While I agree with the EFF, you can't try and say it doesn't work because it'll fall apart as a business model in another industry.

The problem with EFF's analogy is that many of those things they atate ARE infact illegal in many states unless you get wavers thanks to emissions laws.

And ALL unless done by the manufacturer themselves would absolve said manufacturer from supporting the vehicle.

What EFF was trying to do in the original filing was say that Jailbreaking should be legal and Apple should continue to SUPPORT a jailbroken phone.

Apple is just responding to this claim.

Apple doesnt expect to win, BUT Apple is hoping they will toss out EFFs claim too. What they are looking for is for no ruling basically, which is different than illegal, but allow them to continue to not support people who hack their phones.

Let'em have their way.

At the end of the day the consumer will determine which is the better mousetrap.

Personally I will buy from the company which is progressive and supports my freedom of choice rather than Apple.

@Jim Topoleski: This is flatly untrue. A DMCA exception does not require Apple to continue to support the phones.

@Jim Topoleski: Actually, in those states you refer too, it's illegal *IF* you run it on public roads. There is nothing illegal in buying a Miata, making modifications and running it on the local track.

Additionally, using the car analogy is even better than you think, because it shares a similarity to the phone problem. Back when automakers began to use computers in their cars and could run diagnostics, they attempted to block/hide access to this, to force car owners to return to dealerships for these costly diagnostics.

Because of government pressure to open this up, there are now many companies that specialize in re-mapping these computers for enthusiasts, not to mention your ability to buy the necessary tools to run diagnostics on your own car.

If Apple only allowed for-fee apps on the iPhone, I'd be howling w/ the rest of the deluge of Apple-haters to follow. But they DO allow garage developers to offer their free apps to Touch/iPhone users, gratis. They even pay the bandwidth charges, admin and the costs of certifying. These aren't insignificant costs, but they shoulder them anyway. Apple wants a clean ecosystem on their platform that's fair to all developers.
And, considering they've had two or three years to sue jailbreak-enabling developers and haven't, they have no interest in doing so (lords know they have the legal firepower in reserve). They're fine with keeping it a gray area. But the EFF lawsuit changes things in a way that forces them to act, similar to when someone comes out with a trademark-infringing product advertised widely.

If someone wants to develop an open system, there are those available, but Apple's isn't it. But a whining few want the openness of Android, when buying an iPhone, and the EFF lawsuit wants to enshrine this "right" into law. Which doesn't seem fair. Especially considering non-profit, small developers are already supported in Apple's ecosystem.

It comes across as a bit heavy, but I can see the rationalization. If you want a truly open system, don't buy Apple. If you want a more stable, elegant, safer one, buy Apple - consumers have obviously voiced which they prefer, given Apple's high sales numbers.

Finally, anyone want to be that if a trojan came out thru this "liberated" scheme, the media would accurately point out the facts? Nope. It'd be Apple Virus Destroys the World! That's unfair.

@Corporate-Shill: dont forget the Apple fanboys who will support their company no matter what Apple does...

i think that consumers should be able to do whatever with thier phones after buying them... otherwise it'll be considered renting...

My wife and I were discussing getting iPhones in the near future but positions such as Apples makes me question if I want to support their company with my money.

Their position, effectively, is they still own the phone via copyright protection and determine exactly what you can do with it, period. How many consumers would be accepting of that position in other products they purchased:
- Televisions that could ONLY be used with comcast.
- Cars that could ONLY be fueled by BP gas, not Amoco.
- CD players that would ONLY play music released by Sony Records.
- Radios that would only play Clear Channel stations.

People would not be accepting of that.

It is also common knowledge if I put a supercharger on my on my LeSabre that I have voided my engine warranty, that does not give license for Buick to then remove my super charger and set it back to stock - which Apple would propose to do via their updates.

Eventually Tyson will put copyrights on their chicken dictating it can only be used in Enchiladas.

Ridiculous.

This is just one more thing that makes me wonder why there are so many apple fanboys. I have nothing against their products aside from their absurd prices. But why does apple keep pulling this kind of stuff? Let the people buy your overpriced hardware and do what they wish. Stop micromanaging everything and artificially inflating your prices.

I can't actually see Apple prosecuting based on this, but who knows what they will do at this point...

I guess I must be too old. I remember a time when what you bought was yours. Unequivocally. That meant if you wanted to open it up, rearrange it's innards, or cannibalize it to make it into something else, you could. Folks that did it were thought of as hobbyists, or weekend DIYers.

