14 Feb 2009
Apple has spoken out in the debate over whether users should be allowed to 'jail-break' mobile phones.
The controversial process involves removing hardware or software protections that limit the handset to a single carrier or software service.
Apple issued a filing in response to a campaign led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to create a new safe harbour under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for mobile phone users.
The proposed exemption would allow users to remove software installation restrictions on their handsets. The procedure was popular in the early days of the iPhone, when users were not yet given an official option for installing and running third-party software on the device.
Apple has yet to pursue any legal action against users or developers for creating and running jail-breaking software, but has always discouraged the practice.
The company has long noted that the process will void the iPhone's warranty and that hacked phones could be damaged by subsequent software updates.
But Apple now appears to be taking a stronger stand by lodging an official complaint with the US Patent and Trademark Office.
"Apple is opposed to the proposed exemption because it will destroy the technological protection of Apple's key copyrighted computer programs in the iPhone device itself, and of copyrighted content owned by Apple that plays on the iPhone, resulting in copyright infringement, potential damage to the device and other potential harmful physical effects, adverse effects on the functioning of the device, and breach of contract," the company wrote in its official filing.
"The proponents of the exemption have also not satisfied their burden of proof of showing harm to non-infringing uses of the copyrighted works protected by the technological protection measures on the iPhone."
After receiving word of Apple's complaint, the EFF issued a statement of its own, blasting the company for what it called "absurd" arguments and "FUD" techniques.
"Apple casts its lot with the likes of laser printer makers and garage door opener companies who argue that the DMCA entitles them to block interoperability with anything that hasn't been approved in advance," wrote EFF senior attorney Fred von Lohmann.
"But we'd never accept this corporate paternalism as a justification for welding every car hood shut and imposing legal liability on car buffs tinkering in their garages."
Latest stories from Communications
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Hands on with the highly anticipated Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich hybrid tablet
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
(Roc Search - Network Support Engineer, 2nd line, 3rd...
3rd Line Engineer / Infrastructure Engineer - Berkshire...
MySQL SQL SERVER DBA / Database Administrator - Online...
PMO Analyst - Banking Client A financial organisation...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
Release a SIM free version apple
Apple don't license any of their other hardware with one specific computer retailer, so why the iPhone? The reason they have not spoken out before is because they had the best of both worlds, getting the money from the network operators and through increased sales due to jail-breaking. Why rock the boat now? To increase awareness of jail-breaking, to further increase sales? Why don't they release an any network / unlocked version of the iPhone if they are that bothered. Simon
Posted by: Simon Smith 07 Apr 2009
Antitrust Issue?
Isn't this similar to the antitrust lawsuits won against Microsoft forcing them to open up their code to 3rd parties? As for being able to use other carriers I can only point to the fact the being tied to a paticular carrier is unique to the USA though Apple has been forcing this outside the USA with the iPhone. When I'm in Hong Kong I buy a 3 or China Telcom SIM and have a local number for all my in laws to call. Why shouldn't I have that choice.
Posted by: David 05 Apr 2009
The point of jailbraking
In the case of automobiles the Magnuson-Moss act protects the warrenty on your vehicle if you service it yourself or have it serviced by your own mechanic. The Magnuson-Moss act is a law put in place because any idiot should be able to tell that if you are only changing your oil and your rear differiential fails that the diff is covered by warrenty. As usual its only the corperate idiots and dont understand this common sense. Magnuson-Moss doesnt cover customer caused damage which is also common sense. This is common sense thing people. Likewise if you purchased an IPhone you should be able to put it on any cellular provider you want you paid for it with your money. Apple isnt giving away the IPhone for free and forcing you to use the ISP/Cell network you their choice; Are they? You pay for the phone. You use it on the network of your choice. Common Sense. Thats the beauty of GSM.
Posted by: Tom 16 Feb 2009
what?
"But we'd never accept this corporate paternalism as a justification for welding every car hood shut and imposing legal liability on car buffs tinkering in their garages." what? and if you totally messed with your car's engine and made it unsafe... you think the maker of the car should still cover the warranty?
Posted by: hypertrout 14 Feb 2009
False comparatives don't enlighten the debate.
How many cylinders does your iPhone have?
Posted by: Jay 14 Feb 2009
Jailbreaking
If the Apple co. didnt want people jailbreaking this software badly enough they wouldnt put it on the iPhone to begin with. (taking up space)
Posted by: Kolino 14 Feb 2009