouldn't pirate software, otherwise your employee will rat you out to the BSA, and you may be criminally charged (though that almost never happens when it's simply a company pirating software for its own use)

There is no issue of criminal copyright infringement when an end user unlocks their iPhone.

The best recourse against such action would have been the DMCA, at least before last year's exemption.

I get the impression you are a software developer.

You can throw whatever you like into a EULA, but again, there's no guarantee a court will enforce any particular provision against the end user.

Try installing a rootkit (even if disclosed in the EULA), and see if that protects against civil or criminal liability (it won't)

But EULA provisions wouldn't apply in the case of a company selling an unlock tool.

To Weckart: Yes, EULAs are enforceable. In mid-2006, over $2,000,000 fines in just 19 cases in the US. See Business Software Alliance (bsa.org) and Microsoft. When settlements are reached out of court, they still constitute precedent.

Damages: AT&T would go in claiming every potential customer lost. Whether they would get a settlement for that is another matter.

Reverse engineering: You can reverse engineer anything if you want to--you just can't use the intellectual property for your own product or commercial benefit, and that includes Europe (we have patents in the EU).

 

[emotion]

Some of it might be here.
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9747031-7.html

It's widely known that Apple demanded a cut of the monthlies from the network provider but there's no evidence I've seen where the cost of the phone is subsidised directly by anyone.

 

[koobcamuk]

I must say, I am looking forward to the release of the iPhone in the UK a lot more now.

People will be shocked here that they can't walk into an Apple Store and buy a SIM free iPhone. They really will be in shock. When the RAZR came out (all Americans go on about it), I saw lots of people walk into the shop with £400 and buy on right there and then. Exclusivity comes at no price for some people - but they are already in a contract...

With 18 month contracts, even if they released the iPhone today, lots and lots of people will lose interest when they realise that they won't be able to get one for a certain number of months added with the fact that they may have to change network provider. This will really put people off. It really will. Not everyone, but maybe the core group that would snap it up right away if it were unlocked.

 

[dextertangocci]

Screw visual voicemail

Apple would have made so many people all over the world happier, as well as making more money if they had just made an unlocked phone..

 

[goosnarrggh]

As a general matter, Apple holds the copyright to the code in the iPhone (not talking about specific BSD code in OS X). If the Apple code is used (in whole or in part) in the software unlocking code, it could easily be claimed to be in violation of Apple's copyright on the code. This is NOT covered by the DMCA exemption--you can't use Apple's code to unlock the phone.

More FUD.

What if you tried to unlock a Motorola, Symbian, Blackberry, or Palm phone? AT&T doesn't own the copyright to the underlying OS on its phones, the phone manufacturer does. Again, the DMCA exemption would be irrelevant if it could be demonstrated that in 100% of cases it fell victim to that technicality - so what would be so magically different about an Apple-manufactured phone?

The point is...this is serious. Courtrooms, huge fines, all that stuff. Voided warranties are the least of it.

You're perfectly right. I think it'd be a great idea to arrange an escrow account for donations to cover the legal fees and duke this whole thing out in court and get a definitive answer one way or the other. I'm just confident that the result would be that Apple/AT&T wouldn't have any legal recourse against individuals who've done nothing but unlock their own personal iPhones from instructions that they somehow managed to acquire, or from their own reverse-engineering efforts.

Now, the people distributing those instructions are a grey area that is in dire need of clarification.

I've always been more wary about the idea of an entity selling unlocked kit for profit - I think that AT&T probably could manage to stack up some serious penalties against such a set-up, because now, their sole intention is no longer circumvention for the purpose of personally acquiring network interoperability... It is circumvention to sell a product.

 

[rjwill246]

Bull!!!

Screw visual voicemail

Apple would have made so many people all over the world happier, as well as making more money if they had just made an unlocked phone..

No, they would NOT!!! I find it interesting that much of the unlocking debate comes from overseas where the iPhone is non-existent. Why weigh in folks?

First of all, there would NOT be an iPhone anywhere if it were not for ATT's participation. ATT has to be given a ton of credit for this. Without them, Apple would not have sold a phone because NO carrier would sell it. Why? Because Nokia and MOTO etc. would have threatened the carriers with all sorts of stuff to NOT carry the iPhone. And, if it did get picked up, it would have been crippled just as many phones are. Do you think visual voice-mail (it IS a big deal) would have seen the light of day? Would data have been free? Want to reward Verizon after they gave it a pass? T-mobile for just being there???

NO BLOODY way!!!

I am happy to see ATT remain the exclusive carrier. They deserve to be rewarded for helping Apple get a great device out there. There was a lot of cooperation between Apple and ATT to make this happen. So before you trash ATT, foreigners---- think a bit!

