mdatwood and shanmugam, I understand and agree with both of you I just don't understand the people on this forum who are upset with the gov'ts decision to make it so. If they don't like it, don't jailbreak and/or unlock it and go on their merry ways. I just don't see how this decision effects the 99% in any detrimental way that they need to complain about the 1% who will?
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.
U.S. Government to Explicitly Allow iPhone Jailbreaking
- Thread starter TSX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AT&T isn't a monopoly
Not sure what you mean by "very hard to easy", but AT&T isn't a monopoly in the legal sense. They're the only ones who officially support iPhone, but that doesn't mean that they are committing anticompetitive acts. Honda dealers are pretty much the only businesses allowed to sell brand new Honda Civics, but are they being sued by the Department of Justice for "acting as a Monopoly"? Nope.
But OK, let's play along with your word game here. If AT&T is a "monopoly" because Apple is working with them with iPhone, then Verizon is also a "monopoly" for not working with Apple. They are bigger than AT&T, and they are selling Android phones, which may over time develop a larger overall market share than iPhone. Verizon is using their market share to suppress sales of iPhone by not selling it themselves. Make sense to you?
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
Not sure what you mean by "very hard to easy", but AT&T isn't a monopoly in the legal sense. They're the only ones who officially support iPhone, but that doesn't mean that they are committing anticompetitive acts. Honda dealers are pretty much the only businesses allowed to sell brand new Honda Civics, but are they being sued by the Department of Justice for "acting as a Monopoly"? Nope.
But OK, let's play along with your word game here. If AT&T is a "monopoly" because Apple is working with them with iPhone, then Verizon is also a "monopoly" for not working with Apple. They are bigger than AT&T, and they are selling Android phones, which may over time develop a larger overall market share than iPhone. Verizon is using their market share to suppress sales of iPhone by not selling it themselves. Make sense to you?
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
Agree. Coming from a place where carriers unlock the iphone or they're delivered unlocked almost no one cares about jailbreaking. What we do care about is changing carriers (which help keeps them competitive) and if we go overseas we want to be able to drop in a local SIM if we need to.
Though things like this should have never got into the DMCA law in the first place it's a big credit to the EFF, the Copyright Office and the Congressional Librarian to see the amendment.
Free tethering
LOL. This means free tethering. Suck it AT&T. Apple doesn't care, legal jailbreak will only sale more iphones. No surprise, if apple release official jailbreak and non-approved app store
However, regular user may suffer from crash and virus. Nerds wins!
LOL. This means free tethering. Suck it AT&T. Apple doesn't care, legal jailbreak will only sale more iphones. No surprise, if apple release official jailbreak and non-approved app store
However, regular user may suffer from crash and virus. Nerds wins!
It would make sense if Apple actually made phones that would work on the Verizon network and then Verizon refused to sell them, but I get the jist of your point. But just because Apple purposely doesn't make phones compatible with Verizon's network doesn't make Apple/ATT a monopoly.
So jailbreakers aren't legally liable? I wasn't aware Apple was pursuing jailbreakers.
I won't jailbreak though, I think it's stupid.
Nah, that's just me trolling.
Actually what I'm interested in is this FTA:
I won't jailbreak though, I think it's stupid.
Nah, that's just me trolling.
Actually what I'm interested in is this FTA:
When does a cellphone count as "used"?
So the government officially endorses piracy?
So now that the government thinks jailbreaking should be ok, does that mean its ok to steal paid apps from developers? Isn't this a copy rights issue? Damn government sucks! Now they should be paying restitution for all those people they busted for downloading and distributing music.
So now that the government thinks jailbreaking should be ok, does that mean its ok to steal paid apps from developers? Isn't this a copy rights issue? Damn government sucks! Now they should be paying restitution for all those people they busted for downloading and distributing music.
I agree. WTF is the government wasting their time (and our money) with this for? Pathetic.
You should stop posting until you understand the subject.
Apple claimed that jailbreaking is illegal because it violates the DMCA.
The new rule specifies that jailbreaking does not violate the DMCA.
It does not require Apple to support jailbroken phones or honor their warranties or do anything similar. It simply specifies that jailbreaking is not illegal.
giant "who cares", honestly.
the government steps in on THIS? because they want to vastly explode the amount of pirated apps?
this is going to go around in circles and not accomplish anything.
the DMCA is such a steaming pile that this tiny change is ridiculous.
now mandated unlocking... that's worth something.
the government steps in on THIS? because they want to vastly explode the amount of pirated apps?
this is going to go around in circles and not accomplish anything.
the DMCA is such a steaming pile that this tiny change is ridiculous.
now mandated unlocking... that's worth something.
What are you talking about? Please go educate yourself on jailbreaking, unlocking, and copyright infringement before posting again. Thanks.
Maybe you should read the full article before you click on the submit button. The answer to your question is in the text.
Well, under DMCA there is a right to reverse engineering and a jailbreak can fall under that.
Att is a monopoly. Well they are really really lame.
Consider the 2G iPhone which is
A) No longer supported by Apple on the software front
B) no longer services by Apple by way of support contract (all 2g iPhones would be out of warranty as of July 11, 2010)
C) all 2g iPhone users would be out of their 2 year contracts by July 11, 2010
So apple won't support it, and first gen owners already fulfilled their contractual obligations
-yet
Apple wants to be able to dictate what can be done with a device they no longer service and AT&T wants to force you to be in a relationship with them after 2 years instead of bringing the device to tmobile or overseas.
um....wut?
Government doesn't require us to always lock our doors to our houses...so it MUST be okay to walk into unlocked houses and just take things, right? Damn, government sucks!
Of course not. Passing and enforcing laws and protecting the interests of taxpaying consumers should be an exclusive privilege of multi-national corporations.
Are you serious? If something like that is not the job of a government - any government - whose job is it then?
Apple will still be able to deny you warranty repairs. You can modify devices in your home now but if you try to get them repaired under warranty you can be denied. Jailbreak is just under that same umbrella.
All this means is jailbreaking is legal. It doesn't mean Apple has to do it for you. It doesn't mean Apple has to support it. All it means is that it is legal for you to do it at your own risk. What does it mean? Nothing really. Nothing happened to anyone who jailbroke their iPhone before. This just let's you know you are not breaking any laws when you do it. It doesn't all of a sudden change anything for Apple. They can still make it just as hard to jailbreak the iPhone.
Nah, say hello to FREEDOM and CHOICE. Sure, this may open you up to viruses and malware, I doubt it thought, but freedom comes with these risk.
Wow, I'm ecstatic. A huge hole was just ripped into the Jobs rampart surrounding his walled garden. I'm sure he is beside himself.
Hmm, I thought you were all for capitalism and free market with no government intervention which would lead one to think that these laws are thus too much government involvement in business.
I somehow don't understand how the government can intervene in this matters, when you update your iPhone there is a part where you accept that you will not jailbreak, I don't think the government can do this sort of stuff, well, let's see what will happen with illegal music, movies and the rest of the stuff that was legally protected, I think this is the first step towards free traffic through internet.
First. I highlighted the most relevant portion of your text, because the rest does not apply to people who bought OS X in one of the Apple store, and thus payed for it.
And looking at the new ruling, I see no difference because both OSes had to be modified. In fact. I can install OS X in my Mac Pro and take the drive out and put it in a Hackintosh, without any modifying whatsoever on the hard drive, and boot from a USB memory stick. Easy.
So tell me something. Why is making a derivative work of OS X illegal, while it apparently is no longer for iOS [mostly to install unapproved apps]. I'm confused.