This whole business of telling me what I can't do with a item I purchased is pretty irritating. If I want to deep fry it, breaded, and use it as an art piece, that should be fine. If I want to add apps, at my own risk, from a friend, I should be able to do that too.

@Jim Topoleski: "What they are looking for is for no ruling basically, which is different than illegal, but allow them to continue to not support people who hack their phones."

If that is the case then why are they also pushing for financial rewards and jail time.

I am quite familiar with voiding warranties on multiple products - bicycles, cars, stereo equipment, computers, boats, etc, - simply by working on them myself and frequently making them do what they were never intended to but none of those manufacturers have protections that would put me in jail or fine me for doing so; they simply refuse to support the product, as should apple.

I agree with those above that indicate that this isn't a battle that Apple even wanted. The evidence seems to indicate that they were fine turning a blind eye to the jailbreaking (so long as those who jailbroke didn't seek support). The EFF started the fight, and Apple probably has an obligation (to their shareholders) to respond. Not responding, or responding and saying "Ok" could set a dangerous precedent. Apple also has some obligation under the copyright laws to defend/protect their copyrights or potentially lose protection.

@calacak: Aren't the jailbroken phones being run on AT&T's roads, though? I guess you can jailbreak one and use it on a different network, too, but there's also iTunes and the App Store which would be Apple's "roads" in this analogy. I'm not sure what damage an unlocked phone could do there, perhaps run malicious software that's transmitted to and infects other iPhones, or mess up the wireless networks. Personally, I don't care if other people modify their cars, unless the modifications make the cars less safe, and more likely to injure others in an accident. The same goes for jailbroken phones.

@Jim Topoleski:

Actually, none of them absolve the manufacturer from supporting the vehicle under warranty UNLESS they can prove that the work or the addition of aftermarket parts caused the fault. By law.

THE DMCA SAYS YOU CAN HACK / UNLOCK your phone to use on any network

@Heresy Of Truth:
Part of Apple's argument is that your modifications to the phone software could potentially cause problems across the entire network, justifying the limitations. I'm not necessarily saying I agree, but there is some merit to the argument that you knew what you were getting when you bought the phone.

@Trai_Dep: And they not only have the absolute final say in which programs get added to their store, they have a track record of not allowing some programmers to use undocumented features, while letting others do so.
They haven't sued the jailbreakers for several reasons, for example, no one is profiting from it (well, besides those that jailbreak your phone for a fee, different matter entirely).
And if you want the best of both worlds, you're SOL? That hardly seems fair.
Hyperbole, They never once blamed Microsoft directly for spam or popups or viruses that have hit more people than all of the ip* combined.

@Joeb5:
Jailbreak != unlock. Unlocking it to work on another carrier isn't the same as jailbreaking it to run other applications. That said, AFAIK, you have to jailbreak the iPhone to unlock it .

@Pylon83:
I would argue many consumers are not sophisticated enough to know what the limitations are, and I am certain Apple are not making great efforts express those limitations at time of purchase. Certainly they will will you all the great things you CAN do with your new phones while not telling you everything you CANNOT.

So far, Heresy Of Truth has my support.

@DaleM:
While not a perfect counter-argument, the people who are seeking to jailbreak are sophisticated enough to know what the limitations are, and they are the ones claiming harm.

EFF is right. Apple can refuse to support a "jailbreaked" phone, and even not cover it with a warranty. Make it a crime? Copyright law is totally out of control when "copyright violation" is a crime (and I know we've already started down that slippery slope). Copyright violation should be a civil matter, just like patent violations.

@Irashtar: But people - correctly - point out that Windows is inherently less safe than Linux or OS X alternatives, since the latter two were designed, from inception, to be safe. Jailbreakers open a yawning back door, which Apple doesn't want enshrined into law.
And, it's not a Best of Both Worlds - people buy Apple because it's a controlled environment (although they lack the vocabulary to see it as such). They're inimical. Want totally open? Buy Android. Done! :)

@DaleM: Ya, that's one of the reasons my wife and I got G1s. I've got the hacked version with multitouch running and neither Google nor T-mobile care. I like the idea that I can write my own code and run it on there.

@taking_this_easy: I agree with you as long as you add the stipulation that the company is no longer responsible for supporting your phone when it comes to anything affected by changes you made.

@Trai_Dep: Well stated argument...and to be truthful, I could care less, because I don't even want a smart phone of any brand.

There are a couple holes in your argument, the only one of note though is that OS X and Linux are inherently "safer" than Windows. That is a myth. Truth be told, if OS X overtook windows in market share, or even broke into a 1/3 or the business machines that windows currently resides on, you would see a ginat wave of OS X viruses abound.

