7155492
story
Comments: 298 +- Apple: iPhone Owners Demand To See Apple Source Code on Friday November 20, @04:50PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Friday November 20, @04:50PM
from the you're-a-brick dept.
from the you're-a-brick dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topiccellphone.gif); width:75px; height:74px;
cellphones
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicdoj.gif); width:50px; height:79px;
court
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicapple.gif); width:52px; height:64px;
apple
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."
Related Stories
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.
-- William James
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
And I demand a pony and some ice cream! (Score:3, Insightful)
Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now, the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it. I'll bet a cookie that the terms of the service agreement let Apple & AT&T do more or less what ever they want with what is legally still their hardware.
So even if it comes out of all of this that the "bricking" was targeted, I doubt it will change anything in the end.
I agree (Score:2, Informative)
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 o
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you're referring to some official bit of information, but the rumor at the time of the first iPhone release was that Apple approached Verizon before AT&T, but Verizon wouldn't agree to Apple's terms. The terms included:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt this happened given that "at the time of the first iPhone release" and, just like now, the iPhone is a GSM based phone. Verizon is CDMA. These negotiations would have had to occur when Apple was designing the iPhone.
This doesn't invalidate the rest of the terms you describe. But, the iPhone would have needed to be designed for CDMA - you just can't swap out cellular systems like we can with a hard drive. The entire circuit board would need to be redesigned so that it would pass FCC certification
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bet a cookie that the terms of the service agreement let Apple & AT&T do more or less what ever they want with what is legally still their hardware.
No it's not. It was sold. So it is NOT their hardware. How hard is this to understand. If you do not wish to sell the hardware make sure that you specify that it is NOT sold, so the consumer is not under the impression that he bought it!!!!!
I want my cookie now....
and we may just get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now,
That doesn't make it right. In fact, in many countries, what Apple is doing with the iPhone is illegal and Apple must sell them without a contract, or unlocked with a contract.
I'll bet a cookie that the terms of the service agreement let Apple & AT&T do more or less what ever they want with what is legally still their hardware.
Legally? Are you kidding? You paid for the phone, it's yours. Yes, even with a contract, because if you break the co
and a pony (Score:4, Funny)
Dear Apple:
Please also include a pony with the next release of the iphone software.
kthxbi,
iPhone owners
Re:and a pony (Score:5, Funny)
Theres an app for that. iQuestrian Sports
Parent
careful what you wish for (Score:5, Funny)
That pony included with your iPhone will only eat iFood, use iWater, and can only be housed in iStable. Unfortunately, all of which must be purchased from Apple as well.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, all of which must be purchased from Apple as well.
And will be overpriced... sorry, I mean will have "high end features" and "really good support." ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the pony is doomed to die. Even if the pony doesn't die of thirst waiting for iWater to be approved, it will starve because Apple quite possibly maybe think about implementing an app with similar features in the future, so they rejected iFood.
Good luck with that (Score:2)
Shooting the moon or their foot (Score:2)
They have to know that they're never going to get the source code. A) It'd be an incredibly earth-shattering precedent, and B) it's beside the point to what they're charging. It doesn't matter of Apple and AT&T colluded to brick one hacked phone, odd-numbered hacked-phones, or even hacked phones on Verizon's network. If the issue is the practice of tying the purchase of an iPhone to the purchase of an AT&T service plan, the source code is not relevant. It's a contractual question, not a technical
Re:Shooting the moon or their foot (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure it'd be totally irrelevant. If you'd go so far as to brick my phone as an "f-you" to protect your partners network exclusivity, I'd guess that maybe that's an argument for unfair collusion of the antitrust sort? I am not a lawyer, of course.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"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 discover
Antitrust? How? And copyright cancellation? WTF? (Score:2)
So, yeah, the iPhone's great and everything, but I don't think Apple has even 20% of the smartphone market. 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?
Not only that -- why exactly would relief by gained by Apple turning over the source to the iPhone OS? Canceling copyright is pretty serious business, there'd better be a pretty compelling reason to do it, both in terms of justifying the cancellation and str
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
The demand for the source code isn't as a remedy, its a disc
Hahahahaha! (Score:5, Interesting)
Good luck with that (Score:2)
Wasted effort in the wrong place. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not force the carriers to offer official unlocks for all currently locked phones?
I've been making some humble efforts on behalf of my fellow Canadians with Fido and the CRTC.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=817293 [macrumors.com]
I was able to get as far as getting a phone call from the office of the president of my carrier Fido. If enough people did the same with their carriers and their country's regulatory body, we might actually get somewhere.
Re:Wasted effort in the wrong place. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. This is not really Apple's fault. Jobs famously called a meeting of wireless execs who were trying to "sell" him, "orifices." The way that he got things pushed through with the iPhone was by offering an exclusive. If it became illegal to have exclusives, this would be a boon to Apple, because then they could get out from under AT & T and sell to anyone on any carrier. It would be a boon to every handset manufacturer.
The issue here is not Apple or the iPhone or even AT & T; it's the US's ridiculous lack of regulations on this market (same thing in Japan, where I live, though). The carriers need to get the hell out of the handset market and just do their damned orifice jobs. They want to be retailers, but they are very obviously utility companies. This and net neutrality are basically the same thing: Utility companies aspiring to be retailers or content companies. They need to be smacked down as the knuckle-draggers they are.
Parent
You need the source code to determine this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? You need the source code to determine the phone was locked into a carrier?
How about reading the service agreement.