Now, ATT-- fix the roaming issue and the horrendous extortion you extract under roaming and much of the US need for unlocking will go away!! Ball's in your court.

 

[koobcamuk]

No, they would NOT!!! I find it interesting that much of the unlocking debate comes from overseas where the iPhone is non-existent. Why weigh in folks?

First of all, there would NOT be an iPhone anywhere if it were not for ATT's participation. ATT has to be given a ton of credit for this. Without them, Apple would not have sold a phone because NO carrier would sell it. Why? Because Nokia and MOTO etc. would have threatened the carriers with all sorts of stuff to NOT carry the iPhone. And, if it did get picked up, it would have been crippled just as many phones are. Do you think visual voice-mail (it IS a big deal) would have seen the light of day? Would data have been free? Want to reward Verizon after they gave it a pass? T-mobile for just being there???

I think that a carrier would have sold it, all of them in fact. This doesn't address my point; that I don't think it is necessary for a carrier to sell phones. They only sell the service. I would happily buy an iPhone from Apple and that is my phone sorted. Network choice should be up to me.

I also don't think visual voicemail is useful at all. I am with vodafone UK. When I get a voicemail, it is emailed to my mobile phone - I can then choose to listen to it just as I would visual voicemail. It's aimed at corporate people, not the masses. I really don't think it's a big thing. I know my friends would rather see an unlocked iPhone than one with visual voicemail... who leaves voicemail anyway? I hardly ever do - it has to be really important. I can't remember the last time I had voicemail. Most people send a text as it's more convenient.

So before you trash ATT, foreigners---- think a bit!

Easy there... you're beginning to sound threatening.

 

[rjwill246]

I think that a carrier would have sold it, all of them in fact. This doesn't address my point, that I don't think it is necessary for a carrier to sell phones. They only sell the service. I would happily buy an iPhone from Apple and that is my phone sorted. Network choice should be up to me.

Then you are clearly unaware of the difficulties Apple faced. Luckily, Apple WAS aware and worked around it. Clearly, loyalty to brand and rewarding effort is not in your lexicon... shame.

 

[koobcamuk]

Then you are clearly unaware of the difficulties Apple faced. Luckily, Apple WAS aware and worked around it. Clearly, loyalty to brand and rewarding effort is not in your lexicon... shame.

I am about to head home from work now, so if someone else would like, they can keep this meaningless argument open. I just don't understand what you mean about "brand loyalty". Who the hell cares? I choose OSX because I think it is the best. It suits what I do and I wouldn't have Windows in the current state. Linux hasn't really been an option for me. I choose Vodafone because of the service they provide for the price. I choose Sharp or Sony Ericsson for my current phones because I like them... if Nokia bring out something I like, I will buy that - not just cut my nose off to spite my face and stick with a brand out of loyalty. Have a nice day!

 

[galganog]

This is all really just a matter of perspective.

Just sit back, relax and imagine that the iPhone was never invented and it wont be coming out for 4 years.

Now you don't have to worry about it.

Wasn't that easy?

 

[Plutonius]

Screw visual voicemail

Apple would have made so many people all over the world happier, as well as making more money if they had just made an unlocked phone..

I'm glad your an expert and so much smarter then all the business people working at Apple.

Apple spent many hours going through all the possible scenarios so they could maximize the probability of making the most profit. Locking the phone was not an arbitrary decision but of course you know better.

Apple is a business and exist to keep it's stock holders happy by maximizing profits. When conditions change such that Apple will maximize profits by unlocking the iPhone, Apple will unlock it.

 

[rjwill246]

Thanks

I'm glad your an expert and so much smarter then all the business people working at Apple.

Apple spent many hours going through all the possible scenarios so they could maximize the probability of making the most profit. Locking the phone was not an arbitrary decision but of course you know better.

Apple is a business and exist to keep it's stock holders happy by maximizing profits. When conditions change such that Apple will maximize profits by unlocking the iPhone, Apple will unlock it.

You get it!! Obviously not a Pom ;-)

 

[koobcamuk]

I'm glad your an expert and so much smarter then all the business people working at Apple.

Apple spent many hours going through all the possible scenarios so they could maximize the probability of making the most profit. Locking the phone was not an arbitrary decision but of course you know better.

Apple is a business and exist to keep it's stock holders happy by maximizing profits.

I wonder if they hired the same people that came up with the G4 Cube?

When conditions change such that Apple will maximize profits by unlocking the iPhone, Apple will unlock it.

Sooner than you think

 

[freediverdude]

Well I find it very interesting that those who reponded to my question, Actual owners of the iPhone, who use it with AT&T, seem to be quite happy with it and the service that are getting.

