iPhone unlock software Sept 1st?


rubeeen

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 8, 2007
48
0
Not until the so-called legal issues are worked out.
eh
i dont know what att thinks they can do about it.
its not like customers got discounts when they bought the phones
and theyre releasing it free of charge
 

bousozoku

Moderator emeritus
Jun 25, 2002
13,951
3
Gone but not forgotten.
eh
i dont know what att thinks they can do about it.
its not like customers got discounts when they bought the phones
and theyre releasing it free of charge
If you're already in a contract, AT&T mentioned that you'd have to pay $175.00 termination fee. They mentioned this upfront before any sales happened because they have "certain fixed costs" with which they have to contend.
 

scaredpoet

macrumors 604
Apr 6, 2007
6,626
342
eh
i dont know what att thinks they can do about it.
its not like customers got discounts when they bought the phones
and theyre releasing it free of charge
Actually no, they will not release the software free of charge. They are "offering" to unlock the iPhone of certain members of the press for free, but they most certainly expressed their intention to charge for either the software, or some kind of pay-per-use unlock service.

Either no member of the press has taken them up on their offer, or it's Bravo Sierra, because no blogger or media outlet has claimed to have done business with them yet.

Considering that constant delays, I'm beginning to have my doubts that there are any real legal issues at all.

I'm thinking that either:

1. They have the software working, but can't ensure that someone will just pay for it once and then freely distribute the software to anyone for free and preventing them from profiting,

2. They have the software working, but are afraid someone might reverse engineer either the software or an unlocked iPhone's firmware and disclose what the process entails, thus preventing them from profiting, or

3. They don't have the software working yet, and are just claiming they do to dissuade someone else from working on it, making the same discovery and releasing it for free... depriving them of their profit.

In any case, the "legal issue" claims are probably a smoke screen. Tracfone tried to sue for the very same thing, the Library of Congress issued an opinion that phone unlocking doesn't infringe on the DMCA, and the precedent was set that unlocking is not a crime.

Either way, it never really sat well with me that they very clearly want to make money off their efforts, yet haven't shown anything definitive, and haven't even disclosed how much they want to charge. If they want to try to make money off it, fine, but isn't it a little hypocritical that they're rabidly guarding their money making potential whilst working to deprive AT&T of the same?
 

aiongiant

macrumors 6502a
Aug 8, 2006
543
0
it seems that iphonesimfree software hack has also been confirmed by CNN
i saw it on engadget
man whats with all the delays!
 

Sdao

macrumors 6502
Jul 12, 2007
336
0
Actually no, they will not release the software free of charge. They are "offering" to unlock the iPhone of certain members of the press for free, but they most certainly expressed their intention to charge for either the software, or some kind of pay-per-use unlock service.

Either no member of the press has taken them up on their offer, or it's Bravo Sierra, because no blogger or media outlet has claimed to have done business with them yet.

Considering that constant delays, I'm beginning to have my doubts that there are any real legal issues at all.

I'm thinking that either:

1. They have the software working, but can't ensure that someone will just pay for it once and then freely distribute the software to anyone for free and preventing them from profiting,

2. They have the software working, but are afraid someone might reverse engineer either the software or an unlocked iPhone's firmware and disclose what the process entails, thus preventing them from profiting, or

3. They don't have the software working yet, and are just claiming they do to dissuade someone else from working on it, making the same discovery and releasing it for free... depriving them of their profit.

In any case, the "legal issue" claims are probably a smoke screen. Tracfone tried to sue for the very same thing, the Library of Congress issued an opinion that phone unlocking doesn't infringe on the DMCA, and the precedent was set that unlocking is not a crime.

Either way, it never really sat well with me that they very clearly want to make money off their efforts, yet haven't shown anything definitive, and haven't even disclosed how much they want to charge. If they want to try to make money off it, fine, but isn't it a little hypocritical that they're rabidly guarding their money making potential whilst working to deprive AT&T of the same?
Great post. All of those reasons are quite possible, even though I'm beginning to believe that a software unlock is STILL not complete, hence the hold up.

As a Canadian, and potential unlocked iPhone user (I'm just waiting for the unlock software, but severely questioning my iPhone purchase based on these 'legal stalls') Im getting a bit curious about iphonesimfree.com and their methods.

