iPhone Owners Demand To See Apple Source Code

CWmike writes "iPhone owners charging Apple and AT&T with breaking antitrust laws asked a federal judge this week to force Apple to hand over the iPhone source code, court documents show. The lawsuit, which was filed in October 2007, accuses Apple and AT&T of violating antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, by agreeing to a multi-year deal that locks US iPhone owners into using the mobile carrier. On Wednesday, the plaintiffs asked US District Court Judge James Ware to compel Apple to produce the source code for the iPhone 1.1.1 software, an update that Apple issued in September 2007. The update crippled iPhones that had been unlocked, or 'jailbroken,' so that they could be used with mobile providers other than AT&T. The iPhone 1.1.1 'bricked' those first-generation iPhones that had been hacked, rendering them useless and wiping all personal data from the device. The plaintiffs say that the source code is necessary to determine whether all iPhones were given the same 1.1.1 update, and whether it was designed to brick all or just some hacked iPhones."

I agree

[NoYob]

the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it.

How true. Anyway...

Apple did in fact approach the other carriers (IIRC), but they refused to put into their infrastructure the ability for the iPhone to download messages without the user having to dial up for them. The iPhone owners I've talked to really like that feature and it allows them to jump around messages without having to listen to them all from the beginning of the queue - one of these guys had quite a few voicemails and I can see why he didn't want to have to listen to them all and it allowed him to glance at them all and listen to the one from say, his doctor, without having to start from the beginning.

I refused to get an iPhone because I didn't like the terms and conditions and pricing of the package.

Re:Shooting the moon or their foot

[MarkvW]

"They have to know that they're never going to get the source code."
While I don't know what they "have to know," I do know that source code does get disclosed in litigation--oftentimes under protective orders to avoid commercial disclosure. The breath test machine cases are an excellent example of this. Copyright cases are another kind of case where this kind of material gets disclosed.

Saying (in italics) that "the source code is not relevant" does not advance the argument. The test for evidence discovery is whether or not the material is evidence or TENDS TO LEAD to evidence. That interpretation cannot be made without a thorough understanding of the issues and sub issues that the case will (or may) spawn.

As always, take all slashdot legal opinions with an enormous grain of salt.

Re:Antitrust? How? And copyright cancellation? WTF

[db32]

There are anti-trust laws dealing with that two company colluding stuff. It isn't far off from the other flak that has been coming up lately over the various exclusive phone deals. AT&T/Apple aren't alone on this and there has a been a surge in complaints about this against all vendors. The anti-trust laws are written specifically to prevent these kinds of things from happening and they are just tap dancing around the laws at the moment with silly excuses.

Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine

[Tom Boz]

The argument is that the use of deadly force is not allowed if the burglar isn't an immediate threat to the life of someone; and if you can't use deadly force yourself when they enter, you cannot do it through a mechanical device, either. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney [wikipedia.org] (The legal briefs linked on the bottom will probably be more useful). Obviously this ruling is by-state, and I have no idea about non-US countries.

Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine

[cob666]

In the US there is a DMCA exemption that legally allows one to carrier unlock a cell phone that they own to work with another carrier.

If Apple is bricking phones that have been carrier unlocked (which an owner has the LEGAL right to do) then they should be held accountable.

Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine

[Jerry Smith]

"I paid for it, what does it matter?"

Sure they paid, but the EULA probably stated they didn't OWN the software. (did they REALLY pay for the software? Just curious, my students somehow just have the software)

Mantrapping is illegal

[Okian Warrior]

IANAL, the lawyers reading this can correct me as needed.

If the burglar gets hurt due to a trap you have set, it's a crime not a tort. The burglar is not suing you, the police are arresting you on evidence of setting a trap. The crime is "Reckless Endangerment" if no one is hurt, various others if someone *is* hurt.

Traps are illegal because lots of people can be in your home without your consent: firefighters, police chasing a suspect, gas line repairmen,and the super. You must keep your house reasonably safe for that reason. It's a bit of a grey area if the burglar trips over a rug and breaks his leg, depending on the circumstances.

The burglar can sue for damages because we have the presumption of innocence. At the time of the break-in, he had not been convicted of the crime. The "deadly force" argument may or may not be valid, since the trap may very well be non-lethal, like restraining the burglar with a net.

I believe that this last bit varies from state-to-state, so check your local laws.

Interesting link [gothamist.com]

For those posters who talk about putting up signs, note that the trespasser could be a small child who hasn't yet learned to read, or am adult who only reads a different language.

Re:Antitrust? How? And copyright cancellation? WTF

[DragonWriter]

How exactly does an antitrust suit work against a player that doesn't have anything resembling monopoly power in the market in which it operates?

Probably because, while monopolies are specifically a subject of antitrust law, they aren't the only thing it covers. Antitrust laws deal with a wide range of anticompetitive and unfair practices in trade.

Not only that -- why exactly would relief by gained by Apple turning over the source to the iPhone OS?

The demand for the source code isn't as a remedy, its a discovery motion. The plaintiffs' reason for it is addressed in TFA, which quotes the motion itself: "Unless Plaintiffs are given access to Version 1.1.1 source code, their ability to prove the size and scope of the Class affected by Version 1.1.1 will be severely compromised and unfairly prejudiced."

1.1.1 brick not purposeful

[NetShadow]

I know it's cool to hate Apple these days, but seriously, get the facts first...

The people who had 1.1.1 phones "bricked" were people who had unlocked their phones with the original (buggy) version of AnySIM that subtly corrupted the seczone where phone locks and IMEI were stored. It was corrupted in such a way that it wasn't obvious until the baseband was upgraded to the next version (which occurred in 1.1.1) where things totally stopped working.

Apple never deliberately tried to break anyone with an unlock, it just so happens that the unlockers had damaged their seczones and prevented the update from being applied cleanly.

Here's an idea...

[awyeah]

If you don't like how AT&T and/or Apple operate... go to Verizon and/or buy a BlackBerry or something.

* Don't get me wrong, I agree - if Apple bricked the devices on purpose, that's pretty bad - and at the very least the policies should have been spelled out clearly in the first place - every other phone on AT&T can be unlocked with a short call to customer service.