Related
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100726...dG9yeQRzbGsDZnVsbG5ic3BzdG9y#mwpphu-container
New gov't rules allow unapproved iPhone apps
WASHINGTON – Owners of the iPhone will be able to legally unlock their devices so they can run software applications that haven't been approved by Apple Inc., according to new government rules announced Monday.
The decision to allow the practice commonly known as "jailbreaking" is one of a handful of new exemptions from a 1998 federal law that prohibits people from bypassing technical measures that companies put on their products to prevent unauthorized use of copyright-protected material. The Library of Congress, which oversees the Copyright Office, reviews and authorizes exemptions every three years to ensure that the law does not prevent certain non-infringing uses of copyright-protected works.
For iPhone jailbreakers, the new rules effectively legitimize a practice that has been operating in a legal gray area by exempting it from liability. Apple claims that jailbreaking is an unauthorized modification of its software.
Mario Ciabarra, founder of Rock Your Phone, which calls itself an "independent iPhone application store," said the rules mark the first step toward opening the iPhone app market to competition and removing the "handcuffs" that Apple imposes on developers that want to reach users of the wildly popular device.
Unless users unlock their handsets, they can only download apps from Apple's iTunes store. Software developers must get such apps pre-approved by Apple, which sometimes demands changes or rejects programs for what developers say are vague reasons.
Ciabarra noted that Google Inc. has taken a different approach with its Android operating system, which is emerging as the biggest competitor to the iPhone. Google allows users of Android phones to download applications from outside the Android Market.
Although Apple has never prosecuted anyone for jailbreaking, it does use software upgrades to disable jailbroken phones, and the new government rules won't put a stop to that. That means owners of such phones might not be able to take advantage of software improvements, and they still run the risk of voiding their warranty.
Apple spokesman Natalie Kerris said Monday that the company is concerned about jailbreaking because the practice can make an iPhone unstable and unreliable.
"Apple's goal has always been to ensure that our customers have a great experience with their iPhone, and we know that jailbreaking can severely degrade the experience," she said.
In addition to jailbreaking, other exemptions announced Monday would:
• allow owners of used cell phones to break access controls on their phones in order to switch wireless carriers.
• allow people to break technical protections on video games to investigate or correct security flaws.
• allow college professors, film students, documentary filmmakers and producers of noncommercial videos to break copy-protection measures on DVDs so they can embed clips for educational purposes, criticism or commentary.
• allow computer owners to bypass the need for external security devices called dongles if the dongle no longer works and cannot be replaced.
• allow blind people to break locks on electronic books so that they can use them with read-aloud software and similar aides.
Although the jailbreaking exemption is new, all the others are similar to the last set of exemptions, which were announced in November 2006. The new rules take effect Tuesday and are expected to last a few years.
The exceptions are a big victory for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which had urged the Library of Congress to legalize several of them, including the two regarding cell phones.
Jennifer Stisa Granick, EFF's civil liberties director, said the rules are based on an important principle: Consumers should be allowed to use and modify the devices that they purchase the way they want. "If you bought it, you own it," she said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With this landmark decision, say goodbye to big brother locking up phones and preventing side-loading. YAY!
Go EFF!
rorytmeadows said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100726...dG9yeQRzbGsDZnVsbG5ic3BzdG9y#mwpphu-container
With this landmark decision, say goodbye to big brother locking up phones and preventing side-loading. YAY!
Go EFF!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am wondering if that also extends to rom modification/nand flash trickery as well which has been known to violate (htc specifically) the eula. if it extends to that, then
there is a god
if not oh well back to the old drawing board
domineus said:
I am wondering if that also extends to rom modification/nand flash trickery as well which has been known to violate (htc specifically) the eula. if it extends to that, then
there is a god
if not oh well back to the old drawing board
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Either way, XDA can still live on legally with Windows Phone 7!!!
rorytmeadows said:
Either way, XDA can still live on legally with Windows Phone 7!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL let's hope!
But what about Europe?
Well, not much has changed. All this legislation means is that you can't be sued for it.
Bengal34 said:
Well, not much has changed. All this legislation means is that you can't be sued for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, more importantly, the apps, software, and other information will be more readily available to the public. People don't have to hide away. Methods and installs can be posted on CNET and Engadget, and it might be just possible that eventually, these companies might have to provide methods to side-load OR hard reset/reinstall ROMs...MAYBE???
Legal don't make it a easy thing to do. And it's still worth for Microsoft to try and prevent, as a single marketplace is better for business, both for Microsoft and for the application developers.
So it's a bit meh
rorytmeadows said:
Well, more importantly, the apps, software, and other information will be more readily available to the public. People don't have to hide away. Methods and installs can be posted on CNET and Engadget, and it might be just possible that eventually, these companies might have to provide methods to side-load OR hard reset/reinstall ROMs...MAYBE???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Companies can still take steps against it. OS updates can still break jailbreaks and doing stuff to your phones can still violated EULAs and void warranties.
