Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T Taking Action Against iPhone Unlocks?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The DMCA *allows* unlocking software
The DMCA is quite clear on unlocking cell phones. The software must only disable a lock that benefits a third party (the service provider: ATT, Verizon, etc.) but does not disable or affect other cell phone operation (infringing use). As long as the software does not modify any other internal operation, unlocking the cell phone is legal. See http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2006/71fr68472.pdf page 68476, halfway down the middle column.
Several lawsuits have been filed by companies who are trying to protect their intellectual property i/r/t service locks, but most of those are companies who complain that a locked cell phone was purchased, unlocked, and then sold to a third party. This is not considered "personal use" 'cuz the unlocked phone was then resold on the open market.
In this case, since the iPhone was purchased for a (supposedly) unsubsidized cost, and since the "...software locks are access controls that adversely affect the ability of consumers to make noninfringing use of the software on their cellular phones...", unlocking - and ONLY unlocking - is legal.
Hey, ATT? Nyaaa nyaaa nyaaa!!!
\burt
IANAL, I just try to reason things out
Actually, the DMCA would appear to apply (have applied), otherwise, why was an exemption issued for unlocking cell phones?
I think there is some murk to the issue. Other analysts have argued that there may be a grey area here, where a consumer is exempted from unlocking their phone, but a company is not exempted from selling unlocking software. Hopefully that interpretation does not hold up, but the iPhone is probably more likely than any other to be a test case.
Also, PS, if there are no locked phones in the UK, why are there so many unlocking services doing storefront business in the UK?
The DMCA is quite clear on unlocking cell phones. The software must only disable a lock that benefits a third party (the service provider: ATT, Verizon, etc.) but does not disable or affect other cell phone operation (infringing use). As long as the software does not modify any other internal operation, unlocking the cell phone is legal. See http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2006/71fr68472.pdf page 68476, halfway down the middle column.
Several lawsuits have been filed by companies who are trying to protect their intellectual property i/r/t service locks, but most of those are companies who complain that a locked cell phone was purchased, unlocked, and then sold to a third party. This is not considered "personal use" 'cuz the unlocked phone was then resold on the open market.
In this case, since the iPhone was purchased for a (supposedly) unsubsidized cost, and since the "...software locks are access controls that adversely affect the ability of consumers to make noninfringing use of the software on their cellular phones...", unlocking - and ONLY unlocking - is legal.
Hey, ATT? Nyaaa nyaaa nyaaa!!!
\burt
IANAL, I just try to reason things out
Agree with you 100% here, and I'm somewhat disappointed in Apple for not doing this. Their stance is the only thing that is going to stop iPhone being a major winner. I also don't fully understand how tying the phone to one network actually improves the user experience, so I can only assume its partly greed from Apple in wanting the extra revenue.
However, assuming Apple take maybe $5 per month on each contract, surely their figures would be better if they simply introduced an updated model each year (ala iPod). People with 2 year contracts I guess are less likely to buy the new one every year.
Waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
So much whining. Anyone who believes that apple could have introduced the iPhone without the full cooperation/partnership of a major carrier isn't playing with a full deck. One of the breakthroughs is that a large amount of the power has been shifted from the carrier to the device manufacturer. Without a single carrier commitment, the iPhone would have been sabotaged by the carriers to maintain power. Without a single carrier commitment, technical support would have been impossible. Without a single carrier partner, upgrades wouldn't have been done (and future promises made) to access all iPhone features. The iPhone arrangement will prove to be beneficial to both apple and at&t, not just monetarily, but eventually providing the best service through supported improvements (even if not so at the moment). And if anyone thinks this unlock was not anticipated, or will have any real adverse consequences for apple or at&t, you wanna buy a bridge?
So much whining. Anyone who believes that apple could have introduced the iPhone without the full cooperation/partnership of a major carrier isn't playing with a full deck. One of the breakthroughs is that a large amount of the power has been shifted from the carrier to the device manufacturer. Without a single carrier commitment, the iPhone would have been sabotaged by the carriers to maintain power. Without a single carrier commitment, technical support would have been impossible. Without a single carrier partner, upgrades wouldn't have been done (and future promises made) to access all iPhone features. The iPhone arrangement will prove to be beneficial to both apple and at&t, not just monetarily, but eventually providing the best service through supported improvements (even if not so at the moment). And if anyone thinks this unlock was not anticipated, or will have any real adverse consequences for apple or at&t, you wanna buy a bridge?
