iPhone Developer Agreement Revealed by Electronic Frontier Foundation

[pdjudd]

They didn't have $99 to plunk down for a Developer's agreement?

Uhhh not unless they wanted to get sued for violating an NDA - like the one in the developer agreement. They used a FOIA request as a real clever end run - federal laws like the FOIA would trump any civil penalties faced by NASA as a developer.

If NASA or any other gvt entity was not a developer, the EFF would have no source unless they wanted to encourage someone to violate an NDA. Good luck with that...

 

[Master Chief]

You can't install your apps on an iPhone unless you are a member of the iPhone developer program so that point is moot.

Unless you are referring to Ad Hoc distribution which is somewhat limited.

Yes you can. You can install any application on your iPhone and/or iPod Touch. You don't need Apple's blessing for that. And this restriction – on paper – is also currently being investigated by EU legislators.

Here's a great one: Who wrote the iPhone kernel?

 

[rolphi]

You seem to be telling me that hardware and software are one and the same market. That's total RUBBISH. That's like saying making printers and making printer paper are the same market because they function in the same machine.
...
They're two different markets. You cannot force sales in one market to those in another market. It's a violation of the Sherman/Clayton Anti-Trust Act TYING provision. No monopoly is required for this violation what-so-ever.

You are wrong, and your wrongness is part of settled law.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/73/73.F3d.756.95-1794.html

Here's some relavent parts: "An operating system is essential to make a bunch of silicon chips a "computer." No OS, no computation. One might as well complain that General Motors includes an electrical system with every car. Some firms sell central processing units, others sell memory chips or logic boards, others sell disk drives, and still others sell operating systems and applications software; it is possible to buy parts and software to assemble a computer. But competition is more vital, and consumers are better off, when it is possible to sell entire functioning units in boxes."

I am not a lawyer, but you want to assert your case you have to prove why these Federal judges, as well as the ones who dismissed Psystar's anti-trust claims are wrong. Good luck with that.

The point is that it's NONE OF APPLE'S BUSINESS if someone wants to make a game for their operating system. We have free and open commerce in this country. Apple insisting you MUST use THEIR STORE and give them 30% of your profits or you're not allowed to write that software sure sounds like racketeering/extortion to me. I'm sure if you live in Communist China you probably think that's normal.

Well, it's a good thing that we have a legal definition for extortion:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/extortion

I am assuming you accept that as a valid source, so we don't have to rely on what sounds like extortion to you.

So no I don't have a problem with Psystar.

You should. They lost.

Sorry, but some of us believe in consumer protection laws, not laws that let corporations screw everyone over or do things like drive health care costs up artificially at 2-3x the costs of other countries because the government lets them get away with it. Why should Apple be allowed to dictate what software other companies are allowed to write for the computer you bought?

You are trying to paint my arguments as being anti-consumer and are claiming the high ground. I disagree. I, as a consumer, PREFER that Apple dictates what software other companies are allowed to write. Why are my preferences to be ignored? I believe that consumers are better off because of Apple's policies.

I understand that you disagree, but that doesn't mean you should be able to use the force of law to make Apple do business in your preferred method. That is not the purpose of consumer protection. And I also see that you wish that there was a groundswell of consumer outrage that also forced Apple's hand.

If more consumers agree with you, then sales will suffer, and Apple will need to adjust or they fail.

If more consumers agree with me, then they will prosper.

This is how it's supposed to work.

 

[twilson]

Android isn't "panning out"?

Not really, no.

The whole eco-system has become fractured with at least 4 vastly different versions of Android out there, not all of which can be installed on all Android-based devices.

There have already been cases of spyware apps being available on the Android App Market (or whatever it's called). These apps now still exist in the wild due to the "open-ness" and "install from anywhere" model.

Carriers have even shipped Android devices with spyware/malware pre-installed on them.

Carriers are shipping devices with different features enabled/disabled on the same handset.

The Nexus One as a device "shouldn't be stored in your pocket" as it may crack the screen.

The cracks (no pun intended) have started to appear in Android, and the whole model it is promoting, a lot sooner than most expected.

 

[twilson]

Can anyone walk off the street without developer/programming knowledge sign up and make an app with the SDK?

Theoretically, yes. Although an amount on knowledge would have to garnered for compilation etc.

It would be generally a pointless waste of money though, in my opinion.

 

[scottness]

Sorry, but some of us believe in consumer protection laws, not laws that let corporations screw everyone over or do things like drive health care costs up artificially at 2-3x the costs of other countries because the government lets them get away with it. Why should Apple be allowed to dictate what software other companies are allowed to write for the computer you bought?