While this may give consumers the right to hack their phones I dont see anything there that says companies have to support devices running unauthorised software. All they have to do is add to their EULA that hacked phones wont be supported. Plus I dont see how this is good because MS is already implementing security measures for Xbox Live on WP7, this will only make them more vigilant looking for hacked Live accounts.
Personally I dont know why people dont just buy a device that doesnt need to be hacked in the first place, why buy a device then start moaning that you cant load what you want when that is the functionality it had when you purchased it?
Well, implications of this ruling down the road COULD mean that companies have to provide easy opportunities for side-loading. That could mean that Apple, Microsoft, etc., has to allow side-loading by default. Anything is possible, considering.
Possible double?
Is this the same you are referring to?
If so you know what will happen here
If not my apologies
rorytmeadows said:
Well, implications of this ruling down the road COULD mean that companies have to provide easy opportunities for side-loading. That could mean that Apple, Microsoft, etc., has to allow side-loading by default. Anything is possible, considering.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, no it couldn't. It's just not the case. All it does is make it legal for people to break the protections for those things. That's it. Nothing more.
RustyGrom said:
No, no it couldn't. It's just not the case. All it does is make it legal for people to break the protections for those things. That's it. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Until someone threatens legal action for not allowing side-loading without breaking warranty.
rorytmeadows said:
Until someone threatens legal action for not allowing side-loading without breaking warranty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The case would get tossed. It's completely their prerogative to do that.
All the case does is make jailbreaking your phone legal in respect to US law. It may or may not affect MS's stance on jailbreaking (they haven't publicly stated how they would deal with jailbreakers), but all this does is prevent MS from suing jailbreakers if they jailbreak their devices.
doministry said:
LOL let's hope!
But what about Europe?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Europe doesnt have the same stupid laws as US and jailbreaking/unlocking phones has always been legal here afaik
RustyGrom said:
The case would get tossed. It's completely their prerogative to do that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We'll see. In talks with the EFF, they might be working on that in the future.
rorytmeadows said:
We'll see. In talks with the EFF, they might be working on that in the future.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't get your hopes up. All the legislation is, is to prevent companies from suing individuals for creating or using jailbreaks on their phones. Microsoft or Apple will NOT have to support a phone that's running unauthorized software.
Bengal34 said:
Don't get your hopes up. All the legislation is, is to prevent companies from suing individuals for creating or using jailbreaks on their phones. Microsoft or Apple will NOT have to support a phone that's running unauthorized software.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Full operating systems don't work like this, so why would you assume otherwise? Think positive and read up!
rorytmeadows said:
Full operating systems don't work like this, so why would you assume otherwise? Think positive and read up!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Full OS's don't have to be jailbroken to run apps. Also, MSFT doesn't support the apps (unless they wrote it).
Seriously, stop. You're completely wrong. This ruling does not change anything in this respect. It ONLY means that we can't be sued. And I may be mistaken but I believe that people distributing ways to do it still can be.
With the recent legal decision making it legal for users to "jailbreak" their iPhones (still at the risk of losing warranty, I assume), wouldn't that also carry over to ALL cell phones? Wouldn't it then be illegal for Sprint (or Verizon, Att, etc...) to develop code that would block or remove Root? I would assume, that just as in most parts of the legal system, once precedence is set, it should carry over all carriers.
It does carry over that you're allowed to root your phone... but nothing in the ruling said the carrier can't put code in to prevent it. They just can't sue you for cracking their protection.
Ok, Makes sense, but lends another question...
If a law is passed allowing something, and someone takes measures to prevent people from doing what has already been deemed legal, they can be sued for infringing on that person's rights. Wouldn't that, in effect, be the same thing as a carrier writing code to block Root? I understand if they put in a "Safety" feature, so people can't just accidently Root, but anything beyond, would technically be a violation of our rights as the owners of the phones....
And before it gets said, I am not saying we should all run out and Sue Sprint or our individual carriers, for "Breaking Root" on our phones. I am just putting a thought out there for conversations sake. Sometimes getting other peoples opinions on a subject helps put things in perspective.
thenewguy821 said:
And before it gets said, I am not saying we should all run out and Sue Sprint or our individual carriers, for "Breaking Root" on our phones. I am just putting a thought out there for conversations sake. Sometimes getting other peoples opinions on a subject helps put things in perspective.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The ruling was that jailbreaking / rooting a phone does not fall under bypassing encryption through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That's all. They didn't say that companies can't protect their IP.
Realistically you can expect that cellular providers will start entering provisions in their contracts that make it a violation to modify your phone's software (just as it's, for example, illegal to modify pollution controls on a motor vehicle).
phobos512 said:
The ruling was that jailbreaking / rooting a phone does not fall under bypassing encryption through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That's all. They didn't say that companies can't protect their IP.
