U.S. Government to Explicitly Allow iPhone Jailbreaking

[marksman]

I am not sure what country a lot of people live in, but I live in the United States, where Congress writes laws, and the Supreme Court upholds them.

I don't know about any of these organizations listed in any of this potpourri of nonsense having any kind of authority for anything.

I don't understand any of it.

Since when does the Library of Congress have any charge of anything except itself?

I don't think people understand that this will change nothing. Jailbreaking was never illegal. And Apple still doesn't have to support it or allow it if they don't want to.. Apple doesn't oppose it due to copyright issues, so the fact that the Library of Congress provided this exemption is 100% meaningless. It is not going to change anything.

 

[cmaier]

I am not sure what country a lot of people live in, but I live in the United States, where Congress writes laws, and the Supreme Court upholds them.

I don't know about any of these organizations listed in any of this potpourri of nonsense having any kind of authority for anything.

I don't understand any of it.

Since when does the Library of Congress have any charge of anything except itself?

Congress is free to delegate limited rule-making authority.

 

[Heilage]

Also, for the people pointing to the Psystar case, that was entirely different than this. Psystar took OS X, modified it, and then resold it. That is COMPLETELY different, night and day difference, compared to jailbreaking a device you OWN for your OWN PERSONAL use.

If one is to compare anything to PsyStar, it would be to sell jailbroken iPhones as a business (personal sale would be different, I guess).

 

[mosx]

I am not sure what country a lot of people live in, but I live in the United States, where Congress writes laws, and the Supreme Court upholds them.

I don't know about any of these organizations listed in any of this potpourri of nonsense having any kind of authority for anything.

I don't understand any of it.

Since when does the Library of Congress have any charge of anything except itself?

The DMCA that Congress passed and Clinton signed into law gave the Library of Congress power to review the DMCA and modify it as needed.

 

[mosx]

If one is to compare anything to PsyStar, it would be to sell jailbroken iPhones as a business (personal sale would be different, I guess).

People earlier in the thread were trying to say that the Psystar case proves that jailbreaking is still illegal. It's stupid, I know. But, for some reason, people don't want want choices. They want to be herded like sheep and told what to do.

 

[pmjoe]

So legal alternative app stores would be permitted as well? Even for apps developed with different tool set than what Apple prescribes?

Adobe for example could then make a store where developers would publish Flash made games and apps. Flash development tool could then just add Flash runtime to it and a jail breaking utility.

Actually I think the apps would almost have to be developed with a different toolset, as I believe the iPhone SDK agreement dictates that applications developed with it must be distributed through their App Store.

The problem is that whatever tools Adobe would develop to support this would likely need to be clean of using the iPhone SDK as well.

 

[ericmooreart]

So legal alternative app stores would be permitted as well? Even for apps developed with different tool set than what Apple prescribes?

Adobe for example could then make a store where developers would publish Flash made games and apps. Flash development tool could then just add Flash runtime to it and a jail breaking utility.

That's what Im talking about!!!!

 

[hchung]

If you do a change to your device that is permanent, then of course Apple won’t support you, but as long as you revert back to original state, Apple wouldn’t even know so it wouldn’t be a factor. Jailbreaking might prevent you getting support with software issues like crashing, but if the radio dies or something, that should still be covered. Just like if you change the hard drive in your user-serviceable Mac. Break something and you’re out of luck! But it doesn’t stop you from being covered under warranty for problems that are not related to what you changed.

So what about the case of anySim versus FW 1.1.1? anySim corrupted the radio so that a normal update broke (according to iphone-elite's wiki).

This gets a bit complicated, yeah? The radio died because a 3rd party app killed it. Who should be blamed?

 

[darylj]

illegal?

wasn't it more fun when it was "illegal?"

 

[severe]

wasn't it more fun when it was "illegal?"

 

[Tulse]

As far as the EULA goes, Apple is going to have a VERY difficult time convincing a judge or jury that their EULA can outlaw a perfectly legal action.

Contracts supercede "legal actions" all the time (i.e., a contract can limit what you could otherwise legally do), and the argument is that a EULA is a contract. By violating it, the argument is that you are in breach of contract, which is not "perfectly legal".

These arguments may not hold up in specific cases (as far as I know EULA legalities are murky at best), but it is by no means clear that Apple would not have legal recourse in such instances.

 

[cmaier]

Contracts supercede "legal actions" all the time (i.e., a contract can limit what you could otherwise legally do), and the argument is that a EULA is a contract. By violating it, the argument is that you are in breach of contract, which is not "perfectly legal".

