Slashdot Log In
Apple May Be Breaking the Law With Policy On iPhone Unlocks
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:41 AM
from the read-the-fine-print dept.
from the read-the-fine-print dept.
an anonymous reader writes "Apple's recent decision to void warranties for folks that unlocked their iPhones may wind them up in legal hot water. The site Phone News points out that Apple appears to have broken a key warranty law relevant to SIM unlocks. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a law decades old, would seem to prevent Apple from voiding warranties in the way it is threatening to do with the iPhone, or so the site argues. 'The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act states that Apple cannot void a warranty for a product with third-party enhancements or modifications to their product. The only exception to this rule is if Apple can determine that the modification or enhancement is responsible [for] damaging the product in question ... The legal [questions are]: Is the SIM Unlock process that has become mainstream doing damage to iPhone? And, also, is Apple designing future software updates to do damage to iPhone when said SIM Unlock code is present?'"
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: Upcoming Firmware Will Brick Unlocked iPhones 605 comments
iCry writes "It was rumored last week, and Apple has now confirmed it: 'Apple said today that a firmware update to the iPhone due to be released later this week "will likely result" in SIM-unlocked iPhones turning into very expensive bricks... So what are users of SIM-unlocked iPhones to do? Not run the latest software update, that's for sure. Users can instead pray to the hacking deities — the famed iPhone Dev Team that released the free software unlock, and iPhoneSIMfree, which released a commercial software unlock — to write applications that will undo the unlocks, as it were, if those users want to run the latest iPhone software.'"
Firehose:Apple Breaks Law with Policy on iPhone Unlocks by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Why this is probably wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
It's about the radio firmware being altered in an unknown way, or even damaged. (Note: this is DIFFERENT from jailbreaking, OS hacking, and installing third party apps.)
Why should that be covered under warranty?
[...] is Apple designing future software updates to do damage to iPhone when said SIM Unlock code is present?
NO!
Absolutely not.
Apple has already explicitly stated that they are not going to intentionally or proactively do anything to unlocked phones. Even a small amount of logic would reveal that when the baseband radio firmware is in an unknown state (this is different from the OS on the phone, and doing the "hacking" to install third party applications, and so on), future updates, either to the firmware or the OS or both, may break things. Even a software update that expects the radio to accept commands or interact with the OS in a particular way could end up breaking things.
Oh, I know a lot of you really want to believe Apple is actually going to intentionally damage phones that are unlocked. Sorry to disappoint, but that is simply not the case.
If there is any legal issue that erupts over this, Apple will very easily be able to prove that there is no way for it to predict the state of the hardware when it does updates when it has been altered, perhaps irreparably depending on the method, in an unknown fashion by the user.
Further, I think it's funny that some seem to carp about how Apple will be "fixing" the mechanism via which phones are currently unlocked, as if it's evil. Of course they will! It's a general buffer overflow that happens to be used in the unlock process. Should Apple not fix an exploitable buffer overflow in the OS just so people can continue to unlock phones? The arguments on this topic are laughable.
Moreover, while end-user unlocking of handsets is legal in the US under the current DMCA exemption, the vendor is under NO OBLIGATION to support the phones in such a state with future software/firmware updates. I can hear all the "But what about the UK?" people chiming in now. Apple will do whatever is required by law in any jurisdiction. If a certain jurisdiction REQUIRES unlocked phones, Apple may skip that market entirely (for now). Even in the UK it isn't as clear as some people like to think it is, because the phone technically isn't subsidized, meaning that it may not have to be unlocked after the subsidy is repaid - because there is no subsidy. And a large part of Apple's iPhone strategy with carriers is tight integration for things like the activation process: things that simply aren't supported with anyone but the partner carrier.
Remember: it's "legal" to do a lot of things which also might end up voiding the warranty of a particular product. Something being "legal" doesn't imply all of these things people seem to think it does. A lot of odd arguments appeared in the last story about this, saying that since the DMCA exemption allows handset unlocking, somehow, Apple must actively enable it. Wrong.
Customers have a choice:
- Don't ever apply a software update after unlocking (unless applying said update to a phone unlocked using your exact mechanism has been confirmed to work by others), and your phone will stay unlocked
- Don't buy an iPhone
Don't act like Apple is somehow bound to support all unlocked phones via any mechanism, some which may damage the phone, in any and all future software updates, especially when it can't possibly predict all iterations. You don't have to buy an iPhone.