If enough people feel screwed by Apple, they'll stop buying Apple products and stop the Apple screwing of themselves. Problem solved.

Why do people make this so complicated?

 

[pdjudd]

Theoretically, yes. Although an amount on knowledge would have to garnered for compilation etc.

It would be generally a pointless waste of money though, in my opinion.

Well theoretically I could also fly a plain should the pilot collapse and I have to take over and only use ground control. Possible? Yes. But as you say, without some knowledge of programming nobody is going walk off the street and start building programs the next day. That is of course nobody’s fault - it’s the nature of programming. It’s not like I can just go to France and start speaking with the natives.

It’s just not practical though as you rightly assert.

 

[ranguvar]

Why doesn't anybody ever mention Cydia, Icy or Rock? Those are open alternatives to the App Store.

 

[cmaier]

Why doesn't anybody ever mention Cydia, Icy or Rock? Those are open alternatives to the App Store.

Because they are not viable alternatives for the mass market which can't / won't jailbreak their devices (either because they don't know how, are afraid of voiding a warrantee, or simply don't want to violate the DMCA because they don't speed or jaywalk either).

 

[pdjudd]

Why doesn't anybody ever mention Cydia, Icy or Rock? Those are open alternatives to the App Store.

But not legitimate versions that Apple supports. That is a big difference.

 

[farmboy]

It's a non-profit and only interested in a healthy and free digital world. There's no special interest other than the public good and their history proves it. It's like the ACLU for digital matters.
BTW: Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's right.

Just because they are non-profit doesn't mean they don't have an agenda, either. I personally don't see a whole lot that's noble in what they've publicized in the last few years.

"Healthy and free digital world": what the hell does that cover? "Healthy" as in whatever you develop I can do whatever I want with and use to my own advantage? Free as in whatever you paid for I want and I don't have to pay you for it? "Knowledge belongs to all of us" kind of Kumbaya Moment?

 

[farmboy]

I am just stunned that more people don't seem to have a problem with this Stalinist world of computing that Apple envisions for them...Unbelievable.

"Stalinist"? Please don't casually sling around words that you don't understand. An NDA from whomever has no conceivable connection with a guy who slaughtered tens of millions of his own citizens. I know people whose entire families disappeared under Stalin, just as I know people who survived Hitler's camps. That history is way too recent and serious to be referenced in this way.

 

[ranguvar]

... because they don't speed or jaywalk either).

BIG difference: By speeding or jaywalking you put yourself and others in danger, by jailbreaking your iPhone, you don't put anybody in danger (and you don't harm anyone).

 

[cmaier]

Well Apple probably knows that there is some wiggle room. After all NASA spilled the developer terms through a FOIA - that would surely trump the NDA portion of the contract that NASA signed with Apple.

I mean dummy contracts do work sometimes. Guess who the dummy was?

BIG difference: By speeding or jaywalking you put yourself and others in danger, by jailbreaking your iPhone, you don't put anybody in danger (and you don't harm anyone).

So what? Believe it or not, some people obey the law because they believe it's the right thing to do.

 

[pdjudd]

So what? Believe it or not, some people obey the law because they believe it's the right thing to do.

Uh Cmaier, I never promoted or implied that breaking NDA's is a good idea. I merely pointed out that what the EFF did was ingenious.

The statement about dummy contracts is being taken out of context there. Apple no doubt knew that a FOIA request would trump their NDA. To them it probably wasn't a big deal. I guess things would be different if Apple sued NASA, but that isn't happening.

I do not endorse what the EFF did - it was clever and probably legal, but it is not in the spirit of the NDA.

 

[marcfogel]

The EFF can stick it. Who cares? As was posted, Apple can come up with any agreement they want with developers. Nobody is being forced into the developer program. Hilarious that this is even a news item.

The app store has been amazing for developers. My brother, has nearly 30 apps in the store and is making GOOD money that he has never seen before. He was not a developer prior to developing for the iPhone.

until Apple decides they are no good and pulls them from the App store.

 

[pdjudd]

until Apple decides they are no good and pulls them from the App store.

Retailers can also do that - pull products from their shelves for whatever reason. They build those kinds of terms in their contracts.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You are wrong, and your wrongness is part of settled law.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/73/73.F3d.756.95-1794.html

Here's some relavent parts: "An operating system is essential to make a bunch of silicon chips a "computer." No OS, no computation. One might as well complain that General Motors includes an electrical system with every car.