1.1.1 brick not purposeful (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The *entire point* of this story is that they want to see the source code so they can discover if that's the case or not.
Re:First brick (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No kidding. The day Apple has to hand over their source code? That’d be a cold day in Hell...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily [wikipedia.org]. According to Dante, the ninth circle of Hell is a frozen wasteland reserved for the most severe traitors and betrayers.
Now, if only the Beltway [wikipedia.org] were the first circle, then the Capitol/White House would be the ninth... damn traitors to the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
cold indeed as frosty as the sheen on brushed aluminum.
It doesn't seem that unlikely to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is known that this update caused problems on these phones. If it was intentional it would (supposedly) be a violation of the law. Assuming the judge thinks that the plaintiff's case has merit, and Apple cannot provide any other sort of evidence to the contrary, then it seems perfectly reasonable for the him to require that code be submitted as evidence. That doesn't mean that it will be open to the world, just to those people involved in the case who need to see it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
However, needing to manually do firmware updates can be a hassle. But I think its worth it.
Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, consider the following formulation: You buy a product. It's your property. The person who sold it to you doesn't like the way you're using it, so they break the product you bought. They don't compensate you for your lost product or offer a refund.
Are you of the opinion that this is generally acceptable behavior on the part of the vendor?
Now yes, it's more complicated than that. You have software licensing terms, and you have warranty terms. People arguably broke their own phones while voiding their warranty. And IIRC, Apple wasn't very strict about refusing to replace bricked phones.
Parent
Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine (Score:5, Insightful)
You buy a product. It's your property. The person who sold it to you doesn't like the way you're using it, so they break the product you bought.
Consider further: before buying the product, the vendor offers to pay for half of the product (making it much more accessible) if you sign a contract to use it the way they tell you to use it, for two whole years.
I'm not an Apple fanboy by any stretch, but people shouldn't sign the contract if they don't agree to the terms. 'Nuff said.
Parent
Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd take it one farther than that. Consider also: Years down the road, AT&T gets out of the wireless phone business. Your iPhone still works great, and you're really attached to it. Even though the contract is expired and the service provider who's interests were being protected is defunct, you STILL cannot make use of something YOU legally own.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm an Electrical Engineer with two kids. I have never owned a cell phone and I have never missed having one. I've been offended by the "go fuck yourself" fees that the carriers put on the bills. 911 / system access / wireless access -- they're all just bullshit fees that only go to the bottom line. So really, anyone with a cell is a victim of marketing. (You might as well be wearing Axe.)
I've been called out on not owning a cell more than once -- "What? your wife could go into labour at any moment and you don't have a cell?"
"She knows where I am and they have a phone here."
"What if there's an emergency?"
"If it's big enough, cells won't work. Just out of curiousity, do you have pre-arranged meeting areas if there IS a big emergency? Do you have 72 hours of food and water at your house?"
Parent
Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that anyone who jailbroke their phone was an idiot for allowing updates.
On the other hand, the difference between "Ooops, your changed binary got patched in the wrong place" and "if AuthenticBinary() then NukeDevice() else Patch()" is roughly the same as what happens to a burglar when he steps on the broken glass after breaking into my house Vs me planting bear traps next to each of my windows.
The first is schadenfreude, the latter legally actionable.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Doh!
InAuthentic()
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mantrapping is illegal (Score:3, Informative)
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 sa
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Regardless, if Apple and AT&T are guilty of anti-trust law violations, it only seems appropriate that their products are what expose them.
Did it ever occur to you that the EULA could have been DESIGNED to obscure such violations?
EULAs are bullshit. Corporations use them to deny customers LEGAL rights, intentionally complicate them with endless legalese, obfuscate their own questionable actions, and very often, use them as a place to bury shit that they simply do not want the customer to know yet are com
Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine (Score:5, Insightful)
On numerous occasions I have seen people get frustrated when installing an App/Game.
"What the fuck? The "agree" button is all grayed out. It won't let me click it!"
The problem? The developers made it so you had to actually scroll down the slider on the EULA before the "accept" button was functional. In short, they were frustrated because they DID NOT READ THE EULA, even after the the developers attempted to get them to do exactly that.
I once wrote a paper for a class on the very subject, "accept" buttons and EULAs. I followed up by doing a short poll of the class(hand up, or not) by asking a simple question.
"Do you read the EULAs provided with products?"
Not a single hand went up out of approx. 25 students. Take that as you will. I take it as just another reason why EULAs are totally ineffective in terms of what they are supposed to achieve, and as such, should be abandoned for such purposes.
Furthermore, I asked the students WHY they did not read the EULAs. Number one answer?
"I paid for it, what does it matter?"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Same concept between the modded xboxes and this (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe there is an important difference:
XBox: Hack xbox, get banned from server (offline only).
iPhone: Hack iphone, phone no longer boots at all.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
(P.S.: Posting this from my new iMac).
Smug son of a bitch...
Re: (Score:2)
27"? FFS, he has reason to be... I want one of those too :P
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In response/support to what I was saying, a true competitive market is as this:
Some companies make phones
Some companies offer service
That's it. The europeans do it well. I loved it when I lived there. My phone had a swiss number, a german number, and an italian number. All depending on which SIM card I put in it. I paid for minutes and texts as I used them.
Why oh why is the american business model becoming "do as much anti-trust as you can, abuse the consumer, and pay penalties if you're caught".
WHY?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't own an iphone, but I know I signed no such licensing agreement when I bought my xbox360. I'm betting if MS actually bricked xbox360s they'd be in a lot more [legal] trouble.