So aside from those who have to switch and pay a cancellation...what is the problem? I had on Moto phone with ATT once and the reception was spotty...more than usual. I got a differnt phone (RAZR) which I still have and my reception almost everywhere is so much better. Sometimes it is not just the provider but the specific phone. It may be that if you had an iPhone, some of your problems would evaporte. Maybe?

I agree with this. I originally had a Sony-Ericsson phone on the AT&T network, and I couldn't even make calls from my house. One bar, if that. I got sick of it, and went back to the AT&T store, and told them I had to switch to a different carrier because I couldn't even make calls from home, was just dropping off the handset and cancelling. They told me that since I lived right in the center of a fair sized city, it was unlikely that it was the coverage, and asked me to try a Nokia phone instead. Sure enough, when I got home, I had 3-4 bars on the Nokia phone. They told me Nokia or Motorola phones typically have better antennae than the others. So I think the phone's antenna makes a lot more difference than where you are or what carrier it is sometimes.

 

[lazyrighteye]

I'd like to echo those that feel the iPhone would have failed (eventually) had there NOT been a single carrier that agreed to play by Apple's rules. Locked device and all.

Until Apple is in a position (and make no mistake, it is coming) to act as service provider, releasing an iPhone into the world, unlocked, would have maybe meant more units sold, today. But in the long term, would have been genocide. Game over. The iPhone would see the same fate of every single legit tech coming out of Nokia, Samsung, etc. - crippled to mediocrity by service providers.

Again, Apple is about control. Period.
A locked, single service provider option was the only way they could release such a device and help ensure the control they are known for while also ensuring the device (and it's offspring) has a future... beyond 2 years.

 

[koobcamuk]

I agree with this. I originally had a Sony-Ericsson phone on the AT&T network, and I couldn't even make calls from my house. One bar, if that. I got sick of it, and went back to the AT&T store, and told them I had to switch to a different carrier because I couldn't even make calls from home, was just dropping off the handset and cancelling. They told me that since I lived right in the center of a fair sized city, it was unlikely that it was the coverage, and asked me to try a Nokia phone instead. Sure enough, when I got home, I had 3-4 bars on the Nokia phone. They told me Nokia or Motorola phones typically have better antennae than the others. So I think the phone's antenna makes a lot more difference than where you are or what carrier it is sometimes.

This doesn't happen in the UK. Most places have 100% coverage. The type of phone that you buy is never thought about in terms of the signal antennae. I have never heard such a story here. We [UK] are smaller though - so can afford to have such a rich mobile phone network.

 

[emotion]

I'd like to echo those that feel the iPhone would have failed (eventually) had there NOT been a single carrier that agreed to play by Apple's rules. Locked device and all.

Until Apple is in a position (and make no mistake, it is coming) to act as service provider, releasing an iPhone into the world, unlocked, would have maybe meant more units sold, today. But in the long term, would have been genocide. Game over. The iPhone would see the same fate of every single legit tech coming out of Nokia, Samsung, etc. - crippled to mediocrity by service providers.

Again, Apple is about control. Period.
A locked, single service provider option was the only way they could release such a device and help ensure the control they are known for while also ensuring the device (and it's offspring) has a future... beyond 2 years.

I agree. At no point am I saying that that situation is a bad one (it might be but I'm not in the US so don't really know). All I'm saying is it'll be nice when it's unlocked, and when it comes to the EU it may have to be unlocked by law.

It remains to be seen if the locked ATT strategy is a good one. There's no guarantee that it is.

 

[emotion]

This doesn't happen in the UK. Most places have 100% coverage. The type of phone that you buy is never thought about in terms of the signal antennae. I have never heard such a story here. We [UK] are smaller though - so can afford to have such a rich mobile phone network.

You must stay in the cities. I regularly lose signal on the vodafone SE t610 I have on the train to London.

I've just looked up 3G coverage in the UK btw. For all networks - it's not quite as rosy as some think once you step outside big cities....

 

[koobcamuk]

Until Apple is in a position (and make no mistake, it is coming) to act as service provider, releasing an iPhone into the world, unlocked, would have maybe meant more units sold, today. But in the long term, would have been genocide. Game over.

No it wouldn't. It could just sell them in store. No special software, no crippling by networks... you lot just don't get it.

Apple will no become a "service provider". 1% chance in the USA, where the mobile phone market is backwards, but there is not a snowball's chance in hell that Apple could survive in the UK. I just can't see it. Offering one or two phones? You've got to be kidding? Or do you mean offering all the current phones, on the Apple network? I just don't understand. An Apple SIM card? Apple paying to fix broken masts around the world?