Personally, I think we should be able to unlock our phones. But only so we can avoid the fees internationally by inserting a pre-paid sim card when traveling. As for unlocking the iPhone to use in T-Mobile or another GSM carrier in the US or Importing the iPhone for international use; I think should be prevented.
As far as I know, Apple had reasons to provide exclusive deals with carriers; and rightly so. If these exclusive deals means that Apple would provide better support for the phone for the two years I am in contract, paying through the terms dealt out between the carriers and Apple, I am a happy customer.
So to prevent all this I think ATT should just give us unlock codes for international use, when we ask for it. At the same time Apple should give the ATT iPhone Users what we pay for (through monthly cut apple gets from att) and give us our updates chuck full of wonderful apps and widgets, leaving everyone who left for T-Mobile saying I should switch to ATT....
As far as I know, Apple had reasons to provide exclusive deals with carriers; and rightly so. If these exclusive deals means that Apple would provide better support for the phone for the two years I am in contract, paying through the terms dealt out between the carriers and Apple, I am a happy customer.
So to prevent all this I think ATT should just give us unlock codes for international use, when we ask for it. At the same time Apple should give the ATT iPhone Users what we pay for (through monthly cut apple gets from att) and give us our updates chuck full of wonderful apps and widgets, leaving everyone who left for T-Mobile saying I should switch to ATT....
We obviously use different voicemail systems. It rarely takes more than a few seconds before I hear the voicemails I've received.
Yes, running iTunes is a step. As is installing it. As is ensuring you have a computer that's running the right operating system, that's connected to the Internet, etc.
Some Apple apologetic reading Macrumors probably wouldn't think about the complications in all of that.
Hard? It's more that it's complex and has many, many, dependencies and things that can go wrong. And yes, for many people, it is hard, my mother could never do it.
But yes, that's happened to me twice in total, in the last eight years, (once with Sprint PCS - actually I can't remember doing that, I was at Radioshack and from memory all they did was ask for my driver's license and SS#, and a few minutes later set the phone up - and once with AT&T Wireless. Never had to suffer that indignity with T-Mobile, I just ordered the starter package over the 'net. But are you saying that using the existing web browser to navigate to an obvious website is harder than installing a custom multipurpose application and plugging a phone into the computer?)
And I always upgrade my phone by buying one and swapping the SIM over though. I've only ever had to deal with a cellular company directly when buying new service. While that also usually involves buying a phone, generally the reverse is not true. Indeed, even back when I had IS-95 service from Sprint PCS, I replaced my phone three times without having to sit in a cellphone shop. Just called customer service and gave them the ESN.
How is it unfair? That's exactly what's involved. I've done it many, many, times. That's what's great about GSM. It just works.
Read that again: That's what's GREAT about GSM. It "just works". Once you've got your service, you can do whatever upgrades you want. Your hardware choices are your decision, not the operator's.
Apple has broken a perfectly good system that works fine. And for what? Again, solely to hide about $100 from the advertised price of the phone. It makes no sense.
Outside of IS-95/CDMA2000 bizarro world, it's hard for me to see how anyone can think that the Apple procedures are easier or more flexible than the standard GSM "swap over the SIM" operation.
Again, that's the exemption, not the DMCA. The exemption invokes the "other circumstances" clause. Also, the phrase "quite clear" is never appropriate for use in determining the ramifications of legislation.
This part I think is part of the issue...
In the case of many (although not all) of the iPhone hacks existing so far, there's actually a mixture of these two purposes invoked. The hacks both SIM unlock the phone and are designed to allow access to the software innards, which could potentially be construed to interfere with the copyrights discussed above. Not saying I believe that. I'm saying it's probably enough for someone to make a prima facie valid argument....
That's not the way contracts work.
Actually you don't enter into a contract with ATT till after you activate the phone on their network. In other words, you buy the phone from Apple. It is yours to do with as you please.
The iPhone is not subsidized. If it was you would have to sign the contract before they give you the phone.
