[MW Forums]

A UK company postpones plans to release iPhone unlocking software for fear of legal action. more

[SeaFox]

Prediction: If McLaughlin does intend to stand up to the legal pressure, which he should because (as many AT&T users on here would like you to not believe) unlocking a cell phone is legal, I expect AT&T to offer a very large sum for his product, then kill it as soon as they get it.
The only way this is is going to work and go mainstream is for it to developed without profit in mind (free) and be entirely done through software (no soldering irons involved). There may have to be an cough accidental leak of McLaughlin's code onto the 'Net.
Edit: Oh, and I think the outcome up to this point was entirely McLaughlin's plan. Had he been really serious about taking this on the market he would have done so and taken orders and started shipping immediately. The fact he pre-announced the product and then set a release time (or a deadline to put it another way) only shows he wanted AT&T and/or Apple to contact him beforehand. He was worried about a legal issue (even though he claimed he's in the clear) or was hoping to cut a deal.

[drimwit]

It all sounds a bit convinient, comming on the eve of . Does his exploit actually work? Does he have one at all, or is it just a publicity stunt? Anyone who claims they can unlock should be ingored until they have a shipping product. It's all so much vapourware.

[Gatesbasher]

Quote:

---

Prediction: If McLaughlin does intend to stand up to the legal pressure, which he should because (as many AT&T users on here would like you to not believe) unlocking a cell phone is legal

---

Anyone who thinks that when we buy a piece of hardware, we can be restricted in the choice of service providers, is drinking Bush's Kool-Aid. To even discuss whether anything like this is "legal" or "illegal" would be to give a totally unjustifiable impression that we give a crap one way or another; and with THIS administration in power, would actually constitute a crime against humanity.
Really, though, this is the most pathetic attempt since RCA put the big holes in 45 R.P.M. records. Can anyone imagine them threatening to sue anyone producing 45 R.P.M. adapters? Even then, everybody would have laughed in their face! I'm sure Apple has gotten what they wanted out of A.T.&T. If they lose their monopoly now, Apple will make noises of condolence, but come on, this is the real world, not A.T.&T.'s imagined 19th century Robber-Baron world that they (and Bill Gates) THINK they live in!

[k2director]

This guy thought to invest time and money into unlocking the iPhone, but didn't manage to think about what AT&T/Apple's legal response might be? Sheesh. Ever heard of looking before you leap, buddy?

[vfx2k4]

It's a finger in the dam. If one person figured out the unlock today, 20 will have by next month and 1,000 by the month after. AT&T can't sue everyone. Just don't try to sell it....

[Nobody]

Quote:

---

It's a finger in the dam. If one person figured out the unlock today, 20 will have by next month and 1,000 by the month after. AT&T can't sue everyone. Just don't try to sell it....

---

DOH!

[DarrenForbes]

Quote:

---

A UK company postpones plans to release iPhone unlocking software for fear of legal action. <a href="/news/2007/08/25/iphone_unlock/index.php">[more]</a>

---

A 'threatening' phone call in the middle of the night from a nameless man claiming to be from a law firm that might represent AT&T! How very John Grisham.
Now Uniquephones can't supply the product they haven't demonstrated to the half a million customers that they apparently have waiting in the wings.
Charge the customers 10 each. That's a clear 5 million. Plenty to fight a big case in the UK.
Of course, the product has to be real and not an attempt at publicity because others have beaten them to the punch.

[barakthecat]

Seriously, he has 550,000 people lined up? Isn't that about 1/2 the iPhone user base?

[CleveNettles]

The money to start up Apple was from ill gotten gains from the Blue Box that Steve and Steve received from selling Phone Hacks for $150 on Berkley's campus.
http://www.9to5mac.c...hones-234556455
Apple is going to have a REALLY hard time taking the moral high ground on this one!

[bjanz]

Here's an Ars Technica post, which includes a link to the PDF describing the proposed changes to the DMCA:
http://arstechnica.c...61124-8280.html

And here's a link to the accepted changes to the law:

http://www.copyright...6/71fr68472.pdf (look on pp 68476 about halfway down the middle column)
The long and short of it is that there is (apparently) NO violation of the DMCA here, providing the software is meant ONLY to unlock the phone to make it available for use on a wireless network. The copyright is meant to protect the company that made the phone, not an unrelated third party (the service provider).
IANAL, but IMHO, if ATT (and Apple) try to use DMCA rules violation as the basis for a lawsuit, they'll lose. It may be a protracted and expensive fight, but they'll lose.
Their (ATT and Apple) decision whether to sue will be based on different factors. ATT would sue based on a loss of service, but they'll be hard pressed to show that "locking" the phone to their service is a benefit to the consumer. Apple would sue based on the "reverse engineering" required to do the unlock, but would set itself up for a very public and very bad anti-Apple P/R nightmare.
Customers will see the only difference in cell phone operation as "visual voicemail", but there are already companies that provide the same kind of service for other PDA phones (such as the BlackBerry).
More? Apple knew that they'd have to support multiple providers overseas, and put menus for non-ATT providers into the phone. The unlocking software doesn't modify Apple's software: it merely takes advantage of pre-existing code.
My take? Lots of smoke and noise... but no legal action.
Apple will mostly ignore it and try to disable the unlocking code thru software (a half-hearted attempt that will fail), but won't sue. After all, it increases their sales, right?
ATT will bitch and moan a lot, but they aren't the service provider of record for Ireland, which is where the unlocking software was developed. Therefore, without a loss of customers (e.g. money) in Ireland, the Irish courts could (and probably would) find ATT without standing to sue.
burt
IANAL, I just try to reason things out

[Ale3andros]

You got your info wrong here my friend. First of all, our Fearless Leader (Steve Jobs to the rest of the world!) managed a deal with the Byte shop for 666.66 per unit for the Apple I. Then, Mike Markula came in with an investment for the Apple II and that started Apple.

[CleveNettles]

where do you think they got the funds to build the Apple 1? Woz's Haircut allowance?
They officially sold their calculator and VW bus for the money but I am sure those blue box sales didn't hurt
http://www.markusehr...plehistory.html

[Ale3andros]

Let's not confuse some things here. Apple I and subsequently Apple II where not the product of illegitimate work. The money from the Blue Boxes had long gone before they got their hands on the Apple I hardware.
The web site you are citing has its info wrong. For example

Quote:

---

The Apple I and II were designed strictly on a hobby, for-fun basis, not to be a product for a company

---

. Hey, the Apple I WAS designed to showcase what they felt a computer should be BUT the Apple II was NEVER designed as a hobby!