You must stay in the cities. I regularly lose signal on the vodafone SE t610 I have on the train to London. I've just looked up 3G coverage in the UK btw. For all networks - it's not quite as rosy as some think once you step outside big cities....

Agreed. Unfortunately, we are not like Japan. When I go back home to Norfolk, the signal actually drops a bit in my house and there's no 3G.

 

[Stella]

I think your pretty much correct. The iPhone will still have been sold, regardless of AT&T. For example, take this scenario:

Apple sells iPhone in its stores, at full price, at present, owners go out and buy a SIM card from their favourite ( GSM ) carriers and off they go. Carriers cannot detect the type of phone that is being used, and neither could they block the iPhone specifically ( only via the SIM card ).

The OP mentions scare taticts by Nokia et al.. FUD.

Apple did not have to get carrier agreements to sell the iPhone. They would only be missing out on the sharing of subscriber fees... Apple had more than enough press / advertisements to make the iPhone popular. Sure, without carrier agreements, it would be harder to sell iPhone, but still, very possible.

I think that a carrier would have sold it, all of them in fact. This doesn't address my point; that I don't think it is necessary for a carrier to sell phones. They only sell the service. I would happily buy an iPhone from Apple and that is my phone sorted. Network choice should be up to me.

I also don't think visual voicemail is useful at all. I am with vodafone UK. When I get a voicemail, it is emailed to my mobile phone - I can then choose to listen to it just as I would visual voicemail. It's aimed at corporate people, not the masses. I really don't think it's a big thing. I know my friends would rather see an unlocked iPhone than one with visual voicemail... who leaves voicemail anyway? I hardly ever do - it has to be really important. I can't remember the last time I had voicemail. Most people send a text as it's more convenient.



Easy there... you're beginning to sound threatening.

 

[Stella]

Apple could however, piggy back on another carrier, much like Virgin Mobile does.. in Canada they piggy back on Telus(?), in the UK, its another carrier.

But yes, I share the same thoughts - Apple, wouldn't survive as a carrier... especially since they'd have the automatic image of being *2 the price of any others.... People would avoid.

No it wouldn't. It could just sell them in store. No special software, no crippling by networks... you lot just don't get it.

Apple will no become a "service provider". 1% chance in the USA, where the mobile phone market is backwards, but there is not a snowball's chance in hell that Apple could survive in the UK. I just can't see it. Offering one or two phones? You've got to be kidding? Or do you mean offering all the current phones, on the Apple network? I just don't understand. An Apple SIM card? Apple paying to fix broken masts around the world?



Agreed. Unfortunately, we are not like Japan. When I go back home to Norfolk, the signal actually drops a bit in my house and there's no 3G.

 

[3282872]

More FUD.

What does FUD mean? I've seen that a lot but for some reason can't look it up in google...

 

[lazyrighteye]

I agree. At no point am I saying that that situation is a bad one (it might be but I'm not in the US so don't really know). All I'm saying is it'll be nice when it's unlocked, and when it comes to the EU it may have to be unlocked by law.

It remains to be seen if the locked ATT strategy is a good one. There's no guarantee that it is.

Agreed.
And I'm no where smart enough to know the legality of anything being discussed here.

All I do know is it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

 

[nemaslov]

Sometimes it is simply just way too many people online in one cell area at once. Especially in Los Angeles where even infants have cell phones

 

[3282872]

Businesses often try to strong arm competition, whether it is legal or not (Look at Microsoft for a prime example.) We already know that the DMCA allows for cell phone unlocking. If AT&T were to send a cease and desist letter they would be held accountable for what it said. Threatening telephone calls at 3am might be enough to scare a small developer out of releasing a project while still leaving plausible deniability.

Sounds exactly like how a business who stands to lose lots of money and has no actual legal recourse would play the game.

Yeah, but Microsoft tends to do this under the radar. To directly call an individual at 2:54 in the a.m. on a weekend doesn't sound like anything a corporation would do, especially if they decide to pursue the matter legally down the road. If they truly had no legal recourse, they wouldn't even bother with a insignificant phone call to a small time developer. More over, they wouldn't put themselves in the position to become so easily vulnerable to be unlocked without legal recourse, and I'm certain there is something legally binding in regards to unlocking the phone for use on another network. As I recall, in my contract there are specifications regarding use and privilege of the phone with regards to unlocking the SIM card for out of ATT network use.

While I agree you have a point (and as anti-big corporate America as I am cough*Walmart*cough*cough), I truly don't believe ATT would tap someone on the shoulder and say "Pssst, make a late night phone call at almost 3 in the morning to scare this guy, it's the only option we have tee-hee". If they truly meant business, there would be legal "cease and desist" orders sent as they could tie this guy up in courts and legal fees to Kingdom come.