Realistically you can expect that cellular providers will start entering provisions in their contracts that make it a violation to modify your phone's software (just as it's, for example, illegal to modify pollution controls on a motor vehicle).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand what you are saying, but your examples don't apply. By modifying your vehicles pollution controls, you are finding a way around a law, therefore making it illegal. By adding provisions in their contracts, the company would be making their own laws, stricter than the ones the courts have already allowed.
A better example, In Chicago, it was recently decided (At the Supreme Court level) that the 2nd amendment applies to the entire country, not just the government. Any laws made by the states/cities trying to block the 2nd amendment rights, would be unconstitutional, and could not be enforced.
By the Courts deciding that Jailbreaking/Rooting the phones is Legal, any action by the carriers to block the unlocking of the phones, would be a violation of that court decision.
My 2 cents worth:
They can choose to block it if they want to, but they cannot penalize you for seeing that your device is rooted or jailbroken.
That's just my take on it.
Veritas06 said:
My 2 cents worth:
They can choose to block it if they want to, but they cannot penalize you for seeing that your device is rooted or jailbroken.
That's just my take on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They cannot sue you for violating DMCA since it is now an exception.
They can still:
- void your warranty
- add an verse in contract that you can be penalized for modifying to gain root
- do pretty much anything they want beyond sue you for violating DMCA until there is a lawsuit or court ruling to decide otherwise.
I think you have to remember that rooting is basically bypassing encryption the encryption. There is no where that says that Sprint/AT&T etc cant change there encryption or fix holes in it. By changing the encryption and fixing holes this often "breaks root" however you are not forced to update so i don't think you can say they are taking away your "right" to root.
Even if they put out a stealth patch that fixed the current root methods and put your phone back at stock and unrooted. They still havent infringed on your right to root your phone. You can always re root once a new method is found. While it can make it difficult for you or take away your root access they haven't actually taken away your right to root... they just arent making it easy for you which is an entirely different thing.
It would be a PR nightmare and would possibly lose some customers, but they really don't have any legal reason not to add a section in the contract to say that in order to run a phone on their network, you must you a phone with software APPROVED by them. By rooting you would lose approval.
It wouldn't be that difficult from a their perspective to allow them to cut service or even penalize you for doing so.
thenewguy821 said:
Ok, Makes sense, but lends another question...
If a law is passed allowing something, and someone takes measures to prevent people from doing what has already been deemed legal, they can be sued for infringing on that person's rights. Wouldn't that, in effect, be the same thing as a carrier writing code to block Root?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. They can write their software to be whatever they want. They are under no obligation to make it easy for you to hack. The law just makes it lawful for you to hack it. It does not make it unlawful for the companies to make it difficult or impossible. The law allows you to try, it does not gaurantee you success.
Someday they'll have an easy method to remotely determine if a phone is rooted and instantly void all our warranties, saving the company money.
If we want to run their software updates then we agree to lose root, since they were intended to run on non-rooted devices.
Posted via XDA Android app from Evo
thenewguy821 said:
I understand what you are saying, but your examples don't apply. By modifying your vehicles pollution controls, you are finding a way around a law, therefore making it illegal. By adding provisions in their contracts, the company would be making their own laws, stricter than the ones the courts have already allowed.
A better example, In Chicago, it was recently decided (At the Supreme Court level) that the 2nd amendment applies to the entire country, not just the government. Any laws made by the states/cities trying to block the 2nd amendment rights, would be unconstitutional, and could not be enforced.
By the Courts deciding that Jailbreaking/Rooting the phones is Legal, any action by the carriers to block the unlocking of the phones, would be a violation of that court decision.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're misunderstanding the concept of something being legal and something being your right...
No law was made saying that companies have to allow you to bypass their protections. The only thing that happened was that you can now not be prosecuted for bypassing protections to install 3rd party applications or remove bundled software.
I thought of an analogy... If you wanted to post on a forum like this one, you are allowed to. If the owner of the forum doesn't want you here, they can do all kinds of things to stop you. Ban your account, ban your IP, etc. If you go to a new computer at some wifi hotspot you can create a new account and sign up. That is not illegal. It's also not illegal for them to ban you again. It's not your RIGHT to go on the site but it is still LEGAL for you to do so.
ViViDboarder said:
You're misunderstanding the concept of something being legal and something being your right...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not trying to say We have a right to do this... What I meant, was by the courts decision to allow jailbreaking/rooting of phones, we now have that right. I don't think that is a misunderstanding at all.
BTW, I hope the rest of your post wasn't to imply that I should be banned from posting here, just because I started this thread. I just thought it might be an interesting topic, and to get different views on it. I could have just made another thread about Froyo coming out next week... lol
So, it sounds like not too many people here understand the recent decision. First, it was, in no way, a new law or a change to an existing law. The Library of Congress (who oversees the DMCA) issued a ruling, pretty much on a whim. That sharply distinguishes it from a court decision (that would set any kind of legal precedent).