And if you want to argue about simlocking in general, it's a very common practice the world over, and your beef isn't with Apple. If Apple just sold all iPhones unlocked, like some people think they should, there would be nowhere near the tight integration with any and all carriers, the pleasant do-it-yourself activation process that is part of what makes the iPhone genius, not to mention the economic arguments, where
Re:Why this is probably wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they didn't tell their developers to find a way to cause hacked iPhones to stop functioning. But I doubt that when one of their developers said at a meeting, "...and this update will cause unlocked iPhones to stop functioning..." they thought anything other than, "Good!"
Parent
Re:Why this is probably wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
My feeling is why waste that time and moeny? THey will build a patch that will work with a non hacked iPhone 100%. They won't spend a single dime testing it on a hacked one (why should they the ROI on that is a negative). Simply say we can;t guarantee what it will do on a system with a changed state not done by Apple.
From what some posters are posting on here (not the parent just what I have read) is that Apple should somehow make sure the patch will work with every combination of a hacked iPhone. Hmm wonder what that would cost.
Parent
Re:Why this is probably wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
IF you think they haven't already, I'd have to say you are barking mad.
"My feeling is why waste that time and moeny?"
What does it cost to have some junior level dev guy hack one and play around with it for a day and write up a report? Basically nothing.
"THey will build a patch that will work with a non hacked iPhone 100%. They won't spend a single dime testing it on a hacked one (why should they the ROI on that is a negative). "
OF course this is true, but you are answering a different question. Real testing and "validation" would be very expensive. Particularly since that validation would have to meet the standards of AT&T, which obviously has a vested interest in having any such thing fail validation testing.
"Simply say we can;t guarantee what it will do on a system with a changed state not done by Apple."
Unofficially, they will know perfectly well what it will do. If there are two roughly equal ways to implement a desired feature and and they know one of them breaks on the hacked phone -- that is the one that will be used. Apple would reverse engineer an unrelated reason for why they picked that implementation.
"From what some posters are posting on here (not the parent just what I have read) is that Apple should somehow make sure the patch will work with every combination of a hacked iPhone. Hmm wonder what that would cost."
They have no such obligation, totally agree. What they do have is a contract with AT&T to ensure and protect their exclusive carrier rights. If they don't do everything legally possible to make sure people can't switch carriers - they will sure Apple for everything they can.
Parent
Re:Why this is probably wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a pretty damn safe assumption to make. Any COMPETENT product engineering team / product management team would ABSOLUTELY do so.
You KNOW that they have at LEAST applied the unlock hack to phones to see exactly what it does and how it works. You also know that they are working on (and surely finished by now) a patch that "undoes" the unlock hack.
It would be ridiculous to think that they would make the statement that their updates will brick a phone without knowing for sure.
It would also be ridiculous to think that any information on this at Apple would remain secret during a court case and the resulting subpoenas / depositions.
Come on. We, and Apple, just are not that stupid.
Parent
Re:Why this is probably wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
By way of analogy, think about juggling: You don't throw the ball to where your hand is right now. You throw it to the correct spot in the pattern -- 12" off center, and 36" off the ground -- then make sure your hand is in the right place by the time the ball comes down. It requires some prediction and timing, but it's basically doable.
Now try doing it in an earthquake. The 'correct spot in the pattern' is no longer a simple location. You have to predict where the ground will be when the ball comes down, and adjust your throw accordingly. That's a lot more complicated, and there's always a chance that something will happen between the throw and the catch that you didn't predict.
The number of possible states and unpredictable events is more or less infinite, so there's no way you can possibly cover them all. The best you can do is try to keep everything within a range where you can spot the failures early enough to recover before they trigger a train wreck.
Systems like that are delicate. Screw with the timing just a little, and you can bump a few 'recoverable' cases over into the 'train wreck' category. They won't show up right away, though.. you have to get just the right combination of events before the thing will hang.
And with embedded systems, there's no option to shut down, reload the program, and start from a fresh, known state.
And, of course, the job is just that much harder when someone else has fiddled with the system in ways you don't know about.
Apple's announcement is just their way of saying they can't be positive they've hit every possible edge case that might cause this next update to interact badly with any unknown, unauthorized, and unsupported firmware tinkering people might have chosen to do on their own.
Honestly, I don't know why there's so much fuss about this. Hacking the firmware is very much an "at your own risk" procedure, and anyone who pretends not to know that is being deliberately stupid.