These arguments may not hold up in specific cases (as far as I know EULA legalities are murky at best), but it is by no means clear that Apple would not have legal recourse in such instances.

Indeed. Every contract overrides legal rights. I didn't have to build that fence, but i signed a contract. I could have kept my money, but i entered into a contract. I was allowed to sleep all day, until i contrActed to do so something else.

 

[SkippyThorson]

Indeed my stance on the issue is quite clear. The fact that "all your posts have been pointed at people like me" is inconsequential, as your posts amount to no more than a collection of long-winded rants, utterly lacking any coherence, thought or logic.

I will make it simple for you though.. If you don't want to jailbreak/unlock your phone and continue living in Steve Jobs' bubble - be my guest. No one is forcing you to do anything differently. But for you to say that those of us who chose to jailbreak/unlock must be treated as criminals - that's simply ludicrous.

What in the holy name of Kurt Kobain are you blathering about? I want you to go back and quote me where I said unlockers/jailbreakers are criminals. While you're at it, where did I say anyone was forcing me to unlock/jailbreak myself?

You sound like a middle school girl when you try to insert "big words", extend sentences beyond the status of run-on, and especially try to tell me I said things that you could simply go back and find that I didn't.

Excellent work, though.

 

[thelatinist]

Yes, but this is a jailbreaking forum..

Yes, and many of those uses were already allowed under previous rulings.

 

[Serelus]

If you jailbreak to modify UI, Springboard, Icons, then you're free to do so and still get support at the apple store. This particular kind of support was denied earlier on. It's stupid because people pirating apps can easily take advantage of this and still get support. All they did with this was make jailbreaking more well known and give more people notice that they can get apps for free. Way to do the opposite of what you're supposed to.

In summary:
Jailbreak to modify UI = OK
Jailbreak to pirate apps = Not OK.

 

[mosx]

Contracts supercede "legal actions" all the time (i.e., a contract can limit what you could otherwise legally do), and the argument is that a EULA is a contract. By violating it, the argument is that you are in breach of contract, which is not "perfectly legal".

These arguments may not hold up in specific cases (as far as I know EULA legalities are murky at best), but it is by no means clear that Apple would not have legal recourse in such instances.

Well, that definitely won't hold up in a real world situation. If Apple slipped that into the EULA, which nobody reads and isn't even clearly presented prior to purchase, and then denied service based on the EULA, despite the fact that jailbreaking is legal, you can bet there will be a lawsuit. Especially in California. And you can bet that no jury would side with Apple.

Apple trying to block jailbreaking and warranty service, despite jailbreaking being legal, via EULA would be about the same as a car dealership sneaking a "fuel clause" into a contract. That dealership will only provide service to you if you agree to buy fuel from one provider. If you don't then they deny you service. That wouldn't go over too well at all despite it being in a contract.

Other provisions of contracts in the past have been thrown out. Look at AT&T having mandatory binding arbitration thrown out of their contract multiple times.

Apple putting "no jailbreaking" in an EULA doesn't mean squat. Theres a reason EULA are rarely, if ever, taken to court. Psystar only lost because of the fact that they modified then resold Mac OS X.

 

[rsocal]

So what does this mean for me if I don't have plans for jailbreaking my iPhone and I'm fine using the Apple system? I like the fact that I don't worry about all the problems associated with jailbreaking. I did that to one of my old iPhones and it eventually worked like crap and the apps never worked that good. I just hope thing's don't get like Windows. I'm sure this sounds stupid to a lot of you but that's why I like to be here, I learn a lot, so explain to me what this really means?

 

[Cinemagic]

This would actually make the iPhone hands down the best cellphone out there. Apple should have definitely seen this coming and wonder what their response will be. I really hope they don't see this as a negative thing because it's not.

Apple already made its case before the decision. Fortunately, he government didn't listen. Now, if Mr. Jobs doesn't want to allow his customers their freedom, he'll have to try harder to lock down the device.

I used to get solicitation calls from one particular scammer. With my jailbroken iPhone, I can install iBlacklist and have peace with my phone. Jailbreaking is a very good thing.

 

[CFreymarc]

This is a good announcement for all. Equipment is equipment and when you own it, you can do whatever the hell you want with it. Jail-breaking is not illegal since you own what you are "breaking."

Also, this leads the way to a lot of confidential enterprise uses of cell phones that service providers nor equipment providers need to be aware of for different operations.

Unlock codes are coming. In fact, that is being done overseas all the time. Amazing how many iPhones you see in eastern Europe -- especially Moscow and St. Petersburg!