What this means for us:
According to the Library of Congress, it is not a violation of the manufacturer's (copy)rights for users to bypass protections (rooting/jailbreaking) for the purpose of installing legally obtained software. Hence, rooting your phone to install something you legally obtained, like an app that requires root (SetCPU, Root Explorer, etc.) or a completely open-sourced ROM (CyanogenMod) is perfectly acceptable. This means that HTC cannot sue you over it AND they may not automatically brick rooted phones (Disclaimer: the process of rooting may brick your phone due to the nature of the process, I am not telling you that rooting is 100% risk-free. I am only saying that HTC may not brick your phone for that specific reason. This applies a little bit more directly to Apple and their absurd anti-jailbreaking practices). HTC can, and will, void your warranty if they discover that you rooted your phone. Likewise, Sprint may not refuse to provide network coverage to people who root for the purpose of installing legally obtained software. However, they can, and likely will, refuse to provide any warranty-style services for your phone (i.e. that $7 per month Total Equipment Protection Plan).
However, rooting your phone to install illegally obtained software is still illegal. This applies to the vast majority of ROMs available that reuse Sprint or HTC code without the express permission of those companies. CyanogenMod uses the same open-source code for Android that Google freely provides to anyone who wants it (like HTC). The CM team then works to use the open-source code provided by Google and the manufacturer (HTC's kernel is open-source and publicly released (eventually) according to the open-licensing terms that Google forces them to accept) and make that into a working ROM for your phone. Most other ROM developers take the closed-source code provided by the manufacturer (e.g. the code from the recent OTA) and manipulate or modify it to become a new ROM for your phone.
Although, while that practice is, technically, illegal, it is also very similar to a foul/penalty in sports -- it's only against the rules if you get caught. And, in this case, manufacturers have not cry foul because the developer community that is, basically, stealing their code is also driving their profit (and they are too smart to bite the hand that feeds them, unlike Apple).
So, I hope that this helps people better understand the decision and the fact that it really does not change anything in terms of the actual risks of rooting -- it only removes the extraordinarily unlikely risk of HTC suing you just for rooting. But, given their ongoing legal battles with Apple, I'd say that HTC is not worried about you or me right now anyway.
the decision doesn't specifically make root/jailbreaking legal or illegal, it just ruled that it's not a violation of the DMCA. the swat team won't be kicking down any htc execs doors just because you jumped the gun and lost root by applying an OTA
So in all reality, which ROMs aren't illegal software? Example: CM?
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
thenewguy821 said:
I am not trying to say We have a right to do this... What I meant, was by the courts decision to allow jailbreaking/rooting of phones, we now have that right. I don't think that is a misunderstanding at all.
BTW, I hope the rest of your post wasn't to imply that I should be banned from posting here, just because I started this thread. I just thought it might be an interesting topic, and to get different views on it. I could have just made another thread about Froyo coming out next week... lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha, no. I wasn't implying that. Sorry. It was just the only example I could think of at the time.
Cayniarb said:
I am only saying that HTC may not brick your phone for that specific reason.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How would this apply to the Moto Droid X? Not 100% sure.......but isn't that what Moto is doing?......bricking your phone if you try to root? Will they have to change that?
bluebeast213 said:
How would this apply to the Moto Droid X? Not 100% sure.......but isn't that what Moto is doing?......bricking your phone if you try to root? Will they have to change that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. Motorola has put together some clever programing that makes the process of attempting to root the Droid X result in bricking your phone (but only sort of -- you can reinstall the stock, unrooted ROM and be all good, without root). They aren't bricking phones that are successfully rooted, they are just making it impossible (so far...) to root it in the first place.
Again, the process of rooting your phone may cause it to not work/get bricked. That is very different than being able to root, then the manufacturer bricking it after the fact (like, say, a jailbroken iPhone that you accidentally connect to iTunes -- nice, expensive paperweight).
So, no, Motorola will not have to change that for any legal reason. They may change it though because the developer community that largely drives the android platform will not be too happy with them, and that could affect their bottom line.
We all know Microsoft is on a roll to make patent licensing agreements with Android OEMs. Since last week, Microsoft have announced 4 such deals without disclosing the amount of royalty involved. Today Reuters that Microsoft is demanding about $15 per Android device from Samsung, one of the largest android OEM in the world. Microsoft is also ready to lower the royalty amount if Samsung agrees with some deeper alliance related to Windows Phone smartphone making. Microsoft signed similar deal with HTC last year, Will Samsung also join the fray soon? I hope Samsung agrees with Microsoft on the later deal of less royalty amount for Android devices and more Windows Phone smartphones. Also analysts predict Samsung to ship about 19 million smartphones this quarter, if the deal is done Microsoft will get about $1 Billion IP licensing revenue from Samsung alone in a year...