Unless there's some obscure FCC rule involved, ATT doesn't have a leg to stand on unless the unlocking software requires users to sign up with ATT first. If I buy a phone and don't sign up for ATT service I have no binding contract with ATT. They have no recourse if I unlock the phone and use it with another carrier.
Actually you don't enter into a contract with ATT till after you activate the phone on their network. In other words, you buy the phone from Apple. It is yours to do with as you please.
The iPhone is not subsidized. If it was you would have to sign the contract before they give you the phone.
Unless there's some obscure FCC rule involved, ATT doesn't have a leg to stand on unless the unlocking software requires users to sign up with ATT first. If I buy a phone and don't sign up for ATT service I have no binding contract with ATT. They have no recourse if I unlock the phone and use it with another carrier.
You seriously need to enroll into some anger management program!!!
I dont see logic here. iPhone is a cool gadget and you PAY for it 500 or 600$! And than you still pay bills to your provider. You can say what you want but its no way they gonna keep it locked. Even if they force updates it will take only few days to unlock it. And maybe you like all your pesonall info to be kept by NSA upsss AT&T but I dont.
Scared?
If AT&T is so good, then they should NOT be afraid to have competition. Apple needs to unlock this phone and allow EVERYONE who wants it to use it on the provider of their choice.
If AT&T is so good, then they should NOT be afraid to have competition. Apple needs to unlock this phone and allow EVERYONE who wants it to use it on the provider of their choice.
I agree with those that think iphoneunlocking.com are just making all this up, it really does seem suspicious. However, the company (Uniquephones) does seem to be quite a professional company, going from their main website. They were probably just trying to create a buzz around iPhone unlocking to show that they too were a key player in this area - at the right time, with the Geohotz hardware unlock all over the world's media - in order to get people interested/signed up, in the hope that they could source/finish the unlock software in time. But, I'm keeping my eyes firmly fixed on iphonesimfree for the moment.
Also, AT&T aren't trying to stop people from unlocking their OWN phones - they simply can't do that, under the DMCA (as has been previously mentioned), CONSUMERS are legally permitted to unlock their OWN handsets for use with any service provider of their choice.
AT&T is, however, trying to stop this specific company (and probably many more in the future) from unlocking iPhones for the SOLE reason of making profit for themselves. Make no mistake - these *companies* aren't about helping the 'iPhone community', they're about making money. Which simply brings it down to business vs business. AT&T DO have a leg to stand on in this regard, and as they've undoubtedly poured a lot of time and money into the iPhone project, they've sure as hell had a plan in place to counteract this inevitable issue, from the day they signed the contract with Apple.
Unfortunately, until an opensource (non-profitable/commercial) solution becomes available (or any of us fancy doing one of the current documented hardware hacks), it looks like we're stuck with locked iPhones. And even then, Apple will provide reasons for people NOT to unlock their phones - future software updates/must-have features added that will reverse the hack, warranty lost, etc. I agree that iPhone owners should be able to request an unlock code from AT&T, as they haven't paid a subsidized price for the iPhone - but they can't. Also, from a money point of view - Apple does get a cut of the AT&T contract costs over the 2-year period, so as well as selling the actual iPhone itself, it's also in Apple's best interests to help make sure the iPhone stays on the carrier it's designed for. And - from Apple's point of view anyway - the user experience would be damaged if used on any other network - EDGE settings to mess about with, non-iPhone specific plans maybe without unlimited data, no visual voicemail - all detracting from Apple's intended iPhone experience.
Also, AT&T aren't trying to stop people from unlocking their OWN phones - they simply can't do that, under the DMCA (as has been previously mentioned), CONSUMERS are legally permitted to unlock their OWN handsets for use with any service provider of their choice.
AT&T is, however, trying to stop this specific company (and probably many more in the future) from unlocking iPhones for the SOLE reason of making profit for themselves. Make no mistake - these *companies* aren't about helping the 'iPhone community', they're about making money. Which simply brings it down to business vs business. AT&T DO have a leg to stand on in this regard, and as they've undoubtedly poured a lot of time and money into the iPhone project, they've sure as hell had a plan in place to counteract this inevitable issue, from the day they signed the contract with Apple.