 

[cmaier]

Well, that definitely won't hold up in a real world situation. If Apple slipped that into the EULA, which nobody reads and isn't even clearly presented prior to purchase, and then denied service based on the EULA, despite the fact that jailbreaking is legal, you can bet there will be a lawsuit. Especially in California. And you can bet that no jury would side with Apple.

Apple trying to block jailbreaking and warranty service, despite jailbreaking being legal, via EULA would be about the same as a car dealership sneaking a "fuel clause" into a contract. That dealership will only provide service to you if you agree to buy fuel from one provider. If you don't then they deny you service. That wouldn't go over too well at all despite it being in a contract.

Other provisions of contracts in the past have been thrown out. Look at AT&T having mandatory binding arbitration thrown out of their contract multiple times.

Apple putting "no jailbreaking" in an EULA doesn't mean squat. Theres a reason EULA are rarely, if ever, taken to court. Psystar only lost because of the fact that they modified then resold Mac OS X.

You are wrong.

 

[mosx]

So what does this mean for me if I don't have plans for jailbreaking my iPhone and I'm fine using the Apple system? I like the fact that I don't worry about all the problems associated with jailbreaking. I did that to one of my old iPhones and it eventually worked like crap and the apps never worked that good. I just hope thing's don't get like Windows. I'm sure this sounds stupid to a lot of you but that's why I like to be here, I learn a lot, so explain to me what this really means?

What problems? I've never had any problems with jailbreaking and all of my iOS devices have almost always been jailbroken.

You are wrong.

Care to elaborate?

 

[bkspero]

No changes unless you or Apple decide to change

So what does this mean for me if I don't have plans for jailbreaking my iPhone and I'm fine using the Apple system? I like the fact that I don't worry about all the problems associated with jailbreaking. I did that to one of my old iPhones and it eventually worked like crap and the apps never worked that good. I just hope thing's don't get like Windows. I'm sure this sounds stupid to a lot of you but that's why I like to be here, I learn a lot, so explain to me what this really means?

Unless Apple decides to give up on a controlled App store and managed ecosystem as the "norm" for the iPhone, or you decide to deviate from the Apple ecosystem, there should be no changes for you.

 

[MacKeeperFanMod]

Don't think the rules force apple to support iPhones that have been jail broken. The rules simply make it officially legal to jail break an iPhone.

And of course in the U.S. Where will you go for a different carrier. Verizon? No. T-mobile? Maybe if the coverage doesn't suck.

 

[shellbryson]

I don't know how jailbreaking works on iDevices, but I imagine they require modification of configuration by copying, modifying and reapplying files to the iDevice in question? This will still be 'illegal' (in that EULA has been breached) and 'illegal' in that software has been copied (copyright) and redistributed (albeit in a modified format). Redistribution must surely be illegal too?

If Apple are that bothered maybe they'll go after the jailbreaking websites, but frankly I think this is a lot of fuss over nothing. If folks want to hack their phones, I don't care unless it causes carriers to increase their prices or Apple to cut their warranty.

If I buy a brand new Dell PC with Windows 7 on it, I wouldn't expect Dell to then support me when I have problems running Linux on it if I have *software* issues. But, if the harddrive fails, I'd be pretty aggrieved if they refused to replace the hard disk because of my choice of OS...

My iDevices will remain un-jailbroken as I prefer and easy life

 

[cmaier]

Care to elaborate?

Sure.

Well, that definitely won't hold up in a real world situation.

Yes it will

If Apple slipped that into the EULA, which nobody reads and isn't even clearly presented prior to purchase, and then denied service based on the EULA, despite the fact that jailbreaking is legal, you can bet there will be a lawsuit

Probably true.

. Especially in California. And you can bet that no jury would side with Apple.

it wouldn't get to a jury. It would be dismissed in summary judgment.

Apple trying to block jailbreaking and warranty service, despite jailbreaking being legal, via EULA would be about the same as a car dealership sneaking a "fuel clause" into a contract. That dealership will only provide service to you if you agree to buy fuel from one provider. If you don't then they deny you service. That wouldn't go over too well at all despite it being in a contract.

That's not even close to the same thing. EULAs tying software to hardware have been generally upheld.

Other provisions of contracts in the past have been thrown out. Look at AT&T having mandatory binding arbitration thrown out of their contract multiple times.

Arbitration clauses are considered particularly oppressive, so yes, they have been thrown out in so-called adhesion contracts. The type of clause we are talking about here is completely different, and has not been thrown out.

Apple putting "no jailbreaking" in an EULA doesn't mean squat. Theres a reason EULA are rarely, if ever, taken to court. Psystar only lost because of the fact that they modified then resold Mac OS X.

No, that's not at all the only reason they lost.