Now that is a beautiful puzzle, they've already released the most user friendly and in my opinion best is on the market and now they're putting a squeeze on the big name android OEMs to eliminate some of the competition. I love this, now just throw in some good marketing and well have the trifecta of a perfect operating system.
z33dev33l said:
We all know Microsoft is on a roll to make patent licensing agreements with Android OEMs. Since last week, Microsoft have announced 4 such deals without disclosing the amount of royalty involved. Today Reuters that Microsoft is demanding about $15 per Android device from Samsung, one of the largest android OEM in the world. Microsoft is also ready to lower the royalty amount if Samsung agrees with some deeper alliance related to Windows Phone smartphone making. Microsoft signed similar deal with HTC last year, Will Samsung also join the fray soon? I hope Samsung agrees with Microsoft on the later deal of less royalty amount for Android devices and more Windows Phone smartphones. Also analysts predict Samsung to ship about 19 million smartphones this quarter, if the deal is done Microsoft will get about $1 Billion IP licensing revenue from Samsung alone in a year...
Now that is a beautiful puzzle, they've already released the most user friendly and in my opinion best is on the market and now they're putting a squeeze on the big name android OEMs to eliminate some of the competition. I love this, now just throw in some good marketing and well have the trifecta of a perfect operating system.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, you know what they say...fruit is better for us than pastries/dairy. (Mango vs. Ice Cream Sandwich/Eclair)
good for them, I don't think it's good for us
I can't believe a thread on xda of all places supporting a broken patent system, extortion, profiterring instead of innovation. wow.
*wipes tear* i love you Microsoft! always have done and will be loyal forever
The only group to blame for this is Google, releasing something that completely infringes on a bunch of other peoples patents. While it may be a douchey move to do this to the very manufactures you're partnered with, I can't blame MS.
ohgood said:
I can't believe a thread on xda of all places supporting a broken patent system, extortion, profiterring instead of innovation. wow.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except, after seeing your responses on here for months now... You would have zero problems with this if Google was doing it, right?
FiyaFleye said:
Except, after seeing your responses on here for months now... You would have zero problems with this if Google was doing it, right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are probably right
I'm kinda put off by some of those patents . I mean really .. you can patent that ?
Although they do own the patents so "Pay up Sucka's ."
This will not be good for user's in the end either way .
My .02
ohgood said:
I can't believe a thread on xda of all places supporting a broken patent system, extortion, profiterring instead of innovation. wow.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But be logical now instead of loyal. Is it fair for someone to release a product using a part of something that you own and you receive nothing for it?
How would you feel if you developed an app and I took a portion of that and created my own app and made millions?
I am not saying the patent system is perfect; it is far from. But people need to innovate and license, not steal and pass off. And we are not even sure what this patent infringement is, but players are settling quickly. This suggests to me that it may be open and shut wrong-doing on Google's part.
But the thread is a little sensational. If MS's intention was to cripple they would be doing more than seeking royalties
nicksti said:
But be logical now instead of loyal. Is it fair for someone to release a product using a part of something that you own and you receive nothing for it?
How would you feel if you developed an app and I took a portion of that and created my own app and made millions?
I am not saying the patent system is perfect; it is far from. But people need to innovate and license, not steal and pass off. And we are not even sure what this patent infringement is, but players are settling quickly. This suggests to me that it may be open and shut wrong-doing on Google's part.
But the thread is a little sensational. If MS's intention was to cripple they would be doing more than seeking royalties
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's my sentiments and what I've been about all along. Yet when I say Apple has the rights to receive compensation on their infringed patents, I'm an Apple fanboy. Then when I side with MS's side of the patent infringement, I'm a MS fanboy. The only time I'm not harassed badly for seeming like a fanboy is when I say something favorable about Google. If I say something favorable about any other company...even if the favored words are intermixed with multiple companies, I'm a fanboy. The friggin rationality of the web is beyond mind twisting. People will stomp and storm over the least little thing.
nicksti said:
If MS's intention was to cripple they would be doing more than seeking royalties
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with this. MS definitely has the money to go after Google itself if they wanted to, but going after OEM's could be a way to secure a footing for WP7 as it's up to them to push WP7. If OEM's don't support WP7, it's screwed. Also, going after Google would conflict with MS & it's anti-monopoly issues.
Kinda old. Its been a known fact that Microsoft makes more money from Android than WP7.
Sad, sick, but true. The patent system is ridiculous.
The patent system is there to protect people from having their stuff stolen. How'd you like it if someone broke into your house & stole everything? Ok, not exactly the same thing. Or how about, you developer some new software or Ui or something & some big company like MS/Apple/Google steals it & makes millions or even billions off it? It's funny how when it's the big corperations, it's "sad/sick/etc," but if it were some small company or a single person, it's ok.
Double Standards just aren't cool. I may not like big corporations & their greed, but guest what, they have rights too.
You do realize that patent licensing happens everywhere to protect the developer of a technology. Like DVD/Blu Ray manufacturers paying royalties to the developers of that technology. The "Blu-ray Disc Association" (Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG (Lucky GoldStar) Electronics, Hitachi, Sharp, and Samsung) created the Blu Ray format, so everyone else making Blu Ray players/burners must pay a royalty. How would you like it if you were the developer of Blu Ray & seeing all these companies making money on your technology while you're broke.