Unfortunately, until an opensource (non-profitable/commercial) solution becomes available (or any of us fancy doing one of the current documented hardware hacks), it looks like we're stuck with locked iPhones. And even then, Apple will provide reasons for people NOT to unlock their phones - future software updates/must-have features added that will reverse the hack, warranty lost, etc. I agree that iPhone owners should be able to request an unlock code from AT&T, as they haven't paid a subsidized price for the iPhone - but they can't. Also, from a money point of view - Apple does get a cut of the AT&T contract costs over the 2-year period, so as well as selling the actual iPhone itself, it's also in Apple's best interests to help make sure the iPhone stays on the carrier it's designed for. And - from Apple's point of view anyway - the user experience would be damaged if used on any other network - EDGE settings to mess about with, non-iPhone specific plans maybe without unlimited data, no visual voicemail - all detracting from Apple's intended iPhone experience.
your kidding right???
other providers unplug sim, insert new sim???
first you have to go to the freakin store, wait 1 hour for a service representive to wait on you program a sim card. then make sure it works.
if not repeat above steps.
or go on apple.com and order phone, get it next day,activat online at home in your leisure, never leaving the house. unlock online with program if it comes available. done
oh yeah don't forget to smile too
with the last step.yeah right
Using other carriers may not give me the full functionality, but we have right to change to whichever carrier we want.
Touche.
Like that 2 year contract?
I see no issue with a 2 year contract, it's pretty common in the states.
The terms aren't ridiculous. They look to be exactly the same as every other contract from ATT, but they don't prevent you from buying a subsidized phone as well. So, in a way, they are better than the regular contract terms from ATT. I suppose the 2 year, instead of 1 year, contract term is worse than what you can get with T-Mobile, but what is the difference in monthly charge?
Maybe you're looking to be the contrarian, but why do you feel so strongly about this? "These unlockers" are part of the reason that the carriers got pushed into a corner to unlock phones (other than the iPhone). The lack of subsidy on the iPhone does make the lock an interesting proposition. What does the user receive in exchange for accepting a locked phone? Nothing. I doubt that the "right to have an iPhone" carries that much monetary value.
yeah right
Using other carriers may not give me the full functionality, but we have right to change to whichever carrier we want.
and Apple has the right to RELOCK your phone with an update
Not true, they just can be legally unlocked. I got my Nokia 6230i (was on Orange) unlocked for £5 by a third party.
Of course he is. He's trying to wind people up.
It's obvious from the list of steps for each process. Don't rise to it.
That's only a problem in America. Everywhere else in the world, people buy a phone, throw their SIM in it and move on with life. It's only in this country that we've been conditioned to believe that exclusivity on a particular phone to a particular carrier is okay in any way.
I am sorry but I don't understand your logic. You are saying it is OK to switch so as to avoid international roaming fees. But it is not OK to choose your carrier. Why the distinction?
Who says that international fees are wrong. If you are so keen on ATT, why not just pay their massive roaming fees.
You seem to have said one thing is OK, while something similar is not. Either unlocking is OK or it isn't. Don't twist logic.
YOU just did and besides I have seen it in various historical accounts without the conclusions about illegality. In those accounts, such conclusions are up to the reader
Look. Apple and ATT have a commercial contract between themselves that ATT is exclusive. The result is all of the convenience buyers are indeed locked into ATT initially. ATT is actually helpful in supporting its own exclusive by offering what has been described as "low data prices" and "vast mobile data coverage" and "surprisingly increased EDGE bandwidth", "excellent calling plans", etc. In short they are competing on price, service and value, with whatever competitors they perceive themselves to have.
I for one cannot see how a hobbiest unlocking program can violate anything, especially on equipment wholly owned by the hobbiest unlocker. So I suspect any such suit will go nowhere and take a long time to do so.
Rocketman
I was talking about the hypocrisy - not AT&T's motives.
OK, where do I sign?
Oh you have to be in the US to buy one?...and indeed use one sensibly. Abroad you can't plug another cheap-rate GSM card in to phone home.
You have to admit when companies charge people a lot of money (600) for a device they consider to be free (high end mobile on premium contract is usually free) then it's hardly surprising folk don't want to tolerate restrictions.
All apple loses here is a share of ATT's money....it might be that those extra sales now the phone is unlockable will make up for this. No-one knows for sure.