I believe engadget.com received a copy of their software and unlocked the iPhone using it, however where is the proof? For all we know, it was a hardware unlocked iPhone they were using in the video.
 

rubeeen

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 8, 2007
48
0
Actually no, they will not release the software free of charge. They are "offering" to unlock the iPhone of certain members of the press for free, but they most certainly expressed their intention to charge for either the software, or some kind of pay-per-use unlock service.

Either no member of the press has taken them up on their offer, or it's Bravo Sierra, because no blogger or media outlet has claimed to have done business with them yet.

Considering that constant delays, I'm beginning to have my doubts that there are any real legal issues at all.

I'm thinking that either:

1. They have the software working, but can't ensure that someone will just pay for it once and then freely distribute the software to anyone for free and preventing them from profiting,

2. They have the software working, but are afraid someone might reverse engineer either the software or an unlocked iPhone's firmware and disclose what the process entails, thus preventing them from profiting, or

3. They don't have the software working yet, and are just claiming they do to dissuade someone else from working on it, making the same discovery and releasing it for free... depriving them of their profit.

In any case, the "legal issue" claims are probably a smoke screen. Tracfone tried to sue for the very same thing, the Library of Congress issued an opinion that phone unlocking doesn't infringe on the DMCA, and the precedent was set that unlocking is not a crime.

Either way, it never really sat well with me that they very clearly want to make money off their efforts, yet haven't shown anything definitive, and haven't even disclosed how much they want to charge. If they want to try to make money off it, fine, but isn't it a little hypocritical that they're rabidly guarding their money making potential whilst working to deprive AT&T of the same?
good points
maybe they're just racking up donation money? lol
i think a lot of hackers now-a-days arent even interested in the money, and moreso the 'we did it first, we did it right' brownie point.
i think youre right about the smokescreen, if there were real legal issues, i think apple would be involved as well. all i read is att this att that.
the only reason apple chose att is the sheer volume of customers. more customers, more iphones to sell lol
 

GoCubsGo

macrumors Nehalem
Feb 19, 2005
35,743
142
DMCA Exemption Attorney Weighs in on iPhone Unlocking
Wednesday, August 29th, 2007 at 1:35 PM - by John Martellaro


The attorney who won the exemption to the DMCA for her clients to unlock a mobile phone has weighed in on the iPhone unlocking issue. The exemption doesn't offer blanket protection for mobile phone unlocking and doesn't apply to those offering unlocking services to others, according to Jennifer Granick on Wednesday.
Writing for Wired, Ms. Granick won the exemption in November that allows customers to circumvent digital locks on phones.
However, Ms. Granick pointed out that the exemption is weak. "...the exemption does not offer blanket protection for phone unlocking, though the practice might be legal for other reasons. The problem is that the exemption protects unlockers, but it doesn't apply to those entities that distribute unlocking tools or provide unlocking services to others. Even when the Copyright Office grants exemptions for non-infringing or fair uses, customers usually still suffer because in most cases, including unlocking, only the small number of persons who have the technical know-how to circumvent can do so....
"Individuals or companies that might help them are still prohibited from doing so. Thus, in many ways, the rule-making is an empty promise: giving a legal right to circumvent, without protecting access to the tools necessary to make that right a reality," she wrote.
Another issue is the Terms of Service (TOS) from AT&T. AT&T has a legal argument that the phone may not be operated on another network by the TOS -- assuming the customer has activated their iPhone.
Ms. Granick expressed the hope that this furor will change the future of mobile phones: "Perhaps the iPhone will awaken a consumer revolution, though not necessarily the one envisioned by Apple or AT&T."
It is about the distribution not the actual act of.
I'm not saying it will or will not happen. Just thinking there are lawyers out there who will protect both sides.
 

mongoose8p

macrumors regular
May 15, 2007
137
0
Chicago
i have a feeling the day is labor day just because doesn't make sense to release it on sunday i will be buyin refurb iphone immediately and buying the software whn it comes out tmobile baby
 

aiongiant

macrumors 6502a
Aug 8, 2006
543
0
i heard it by some ppl in the iphone dev irc channels
but it's past that now and nothing... :mad: