New gov't rules allow unapproved iPhone apps

[Nathan Explosion]

WASHINGTON — Owners of the iPhone will be able to break electronic locks on their devices in order to download applications that have not been approved by Apple. The government is making that legal under new rules announced Monday.
The decision to allow the practice commonly known as "jailbreaking" is one of a handful of new exemptions from a federal law that prohibits the circumvention of technical measures that control access to copyrighted works. Every three years, the Library of Congress authorizes such exemptions to ensure that existing law does not prevent non-infringing use of copyrighted material.
Another exemption will allow owners of used cell phones to break access controls on their phones in order to switch wireless carriers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38413597/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/

You think the Droid X will fall under this ruling too?

[Cry Havoc]

So does this mean Apple has to stop creating security methods that prevent jailbreaking? Does this also mean that jailbreaking will not void the warranty? Interesting, if true. These past ~40 days have not been kind to Steve Jobs. :lol

[phyzik]

This law is valid for any cell phone. Not just the iPhone.

Other exemptions announced Monday allow people to break protections on video games to investigate or correct security flaws; allow college professors, film students and documentary filmmakers to break copy protection measures on DVDs to embed clips for educational purposes, criticism, commentary and noncommercial videos; and allow computer owners to bypass the need for external security devices (dongles) if the hardware no longer works and cannot be replaced.

[Nathan Explosion]

So does this mean Apple has to stop creating security methods that prevent jailbreaking? Does this also mean that jailbreaking will not void the warranty? Interesting, if true. These past ~40 days have not been kind to Steve Jobs. :lol

Jailbreaking does void the warranty. If your phone is deemed to be altered, then Apple doesn't have to honor the warranty. It's like modding your 360.

[LnGrrrR]

Woot! A win for freedom!

[leemajors]

So does this mean Apple has to stop creating security methods that prevent jailbreaking? Does this also mean that jailbreaking will not void the warranty? Interesting, if true. These past ~40 days have not been kind to Steve Jobs. :lol

I believe HTC has the exact same stance on hacking and rooting that Apple does.

[Cry Havoc]

I believe HTC has the exact same stance on hacking and rooting that Apple does.

Except that an Android phone out of the box is far more open to modding and alternative programs than an iPhone. You can customize just about anything you want with Android out of the box, all with approved programs. I'm not even using HTC's Sense launcher to operate my phone now.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Cool ruling but I think apple will be unfazed by it. Maybe crank out more JB breakers with each update.

[leemajors]

Except that an Android phone out of the box is far more open to modding and alternative programs than an iPhone. You can customize just about anything you want with Android out of the box, all with approved programs. I'm not even using HTC's Sense launcher to operate my phone now.

that doesn't mean they like it:

http://gizmodo.com/5566747/htc-cracks-down-on-rom-hackers-with-cease-and-desist-letter

[MiamiHeat]

Apple has no right to tell anyone what to do with their product once they buy it.

Imagine if Ford partnered with Shell, and added safeguards so their engines could only use a specific brand of Shell oil.

What Apple is trying to do with ATT exclusivity is anti-competitive. Grounds for a Sherman anti-trust case, imo.

[Cry Havoc]

that doesn't mean they like it:

http://gizmodo.com/5566747/htc-cracks-down-on-rom-hackers-with-cease-and-desist-letter

What do I care about whether a company likes what I do with MY property? I care what I can do with my purchasing power. With Apple I'm forced to jailbreak it to enable functions I want. A root on an Android is less than necessary. Still cool, but unnecessary.

[leemajors]

Apple has no right to tell anyone what to do with their product once they buy it.

Imagine if Ford partnered with Shell, and added safeguards so their engines could only use a specific brand of Shell oil.

What Apple is trying to do with ATT exclusivity is anti-competitive. Grounds for a Sherman anti-trust case, imo.

AT&T sells through plenty of other carriers, just not in the US. Besides that, every carrier has exclusive phones - EVO for Sprint, etc. Apple or any company has the right to enforce the terms of their limited warranty - you agree explicitly to a company's terms and conditions when you buy their product with a manufacturer's warranty, and it's your fault for not reading it if you violate those terms. It's a perfectly legal binding agreement everyone takes for granted. Besides, that's why companies have Customer Relations/Service departments. A lot of them are reasonable if you state your case in the right manner.

[ducks]

Apple has no right to tell anyone what to do with their product once they buy it.

Imagine if Ford partnered with Shell, and added safeguards so their engines could only use a specific brand of Shell oil.

What Apple is trying to do with ATT exclusivity is anti-competitive. Grounds for a Sherman anti-trust case, imo.

microsoft has lots of rules
with their software

[MiamiHeat]

AT&T sells through plenty of other carriers, just not in the US. Besides that, every carrier has exclusive phones - EVO for Sprint, etc. Apple or any company has the right to enforce the terms of their limited warranty - you agree explicitly to a company's terms and conditions when you buy their product with a manufacturer's warranty, and it's your fault for not reading it if you violate those terms. It's a perfectly legal binding agreement everyone takes for granted. Besides, that's why companies have Customer Relations/Service departments. A lot of them are reasonable if you state your case in the right manner.

That didn't save Standard Oil or Microsoft. User Agreements don't decide rulings in an anti-trust case.

[leemajors]

That didn't save Standard Oil or Microsoft. User Agreements don't decide rulings in an anti-trust case.

So you want an antitrust case vs every major carrier and handset manufacturer?

[leemajors]

http://gizmodo.com/5598829/new-android-copy-protection-has-apps-calling-home

[Nathan Explosion]

I just got my IPhone delivered about 30 minutes ago. I'm contemplating whether I should have it jailbroken or not. I think I may wait a bit at the very least.

[ElNono]

The ruling merely creates an exception in the anti-circunvention provision of the DMCA for cases of interoperability. That is, you now don't need to fear of being sued by Apple under that statute of the DMCA if you decided to circumvent the digital signing mechanism in order to run an unsigned application.

However, Apple can still deny you warranty or snoop in and trash your jailbroken device if it so chooses. They can also sue you in court for breach of contract.

Don't forget that both Android OS and iOS are licensed to users, not sold. When you say MY property, you're talking about the device, not the software. If you ever actually bothered to read the software license, you would know that you don't own the software, that modifying or reverse engineering the software is prohibited, and that the company reserves the right to modify or end the license at any time they choose to do so, among other things in the fine print.

Now, what this does certainly do, is to make completely legal to take the hardware, jailbreak it and install, say, linux on it. Which is insane that was illegal to begin win.

[LnGrrrR]

Now, what this does certainly do, is to make completely legal to take the hardware, jailbreak it and install, say, linux on it. Which is insane that was illegal to begin win.

Exactly. And that's what most people wanted to do anyways. I don't think alot of iphone users were reverse engineering software. :)

[LnGrrrR]

AT&T sells through plenty of other carriers, just not in the US. Besides that, every carrier has exclusive phones - EVO for Sprint, etc. Apple or any company has the right to enforce the terms of their limited warranty - you agree explicitly to a company's terms and conditions when you buy their product with a manufacturer's warranty, and it's your fault for not reading it if you violate those terms. It's a perfectly legal binding agreement everyone takes for granted. Besides, that's why companies have Customer Relations/Service departments. A lot of them are reasonable if you state your case in the right manner.

Just because you sign to terms doesn't necessarily make those terms legal though. For instance, I could write up a contract putting you down as an indentured servant, and you could sign it of your own knowledge. That wouldn't make that contract legal.