It is not worth the trouble of hackers to try and manipulate such a small number of machines, when power lies in quantity of bots at your disposal. That is why windows is always the target.

"if they circumvented copyright for a financial gain."

Technically according to that language if you do it to your iPhone, don't use any Apps from the Appstore you gain from jailbreaking, and don't switch carriers you're pretty much safe? Lol. So basically just customize your phone by jailbreaking is fine, since you're not exhibiting "financial gain" through just customizing? That's how I understand it though.
I'm thinking if Apple let people customizing their iPhone/iPod Touches more, there would be no real reason to jailbreak for except *ahem* "saving money." I know for myself, I've seen some custimizations that make jeailbreaking appealing.

This is pathetic. You bought the phone right? So since you OWN the phone you can do whatever the damn hell you want with it. They have a copyright case if you take their software and try to pawn it off as your own. Once you own something, it is yours. You can throw it away, burn it, stomp on it, wipe its hard drive, or *gasp* put freeware/shareware on it if you chose. It is YOUR phone not apples.

If apples says no, you don't own it and you only "lease" it then I would suggest you find another company/phone to do business with because they don't respect your rights as a consumer.

@DaleM: I'm amazed anybody still drives a LeSabre.

Lol I hope that they are successfull, and then all the apple sheeple can walk around with their glazed over eyes, using all their MEMEphones exactly the same way. Thats progress

@ojzitro: Picture this, you're a snot-nosed, wannabe virus artiste. Sharpening your mad hax0r skills you have a choice btn being the guy that wrote the 5,478th virus on Windows, or the first to write one on either OS X or Linux, which would you choose?
You'd do the latter.
Then cry bitter, bitter tears as these robust, well-engineered OSs slap back your puny, puny efforts with ease. Because, a decade ago, software engineers who forgot more than you will ever learn, architected an OS right.
So, wiping the tears from your downy cheeks, you gather yourself, then become the proud (?) artiste of the 5,478th virus to hit Windows. This week.

@Trai_Dep: Oh, thanks for your comment, tho. Much appreciated. (got carried away in describing my scenario to give you props!)

It seems to me that Apple is applying to hardware what the RIAA has been applying to CDs and music. The idea that though you possess a physical item (a CD or an Iphone), that you don't actually OWN it, only the right to use it as they see fit.

Apple is not going to be going after end users for those fines, period. The real story here is that EFF wants Jailbreaking to be permitted under the DMCA and they also want Apple to permit applications to be loaded outside the App Store without Apple's control. EFF is the one here seeking change. We have no reason to believe Apple wants to do anything differently now than they did before.

Read source articles on stuff like this.

@Trai_Dep: UNIX based OS systems are a harder nut to crack indeed, and script kiddies do not have the chops, and pros do not have the financial motivation. That does not mean you will not see a rise in attempts, as the OS gains in popularity.

[news.zdnet.com]

@ojzitro: It really is a conundrum, it will never proven, or disproven without a giant shift in computing platforms. Say if.....Apple sold a PC version of their OS.

@scottr0829:

Same thing GM, Toyota etc say with regards to aftermarket parts and add-ons.

@Jim Topoleski: Why does California feel like they're so special anyway? All this jumping through hoops and making different versions of car models just for California to feel better about itself while not helping the ultimate problem!

Apple has serious issues. I have read of all kinds of problems with the iPhone on this very site. There is a very easy solution to this problem...stop buying Apple products and they will stop this nonsense.

But the question is. Do you really own the phone at all; or are you really just leasing it in such a way that it makes you feel like you bought it but you really just have a lease that lets you physically keep the phone, but Apple still retains ownership. TorrentFreak (above) is right. But the fact remains, if the lawsuit is true, the you don't actually own the phone, you are leasing it with license to use, or destroy but never modify.

I've never been an Apple customer, and with them doing crap like this, I never will be, either.

I'm not sure with the 3G phones if they get them to do this or not anymore but with the original iPhone when you were activating it with AT&T you had to accept the iPhones Software License agreement and it does talk about jailbreaking and such.

[images.apple.com]

@Trai_Dep: Actually they still restrict the free ones if they do something for which Apple charges (like ITunes for example) or anything they just don't like (regardless of harm/bad intensions).

They are selling a portable computer. They don't have a right to regulate what we put on it unless they are actually renting it to us.

For all the clueless pro-Apple folks above, bear this in mind: Apple *already* have adequate protections for anything that happens to their phones as a result of jailbreaking.

