did it ever occur to anyone that it’s purely optional to use low-quality gimmicky toys that don’t wholly belong to the consumer even after they’re being PAID FOR?

I would expect that in fact it’s not legal here – just as it’s not legal to use an imported phone – any modification means it hasn’t been verified by our communications board. It’s not “illegal” because no one has pressed the matter.

Furthermore I didn’t need to jailbreak my phone.

Here’s simply why the claim is false.

The terrorists need the towers to work.

BTW, what really bugs me about the iPhone is that it can’t be unlocked without a flashing the baseband. If I buy a phone, I’d like to use it after I switch services. The iPhone is a disposable device because after you’re done with it, you simply throw it away.

Not to mention that it is a MONSTROUS jump from Apple saying that hackers could cause a lot of problems, to saying that apple said that terrorists will use their jailbroken phones as remote detonators via a crashed AT&T tower.

Apple stated the obvious and does make them weak when using that in an argument. When you read the whole docket, it wasn’t the sole basis of their argument; hell it wasn’t more than the small blurb that was included here. (It’s located on page 12 in the 3rd paragraph if you need help finding it.)

And FYI this docket was questions that were asked of Apple by the US Copyright Office. Apple answered the questions citing cases and reasoning as to why they have a right to protect an defending their operating system from copyright infringement since they are the owners. iPhone users are simply licensees of the OS and upon purchase of the iPhone we agree not to alter the OS.

It can’t be had both ways – you can’t read between the lines and then not read the entire story.

So how many Metallica fans are still out there??? I betcha you still illegally download their music…

Now, they seem to be relying on protectionist measures to try and lock everybody into their store when really the store experience should be what is bringing people there.

I think there is one comment here from someone who may know about cell towers and their baseband processors.

Apple are covering themselves against liability. They may also benefit commercially from this. They would be stupid and negligent not to do this. If you were in a responsible position in Apple and didn’t do this, you would be sacked.

‘The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 says “no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” But under the law, every three years the Librarian of Congress and the Copyright Office must consider the public’s requests for exemptions to that anti-circumvention language.

Apple also claimed that jailbreaking would pave the way for hackers to alter the Exclusive Chip Identification number that identified the phone to the cell tower, which could enable calls to be made anonymously. Apple said “this would be desirable to drug dealers.”’

it’s good to know people has a voice, apple is trying to protect itself (despite the stupid language) and that is good for i guess it’s investors although i don’t agree with the “closed” concept, and BEST of all: Apple IS Looking OUT for YOU the customer. people fail to realize that national security is at risk, and apple will be at the fore trying to convince the law to work for you. what a bunch of BS. lol. apple iphone users apparently are law breakers, a threat to national security, and drug dealers. who knew apple was so well versed in pissing off customers. i thought everyone was on the bandwagon. don’t get me wrong i like apple enough…mostly the designers, but i’m disappointed.

lol. moral & business do not go hand in hand, and apple has a right to protect itself…which makes you think that other companies would support apple’s same line of reasoning.

this legal document is bs. people are breaking laws left right and center, legal or otherwise. they should have paid the lawyers more money to have said this a different way.

“core” was referring back to previous article and a play on words.

anyways it’s both at&fail and apples fault, but i guess it’s interesting to see at&t standing up for itself and pointing the finger right back to the core of the problem. i mean if apple doesn’t want to be with st&fail then they don’t have to. people thought verizon was bad…and now this…i guess the future carrier has no chance. i agree with ending exclusitivity. it’s all a learning experience though…hopefully.

actually if i was an apple fan, although noticing that the apple legal team is trying to force an issue by being preemptive and hoping that no one actually understand anything, i would give apple a hand for trying to protect their apple store and the developers they work with…but this is complete bs and even if there are good intentions behind this (which i doubt) i think they did themselves a disservice. i’m going to read the legal doc and maybe it’ll shed some light on why people are paid to be stupid. i mean i can be hired for no money if that’s the qualification.

wait so they’ve used this reasoning before?????!!!! sh*t. i was about to give that 45 page pdf a chance because i wanted to torture myself but also get a good laugh, and now i don’t think i will be reading that right now (maybe later)…have they used this reasoning more than a couple times? anyone speak apple-legal?

Oh yeah because they aren’t a shitty service like AT&T.