- Posts tagged legal
- Explore legal on posterous
Thoughts On Today's Ruling About "Legal" iPhone Jailbreaking [u]
First, Jailbreaking was never really illegal. If legality is what kept anyone from doing it I think they were misinformed. It was a gray area awaiting a ruling either way; Apple wanted the court to settle the question as to whether jailbreaking violated copyright, and they did, though not in Apple's way.
There is zero evidence to support Apple would have gone after individual jailbreakers (had the ruling gone the other way), any more than they go after one-off Hackintoshers.
I believe Apple wanted the shield of illegality not to go after geeks, hobbyists, etc., but rather to stop the unscrupulous who may now crawl out of the woodwork to make a quick buck on this.
I can practically see "Jailbreak Kits" for sale already. Their marketing copy gushing about how this once forbidden activity is now available to the general public. They'll publish a link to the Library of Congress statement that few will read and fewer will understand. They sure as heck won't dwell on the practice being unsupported, or that the next iOS release will likely kill it. Money in hand, they're off to the next sucker leaving their current "customers" yelling at Apple as if it's Apple's fault.
Finally, Apple will continue to "break" jailbreaks. Not only does the statement not mean Apple must allow the activity, but I believe every jailbreak so far relies on a security exploit. Of course Apple's going to plug that hole. They better.
[UPDATE:] See this excellent post for more information what today's copyright ruling really says.
A Reasonable Look at the Apple and AT&T iPhone4 Lawsuit.
Not surprising I suppose, the lawsuit makes no mention of the perhaps questionable judgements of the plaintiffs who bought the product(s) sight unseen.
The star witness as it turns out seem to be some unqualified blogging site diatribes as technical references.
Frankly as a former RF Engineer myself, I can tell you that the performance issues claimed are inconsistent. The demonstration tests ill-informed. And there are as many wireless network variables as there may be device variables.
The frenzy over this issue is ridiculous. How many class action suits is this for Apple this decade? 50? 100? And it's not just Apple.
The problem with these nonsense suits—I call this one nonsense based on their cited authorities and how they're playing it in the media—is that sooner or later they mask legitimate ones.
One is hard pressed to believe this firm is doing anything other than chasing a buck when three of the four links used in support of their initial statement about the "iPhone 4 investigation" are from Gizmodo. Bad enough to use blogs with questionable technical expertise in the first place, but citing one with a recent and obvious axe to grind against Apple seems the height of cluelessness. Meanwhile, the only non-Gizmodo link is to a rumors site. Lovely.
Oh well, I've seen stranger suits prevail (a spilled cup of coffee comes to mind). I guess that's why firms like Ambulance & Chaser, LLC. continue to try their luck.
Microsoft and HTC: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em
It gets weirder. Microsoft, in turn, would recieve royalties on every Google Android phone sold by HTC. So, for a few bucks per Android device, Microsoft gives HTC the ammunition it needs to fight off Apple in its patent disputes.
Despite public statements to the contrary, HTC must be concerned about the Apple lawsuit. Otherwise there's little reason to give Microsoft "a few bucks" per phone for, essentially, nothing. Windows Mobile is in terrible shape, so if Microsoft had any phone patents (i.e., "ammunition") worth having they'd have gone after the smartphone vendors themselves by now. They haven't.
Instead, I think Microsoft licensed HTC a bill of goods that looks good in a press release. Microsoft gets cash money for HTC phones sold, but doesn't have to dirty their hands with any legal battle that'll cost millions (and they're not confident in winning).
Sure, HTC can go back to Apple and say "See? We have these Microsoft patents, are you scared now?", but I think Apple will be unimpressed. Again, it looks good in a press release, and in tech pundits' columns, but all it'll likely do is stretch the case, and the cloud over HTC, out further, which is not a good thing for HTC.
I would think HTC tried first to cross-license with Apple (after all, they're the ones holding the patents HTC's alleged to be infringing), but Apple said no. Microsoft made overtures, HTC grabbed, and Microsoft laughs all the way to the bank.
San Francisco defense attorney would go after Gizmodo
"If I were prosecuting, I'd go after (any blogger who bought the phone) vigorously," said Michael Cardoza, a prominent San Francisco defense attorney and former prosecutor. "I'd fight them tooth and nail to see that they wouldn't get protection under the shield law. I'd play hardball in this case. They didn't find the phone as part of their reporting but instead bought property that they knew or should have known wasn't the property of the seller."
For all the opinions being posted about how Gizmodo should not be pursued, they can do what they want as journalists, the search warrant is illegal, etc., I thought I'd post an alternate opinion. Make of it what you will.
Patent Absurdity: The Movie
You don't want to miss the movie, regardless of your views on software patents. Even if you love them, you will at least understand why software programmers almost to a man do not.
Download it here.