NOTE: In all of MS's 36 years, this is only the 7th time they actually acted on their patents.
drkfngthdragnlrd said:
The patent system is there to protect people from having their stuff stolen. How'd you like it if someone broke into your house & stole everything? Ok, not exactly the same thing. Or how about, you developer some new software or Ui or something & some big company like MS/Apple/Google steals it & makes millions or even billions off it? It's funny how when it's the big corperations, it's "sad/sick/etc," but if it were some small company or a single person, it's ok.
Double Standards just aren't cool. I may not like big corporations & their greed, but guest what, they have rights too.
You do realize that patent licensing happens everywhere to protect the developer of a technology. Like DVD/Blu Ray manufacturers paying royalties to the developers of that technology. The "Blu-ray Disc Association" (Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG (Lucky GoldStar) Electronics, Hitachi, Sharp, and Samsung) created the Blu Ray format, so everyone else making Blu Ray players/burners must pay a royalty. How would you like it if you were the developer of Blu Ray & seeing all these companies making money on your technology while you're broke.
NOTE: In all of MS's 36 years, this is only the 7th time they actually acted on their patents.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you.....
everyone have the right to collect $$$$ for their patents, as they have spent time money and efforts, and no one is allowed to just take and use someone else's work...
Google will have more trouble coming their way when Nortel patents will change hands...
Oracle is also going to collect money from Google for some stuff they used in android, estimated $2 billion or so....
Google should have done their homework tbh, handing over these issues to the hardware manufacturers is pretty weak.
Not that I'm agreeing with these patents, some of them are very vaguely defined.
You guys really don't know how vague some of the patents are. Hell I can pick any software and find some copied code. Do some deeper investigation yourself. Doesn't matter how big or small a company is, doesn't matter to me if its Google, Apple, or some unknown Guy down the street.
The patent system needs a major over haul. Make a new OS or program and make millions, and I guarantee you that you will be slapped with patent infringement. Its sick.
truffle1234 said:
I agree with you.....
everyone have the right to collect $$$$ for their patents, as they have spent time money and efforts, and no one is allowed to just take and use someone else's work...
Google will have more trouble coming their way when Nortel patents will change hands...
Oracle is also going to collect money from Google for some stuff they used in android, estimated $2 billion or so....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You do know oracle had to drop more than 90% of their case.
It isn't vague. When you patent something, you have to be thorough about how it all works. These "news" articles just give the "Title" to the patent. The full patent has this huge legal description of what exactly is patented. I know this because as a kid I was going through the patent process, till my lawyer found out what I was trying to patent already existed. BTW, as for try to make an OS. Well the problem is all OS's are basically the same, very similar UI's save (WP7). they all have some form of taskbar/start menu/window based applications. The whole point why Windows is called Windows. The point of inovation is to make something new, not copy what's there & try to make it different. That's basically borderline plagerism, granted that's to do with writing, but it's the same thing.
See this;
1) No. 6,909,910 from 2005 for "managing changes to a contact database."
2) No. 7,644,376, issued in 2010 to cover an API that lets mobile apps learn about state changes in the device.
3) No. 5,664,133 from 1997 covering "context sensitive menu system/menu behavior," known more generally as a graphical user interface that lets users "quickly and easily select/execute the desired computer resource."
4) No. 6,578,054 from 2003 covering online and offline transmission of data through methods that "eliminate data transmission and allow multiple copies of data to be synchronized via incremental changes."
5) No. 6,370,566 from 2002, with the self-explanatory title, "Generating Meeting Requests and Group Scheduling From a Mobile Device."
All of that us understandable but the patent system us royally ****ed up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/27/technology/27patent.html
http://www.macgasm.net/2009/12/30/the-patent-system-is-broken-and-nokia-vs-apple-continues/
There are patents that defy the laws of phsyics, patents that are beyond belief. ****s stupid. Its actually hurting innovation from the little guys.
The DMCA want to make it illegal for us to root or jailbreak phones, tablets and gaming consoles. If this happens then we lose the ability to customize, fix bugs, and correct security issues on our devices that we pay money for. Xda developers will go away , and so will software innovation. Think about what we will lose Cyanogenmod, Miui, Juggernaut, Beastmod all of it gone and so will the money developers make selling root apps on the market this is important. If you think this is silly tell Steve Kondik AKA cyanogen hes the one who brought this to light for many people.
the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
https://www.eff.org/pages/jailbreaking-not-crime-tell-copyright-office-free-your-devices
Do some homework before blowing this off this is serious! Device manufacturers claim Root/jailbreaking violates Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which carries stiff penalties.
Are you seriously concerned about this? They can't stop us, and if ever we need to send our devices back we just return to stock...simple as that.