And why is everybody dumping this problem on Apple? Why aren't people yelling at the guys who released the unlocking software, demanding a "100% guaranteed or we'll replace your iPhone for free" reversion kit? If anyone should know how to return a hacked iPhone to its factory state, it would be the guys who hacked it in the first place.
Parent
Re:Why this is probably wrong (Score:5, Informative)
No, Apple is "doing this" (I assume you mean, discouraging unlocking of iPhones) so AT&T doesn't have any reason to claim Apple is violating a contractual agreement. Could Apple make sure nobody can unlock the phones? Probably, yes. Have they done so? Nope. Just like every other time they've changed something to make some mega-corp happy, they make it so joe-user has to go out of their way, and that way Apple is covered. Want to copy a CD? Can't do it with drag & drop, sorry. Download a tool to do it? Well, it's not Apple's fault, they didn't give you the tool. Want to get around the DRM? You need to use a tool that isn't from Apple to do it. Want to unlock your iPhone? Same story. They can't just give you a way to do it, or they'd be in trouble with AT&T's lawyers. But, if they put up a token effort to keep people from doing it, and someone smart bypasses that (my bet is at 2 hours after the release being the time to workaround), well, (shrug) we tried, AT&T, I guess they're just too smart.
I don't disagree that a recent update broke that function. I don't think we agree on why the change was made though. And, how long did it stay broken? If Apple really wanted to lock people out, I'm pretty sure they could have. The fact that they haven't tells me something.
Parent
Re:Why this is probably wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Or can you demonstrate a legitimate, technical need for that hash to be there?
Parent
Re:Why this is probably wrong (Score:5, Informative)
I think you'll find that locking phones in the UK is only permitted because the carrier subsidises the cost of the phone.
Parent
One more time: Warranty != Rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Federal, state, and local statutes trump warranties every time.
If Apple knew, or should have known, that its firmware will destroy an iPhone regardless of after market modification, it *MUST* exercise care to prevent this from happening.
Any defense of Apple that does not account for law or relevant legal precedent are, at best, flawed.
Re:One more time: Warranty != Rights (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Apple has said that they are not going to intentionally or proactively do anything to people who write third party applications.
On the other hand, Apple has said that they are going to do what they can to stop unlockers.
Re:Why this is probably wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
-1 industry apologist (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason people are up in arms is because apple has raised the possibility of this update permanently bricking your iPhone. That possibility is unacceptable. Any decent programmer would just have the update checksum the software and firmware and overwrite any hacked copies with the new version. None of your arguments about altered radio firmware and so on have any bearing on the issue...what does it matter which piece of firmware we're talking about? If an update requires consistency on the part of other elements of the phone, it needs to ensure that they are consistent, and if they are not, either fix them or fail gracefully.
The bottom line is that there is a lot of precedent for hardware warranties being unaffected by the actions a consumer takes with his software. Any manufacturer who causes users 4-600$ dollars worth of hardware loss via a software update would be liable. End of story.
Believe me, if PC manufacturers could have voided your warranty for installing a different operating system (as they would be able to according to your arguments), they would have years ago.
Parent
Re:-1 industry apologist (Score:4, Interesting)
However, for the radio firmware, Apple is alleging that some unlock mechanisms may have irreparably damaged the hardware of the phone. If that is correct - if the iPhone hardware has been permanently damaged - then I don't think Apple is to blame. If, however, it is all software-only and reversible, then I agree with you completely, and expect Apple to try to follow exactly that path.
Parent
Re:-1 industry apologist (Score:5, Interesting)
They do try! Years ago, I made the mistake of buying an HP PC that came with a very new XP (pre-SP1). Before I even turned the PC on, I took the hard drive out, installed a new one, and installed a fresh copy of Windows 2000. Less than a year later (still within warranty), the optical drive died. Sure enough, HP's outsourced, "have to follow the checklist" tech people tried their best to tell me that I was not entitled to a DVD drive replacement because I didn't have the "correct" operating system installed. Anyone of a less stubborn nature than me would have given up, but I fought through several days' worth of phone calls and demands to talk to managers. At that point it became a matter of principle. But I finally got the replacement sent to me. They might not have been "voiding" the warranty by initially denying my warranty claim, but I don't see any difference between voiding and trying to not honor a warranty. Either way, you're not getting the service that you're entitled to.
Just because we know that trying to blame software for hardware failures is ridiculous, there are even more people out there who have no clue that they're separate issues and will just give up.