There are many operating systems that will run on many computers. Apple hardware is completely generic. Printers NEED paper too. Does that mean HP can force you to buy THEIR paper? NO. Your point is MOOT.

You should. They lost.

They only lost because they modified OSX to install early on and thus they violated a copyright law. Had they not modified OSX to install, they could NOT have lost the case based on copyright. Thus, the judge DID NOT rule on the matter or whether Apple is in violation of anti-trust rules because that was not the merit of Apple's case against Psystar. In other words, it would help if you actually knew something about the case before you try and use it as part of your argument.

You are trying to paint my arguments as being anti-consumer and are claiming the high ground. I disagree. I, as a consumer, PREFER that Apple dictates what software other companies are allowed to write. Why are my preferences to be ignored? I believe that consumers are better off because of Apple's policies.

You can agree with Communism for all I care, but if you want me to respect YOUR opinion, then you should respect mine as well. Clearly, you do not.

I understand that you disagree, but that doesn't mean you should be able to use the force of law to make Apple do business in your preferred method.

And it doesn't mean you should be able to use the force of law to make them destroy companies like Psystar that want to sell me cheaper/better hardware. The door swings both ways and as far as I can tell, the anti-trust laws are not on Apple's side if they are using licenses to force sales of one product when you want to buy another, which is the gist of the tying part of that law.

 

[cmaier]

Thus, the judge DID NOT rule on the matter or whether Apple is in violation of anti-trust rules because that was not the merit of Apple's case against Psystar.

Yes he did. Long before the summary judgment motion that ended the case.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10101581-37.html

 

[pdjudd]

Yes he did. Long before the summary judgment motion that ended the case.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10101581-37.html

My recollections was that was one of the first things that Allsup ruled on when Apple filed for dismissal.

Not that Magnus is going to accept that.

 

[*LTD*]

Is someone still moaning about Psystar around here?

If Apple was guilty of anything to do with Antitrust, they would have been nailed a long time ago.

 

[rolphi]

There are many operating systems that will run on many computers. Apple hardware is completely generic. Printers NEED paper too. Does that mean HP can force you to buy THEIR paper? NO. Your point is MOOT.

It's not my point. It's the point of US Court of Appeals 7th Circuit Judges Cudahy, Flaum and Easterbrook who are disagreeing with you. I suggest you read the case and then point out where these esteemed legal minds have made an error. They said, as plain as a lawyer can, that Apple can do exactly what you are saying they cannot. They considered the anti-trust implications just as you say they should and their answer comes back "no problem."

If you or any other company tried to take Apple to court on this issue, then Apple's lawyers will file for summary judgement and cite this case and you will be shut down very quickly. IT'S SETTLED.

Thus, the judge DID NOT rule on the matter or whether Apple is in violation of anti-trust rules because that was not the merit of Apple's case against Psystar. In other words, it would help if you actually knew something about the case before you try and use it as part of your argument.

Here is a link to Judge Alsup's judgement on the Psystar case:

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20081118183927679

This is the exact ruling, not my interpretation. In it, the Judge understands Psystar's claims: "As stated, Psystar asserted three federal claims: a tying claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, a monopoly-maintenance claim under Section 2 of the Sherman act, and an exclusive-dealing claim under Section 3 of the Clayton Act."

And then the Judge dismisses them: "For the above-stated reasons, Psystar's claim that Mac OS-compatible computer hardware systems constitute a distinct submarket or aftermarket contravenes the pertinent legal standards, and Apple's motion to dismiss Psystar's federal counterclaims is therefore granted."

You can agree with Communism for all I care, but if you want me to respect YOUR opinion, then you should respect mine as well. Clearly, you do not.

You can have any opinion you want. I hope that someday a company comes by that produces hardware and software in the way you want them to. In the meantime, we have Apple. No antitrust law in the US can force them to change their ways. Meanwhile, several laws prohibit what Psystar did. If you don't like it change the law, or come up with a compelling argument that the current interpretations of the law should change. Otherwise, it's not a matter of your opinion.

 

[pdjudd]

You can agree with Communism for all I care, but if you want me to respect YOUR opinion, then you should respect mine as well. Clearly, you do not.

The notion that all opinions are equal is fundamentally flawed and is just plain wrong. If I say that it is my opinion that mankind should have the right to fly by flapping their arms or that I should have the right to rob a bank because I am poor, I am going to get some really odd looks and I am not going to be taken seriously.