Yes, they can't stop us. But the current position on rooting and jailbreaking is only a temporary exemption from the DMCA. This exemption needs to be periodically renewed or it will expire and we will be subject to he DMCA which makes it easy to argue we are breaking the law. That alone would probably have a chilling effect on the rooting communities as the unofficial support from manufacturers dries up. I doubt Samsung will openly support a community perceived as breaking the law.
That said... yes, we need to speak up and help the larger rooting/jailbreaking community to renew this exemption. If we don't speak up, it will die and the FTC will not renew the exemption.
iLeopard said:
Are you seriously concerned about this? They can't stop us, and if ever we need to send our devices back we just return to stock...simple as that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well the question really is if providers have the ability to accurately see what your phone is running and will they be forced to block our service if the DMCA threatens to sue the actual companies.
The real concern here isn’t about our ability to root/jail break our OWN devices or not. It’s about control! These scumbags along with the a**holes that support SOPA and PIPA simply want to keep us in check so they can shove their BS down our throats for the price of whatever they want.
If this happens then no one would ever upgrade phones and the market would take a big hit. We true rooter would aways stay on old phones to keep root.
xile6 said:
If this happens then no one would ever upgrade phones and the market would take a big hit. We true rooter would aways stay on old phones to keep root.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd rather have a 100% stock sII than a modded up g1
anyway if google and the manufacturers want us not to root they will remove the ability to let us.
Smartphones = computers. Its legal to do whatever you want with a computer so long as you do not commit cyber crime.
Desktop pc -> laptop -> notebook -> netbook -> tablet -> smartphone
All these devices are the same... the only difference between them is the size & spec. They are all essentially computers.
If you don't support this by educating yourself and then registering your comments with the US Copyright Office within the next 8 days, like the Software Freedom Law Center has, what do you think will eventually happen to websites like xdadevelopers? Making jailbreaking/rooting illegal would apply to all instances, on devices both old and new. So you would be liable if you used such a device, (although it would be difficult to catch everyone), disseminated information on how to do this to your device, (goodbye all websites that help folks root), or sold services or software that helped someone root their device.
And tri4life's comments are accurate. With these kinds of laws in place, service providers would want, or may be forced to, develop systems which could tell if your smartphone is rooted and then turn off service, and likely put you into a queue for a visit from an "RIAA type" lawsuit. BTW, the "lock-in AppStore you can't change the OS" model is coming to personal computers as well. So not only is this a stand against this behavior on the smartphone front, but also in case this starts to creep into the PC world, as well. The Software Freedom Law Center comments go into some interesting details on this.
If you don't think it's serious than you should actually read the law that's in question here. For fun, you can skip down to the end where it describes the civil and criminal penalties that apply if the exemption is not in place. So not only do we need to support this strongly now, we need to work to make this exemption permanent.
Good Luck..
jordanishere said:
Smartphones = computers. Its legal to do whatever you want with a computer so long as you do not commit cyber crime.
Desktop pc -> laptop -> notebook -> netbook -> tablet -> smartphone
All these devices are the same... the only difference between them is the size & spec. They are all essentially computers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not entirely true. Some parts of all those devices might contain firmware that is copyrighted and encrypted. The DMCA would make it illegal to circumvent that firmware encryption. The only reason it's legal right now is because of the FTC exemption who ruled it's OK if we're not breaking any IP copyrights.
IMHO, SOPA/PIPA are all expansions on this kind of heavy handed lawmaking and is driven by the RIAA and MPAA. They've been going after 8 year olds and grandmothers just because they'll probably settle and pony up even tho they didn't do anything wrong. But don't misunderstand me. Piracy of IP is a big issue and should be dealt with but siphoning granny's bank accounts and making it illegal to mod your devices is not the way to do it.
We should be asking why we still need these laws if they can still go for an off-shore target like MegaUpload. I think they already have the tools they need and should stop legislating what I do with and to my technology. The scary thing is SOPA/PIPA are NOT DEAD... just tabled for now. I'd bet (not much) that once it's out of our recent memory they'll pass it so fast it'll be law before we can even fight it.
All this recent laws worry me more and more that we are loosing what so many fought and die for over the decades, it's being forgotten that it is By the People for the People not By the People for a few.
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Patrick Henry
why in the world would android continue to be open source then? as Well, HTC allows rooting of devices pretty easily, As well as samsung has their new open to the public Dev programs, so their probably gonna follow HTC with open rooting. I really doubt Android phone manufacturer's will let it go on for very long if it did end up being illegal. Why else does anyone else buy android phones? I think they know that.
xile6 said:
If this happens then no one would ever upgrade phones and the market would take a big hit. We true rooter would aways stay on old phones to keep root.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sammy has been kicking out Android phones with unlocked boot loaders from the get go (IN YOUR FACE HTC), so rooting and customizing is almost a given from the manufacturer, but not from the carriers. If it becomes illegal, then it becomes a slippery slope for all of us!