Parent
Why this _is_ wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the "they can't do X" crap, stems from a misinterpretation of one specific part of the act:
The clause is to prevent, say, a vacuum cleaner company from requiring used of their own brand of bags (unless they provide them free). It doesn't mean you can modify your car for more horsepower, and expect the manufacturer to cover the engine under warranty when it breaks. It also doesn't mean a manufacturer can't put a clause in the warranty which says the car's warranty is voided if you hang fuzzy dice from the mirror. It means that they can't put a clause which says "Use of any brand fuzzy dice other than ACME brand fuzzy dice will void the engine warranty."
Specific to the case at hand, since Apple provides firmware "without charge" during the warranty period, Magnuson-Moss does not require that they allow third party or modified firmware to be used under the warranty terms, and Apple is within the law if they require that only their firmware be used to maintain a valid warranty.
Parent
Re:Why this _is_ wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
However, this act falls a little short in the realm of electronics and firmware. Sure, Apple can't go around saying that your warranty will be void if you use a Motorolla bluetooth headset instead of an Apple one. But, can they say that the warranty is void if you use a different firmware? It seems to me that there's a gray area there. Firmware is required to make the device work, but it's provided by the manufacturer. So, can the manufacturer prevent you from using someone else's firmware by invalidating the warranty?
I suppose the underlying question is, what does the warranty cover? If it's merely electronics, then perhaps the manufacturer cannot dictate the firmware used, but, in the event of a failure, they can surely attempt to load the device with "official" firmware in an effort to determine the problem. Of course, if the unit is completely dead, that won't help. In that instance, the question becomes more of a "what caused the failure" type of question.
That's where 3rd party firmware can become a problem. How do you prove that the firmware was the cause and not the hardware? I'm sure it can be done, but to the satisfaction of the customer? And is it really Apple's responsibility to determine if the firmware was the cause? In the end, it may cost Apple quite a lot of money to make that determination, only to turn back to the customer and refuse the warranty claim. It's sort of a lose-lose situation.
Parent
That Linux on Laptop No Warranty Story... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(Disclaimer: IANASNAB,WATTKOLWHIE&W.IHNIAS,BIPD)
Modchips? (Score:3, Informative)
Auto makers have been doing it for years (Score:5, Informative)
iPhones can probably play the same crap. As long as they warn you that 3rd party software or hardware may brick the system, they're fine. Nintendo just did that with Metroid Prime 3. There is a warning saying that upgrading the firmware will most likely brick machines with mods, and even gave instructions on how to circumvent the installation. You couldn't play the game, but at least you don't have a brick.
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who said it's mainstream? I know of no one that has actualy unlocked their iphone.
Jobs had a sink-the-company idea: AT&T! (Score:4, Informative)
People have a legitimate need to use other SIM cards in their phones. For example, if you travel to Europe or Asia or South America, it is common to buy a SIM card there (GSM phones only) because then you get a local number, making it much cheaper for local people to call you and for you to call them.
Locking the iPhone while charging the full price for it was an attempt to squeeze more money from buyers, most of whom don't fully understand all the ways cellular phone companies, and now Apple, can abuse them, in my opinion.
AT&T is no longer the old AT&T, because the name was sold [att.com] to SBC. My understanding is that the SBC trademark was worse than useless because the company is so abusive. So, the managers decided to use another name. Those interested in how that happened can watch Stephen Colbert explain in a 1 minute 14 second video: The New AT&T [google.com].
SBC taking the name AT&T is, in my opinion, a kind of legal fraud, but fraud nevertheless. People are bound to be confused and misled. AT&T had a very good reputation. SBC-AT&T is a completely different company, and has no connection in its culture with the old AT&T. At the very least, the SEC should require the company to disclose in the first sentence of any prospectus for its stock that there is no connection whatsoever.
Disagreement from Slashdot's Unofficial Law Dude (Score:5, Informative)
What this literally means is that Apple's warranty cannot say "This warranty is void if you use the iPhone with a company other than AT&T." However, Apple's warranty doesn't say that. It says that the warranty is void if you mess with the firmware. It HAPPENS TO BE that the only way to make it POSSIBLE to use another company's service requires doing something else that will void your warranty, but the warranty terms themselves aren't anti-competitive, the firmware is.
Even if the terms of the warranty did say this, Apple is probably still safe because it wouldn't be hard to argue that the iPhone isn't "function[ing] properly" if Visual Voicemail is broken.
Any case brought under this law would be without merit and would probably be dismissed for failure to state a claim.