You can state your opinions all you want. But respect is something that is earned - not implied. One big way to get respect is to have something to back your ideas up. That allows us to go from mentally fitting you for a straitjacket to “I understand”. Your opinions fly in the face of stated law and stated fact and yet you say that they are true. Backpedaling by saying “opinion” will not help you.

You need to convince us that your opinions are not ravings of delusion. We are under no obligation to respect anything from anybody. We do not have to give equal attention to something that is wrong.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

The notion that all opinions are equal is fundamentally flawed and is just plain wrong.

Clearly, you have no clue what the word OPINION means. Respect does not mean you agree with an opinion. But the idea that YOU would suggest that I need to respect YOUR opinion but you clearly do not my respect mine makes about as much sense as suggesting you should be declared ruler of the universe because you say so. You either respect people out of your nature or you earn it. You have done neither and I don't respect people that show no respect for me.

As for federal judges throwing out solid cases, they are creating a snowball effect by their OPINIONS instead of following the law (i.e. they are creating law at the bench, which they are not supposed to do). Look at the closely contested Supreme Court case regarding the legal rights of corporations to be "people" (instead of made up of individuals with their own rights). Corporations can now effectively take over the country with unlimited campaign funds that no individual and even no union can possibly match, thus unfairly balancing the elections and leading to total corruption of the American government which will eventually lead to its complete downfall. Thus, I say those that voted for this are guilty of TREASON against their own country as they have clearly voted to destroy it from within (as if it weren't corrupted enough already). Even there, though the vote was 5/4. If the "supreme" court of the land cannot decide issues in total agreement with the law and the Constitution, what validity can those laws possibly have? That case basically says that 44.4% of the court completely disagrees with the other 55.6%. Are those 44.4% "stupid" or "wrong" or "ignorant" ??? NO, they are NOT. In this case, they are the ones with the correct ethical and moral standards, but the Republicans DO wish to make this a 3rd world country of the super rich and the ultra poor and the fact of the matter is that judges ARE biased individuals and DO let their personal beliefs, party affiliations and egos interfere with their jobs. So one federal judge dismisses Psystar's completely legal and valid argument (anyone that can READ can plainly see what I said is 100% true of the Sherman/Clayton anti-trust laws) and THIS is the snowball effect I'm talking about:

http://www.osnews.com/story/22788/Microsoft_Cites_Psystar_Case_in_Xbox_Antitrust_Defence

The end result is that competition will be destroyed over time for all markets. No one will play fair and actually compete when they can cite one stupid judge's assenine decision (based on his approval of big business over small business) as precedent and SUE instead. That is the "in" thing to do now right? Some of you hate when companies sue for patent violations against Apple, but that is what you WANT. It's also what you deserve. You will pay higher prices for all accessories. You will pay higher prices for everything. And if you ever invent something, you will lose in court no matter what because the person with the deeper pockets always wins. The government has become totally corrupt. You cannot get fair laws. You cannot get fair treatment. You cannot get health insurance if you aren't healthy. The Corporations (that are based 100% on greed and money generation) will control everything. Congratulations. But see how much you like it when you are the one that is chosen to die so that some company can make a larger profit for the next quarter. I'll just remind you that it's just business.

 

[cmaier]

Clearly, you have no clue what the word OPINION means. Respect does not mean you agree with an opinion. But the idea that YOU would suggest that I need to respect YOUR opinion but you clearly do not my respect mine makes about as much sense as suggesting you should be declared ruler of the universe because you say so. You either respect people out of your nature or you earn it. You have done neither and I don't respect people that show no respect for me.

As for federal judges throwing out solid cases, they are creating a snowball effect by their OPINIONS instead of following the law (i.e. they are creating law at the bench, which they are not supposed to do).

So one federal judge dismisses Psystar's completely legal and valid argument (anyone that can READ can plainly see what I said is 100% true of the Sherman/Clayton anti-trust laws) and THIS is the snowball effect I'm talking about:
.

Federal Judges issue opinions, which, due to stare decisis, become the "common law." This is indeed how the common law system used in England, the U.S., and former English colonies and protectorates is supposed to work, in contrast to civil law jurisdictions. This is necessary because sometimes the law, as passed by congress, is unclear, particularly in light of fact patterns that hadn't been considered by congress at the time they passed the law.

As for Judge Alsup, he was completely right. He applied the actual facts of the case to the letter of the law, and reached the correct decision based on the statutes (Sherman/Clayton) and the case law/precedent. If he had done anything but throw out Psystar's antitrust claims he would be making new law that directly conflicts with the black letter statutes.