If jailbreaking allows pirated apps to be installed, they can already prosecute those who supply the pirated apps.

If jailbreaking allows a virus to spread across a network, not only would it most likely only affect other jailbroken phones (thus reducing the desire to obtain one), but there are already well-practiced legal steps to take to prosecute virus authors.

If they're worried about quality and security issues, then they can refuse to service a jailbroken phone, just as the manufacturer of any item can refuse service if the item has been modified beyond factory build. So, Apple can rightly claim that a jailbroken phone is less secure and less valuable than a standard build.

So, why this crap about sending people to jail and fining them for opening up their own product? I don't get Nintendo or Microsoft sending the lawyers round, for instance, if I hack or modify their games consoles. They can make it difficult for me to obtain pirated games (and use existing protections to prosecute those who supply them), refuse to service my modified system, block online play or offer upgrades that won't work with a hacked system. So why are Apple so special that they need extra legal protection?

As ever, this is about a big company taking the lazy way out through the courts. They have an easy road to take to make jailbreaking undesirable for the majority of users - simply offer high quality, safe software through iTunes that meets the needs of the users. When their restrictions start blocking the useful software from legitimate channels (e.g. a last.fm client capable of scrobbling your library or the useful apps mentioned on EFF's post), that's when people turn to jailbreaking.

By the way, remember that this is about jailbreaking, not unlocking the phone. Also remember that while everything here refers to the iPhone, the iPod Touch is built on the same software and would thus be restricted in the same ways.

All I know is that if it wasn't for jailbreaking, I would have NEVER purchased an iPhone. However, I hate both BS&T and Apple, as both companies are unreasonably over priced and both companies like to over step their boundaries and tell you what to do. I thought this was America? When the hell did a corporation start getting more say than the people? I still can't believe they require you to bring your Social Security number when you want to buy an iPhone? WTF? It's just a stupid phone, not a weapon or a car!

Nevertheless, I own my iPhone, not Steve Jobs. The only thing Apple can say is that they created it, but once you sell it, you have no more say. Even if Apple comes out of the blue and says it's wants the government to make it punishable to jailbreak, it would never pass. It would make as much sense as Honda all of a sudden telling me that I can't put a turbo in my car or even better, convert it to run on veggie oil.

However, there is a big difference, and that is the specific consumer group that purchases that item. Let's face it, those of us who love open source and are tech savvy are a unique people. The average iPhone user is your stereotypical Starbucks Fashion Yupie who could care less about these restrictions, they just want an iPhone because it's "cool". These mindless consumers would not support a boycott and thus protesting for an open source world is hard :/

Long live Non-Restricting, Consumer Friendly Open Source/Freeware! <3 Mozilla! VLC! Ubuntu! :D

(As for those of you that say I shouldn't complain about Apple if I bought their phone at the ridiculous price of $700/500, know that I bought mines off some stranger for $150, in cash. No paper trail an NO contracts! I put the SIM card from a $15 Pre-Paid Motorola in it and I now love my iPhone (thx to the Dev team of course, bless those hooligans)

@aphexbr:
If you would actually read what it says, they are not pushing for people who jailbreak their phones to go to jail. The only time one would face the possibility of going to jail is if they circumvent the access protection for financial gain. You jailbreaking your personal phone does not fall within that. I'd recommend reading the actual text before jumping to conclusions.

@RichasB:
"Even if Apple comes out of the blue and says it's wants the government to make it punishable to jailbreak, it would never pass."

Apple doesn't need to "ask" the government to make is punishable. As far as they are concerned, it already is. The EFF apparrantly believes it probably is, hence they are asking for a specific exception from the DMCA. Your analogy to the Honda is also misplaced. You putting a Turbo on your Honda doesn't carry the possibility of causing problems for all of the other cars on the road. By modifying the iPhone to run untested apps, you (arguably) run the risk of causing problems for the ATT network and potentially spreading viruses. However far-fetched those concerns may be, they are legitimate concerns, and they are vastly different from the concerns of Turbo-Charging your Civic.

@RichasB: Curious why you didn't buy an Android. Not a compelling value proposition?
And, at $150, cash, from a street scalawag, is it, err, hot?

@scottr0829: But of course they don't. If Apple doesn't test all updates and hardware enhancements against 'broken iPhones (and the 'broken apps) and their 'broken iPhone is bricked, they're the first to loudly, shrilly complain. Forever.
And, regards the car analogy: it's a good one, but changing your carburetor won't blow your suspension. Not the case with closely-interrelated software like this.

If no one would buy their phones, they would change their tune real fast. Problem solved.