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
lawalty said:
Sammy has been kicking out Android phones with unlocked boot loaders from the get go (IN YOUR FACE HTC), so rooting and customizing is almost a given from the manufacturer, but not from the carriers. If it becomes illegal, then it becomes a slippery slope for all of us!
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/26/dmca-update-makes-new-phone-unlocking-illegal/
This makes me really sad... thanks op for bringing this up to attention. Not being able to root an Android device sucks a lot of fun outta it all.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda app-developers app
It was just ruled that it is not illegal to Jailbreak an iphone, tablets may be a different story though. I haven't heard anything regarding android devices.. I would assume it falls under the same category.. Either way it's not gonna stop anyone from doing it
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
"Every generation needs a new revolution" -Thomas Jefferson
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda app-developers app
Here is a guide for those who may be confused:
Rooting/Jailbreaking:
Smartphones - YES
Tablets - NO
Unlocking
If your phone was purchased prior to January 2013 - YES
New Phone - NO
Phones purchased after January 2013 can be unlocked with carrier's permission
Unrelated:
Blind people can now use DRM stripping software to enable read-allowed function on eBooks purchased legally. However, to supply blind people with the software necessary to do so violates the "trafficking" provision under the rule, and is illegal.
What is not clear....
Carrier unlocking or bootloader unlocking...
Sent from my SGH-I747 using xda premium
Carrier unlocking will be illegal, unless carrier approval.
C. Wireless telephone handsets – interoperability with alternative
networks
Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that
enable a wireless telephone handset originally acquired from
the operator of a wireless telecommunications network or
retailer no later than ninety days after the effective date of this
exemption to connect to a different wireless
telecommunications network, if the operator of the wireless
communications network to which the handset is locked has
failed to unlock it within a reasonable period of time following
a request by the owner of the wireless telephone handset, and
when circumvention is initiated by the owner, an individual
consumer, who is also the owner of the copy of the computer
program in such wireless telephone handset, solely in order to
connect to a different wireless telecommunications network,
and such access to the network is authorized by the operator of
the network.
Bootloaders fall under the purview of jailbreak/root:
B. Wireless telephone handsets – software interoperability
Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to
execute lawfully obtained software applications, where
circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling
interoperability of such applications with computer programs
on the telephone handset.
sdlopez83 said:
What is not clear....
Carrier unlocking or bootloader unlocking...
Sent from my SGH-I747 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey XDA, I got this today from the petition I signed trying to fight for our right to unlock and change carriers. I am copying and pasting the letter..... it is lenghty, but worth the read through......
It's Time to Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking
By R. David Edelman, Senior Advisor for Internet, Innovation, & Privacy
Thank you for sharing your views on cell phone unlocking with us through your petition on our We the People platform. Last week the White House brought together experts from across government who work on telecommunications, technology, and copyright policy, and we're pleased to offer our response.
The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs.
This is particularly important for secondhand or other mobile devices that you might buy or receive as a gift, and want to activate on the wireless network that meets your needs -- even if it isn't the one on which the device was first activated. All consumers deserve that flexibility.
The White House's position detailed in this response builds on some critical thinking done by the President's chief advisory Agency on these matters: the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). For more context and information on the technical aspects of the issue, you can review the NTIA's letter to the Library of Congress' Register of Copyrights (.pdf), voicing strong support for maintaining the previous exception to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for cell phone carrier unlocking.
Contrary to the NTIA's recommendation, the Librarian of Congress ruled that phones purchased after January of this year would no longer be exempted from the DMCA. The law gives the Librarian the authority to establish or eliminate exceptions -- and we respect that process. But it is also worth noting the statement the Library of Congress released today on the broader public policy concerns of the issue. Clearly the White House and Library of Congress agree that the DMCA exception process is a rigid and imperfect fit for this telecommunications issue, and we want to ensure this particular challenge for mobile competition is solved.
So where do we go from here?
The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.
We also believe the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with its responsibility for promoting mobile competition and innovation, has an important role to play here. FCC Chairman Genachowski today voiced his concern about mobile phone unlocking (.pdf), and to complement his efforts, NTIA will be formally engaging with the FCC as it addresses this urgent issue.
Finally, we would encourage mobile providers to consider what steps they as businesses can take to ensure that their customers can fully reap the benefits and features they expect when purchasing their devices.
We look forward to continuing to work with Congress, the wireless and mobile phone industries, and most importantly you -- the everyday consumers who stand to benefit from this greater flexibility -- to ensure our laws keep pace with changing technology, protect the economic competitiveness that has led to such innovation in this space, and offer consumers the flexibility and freedoms they deserve.
E4GT Rom-a-holic. Running anything that looks cool at the time
"This is the Droid I have been looking for!"
I think all of it is a load of crap. Its benefitting all but those of us who want to unlock our devices...........
moparfreak426 said:
I think all of it is a load of crap. Its benefitting all but those of us who want to unlock our devices...........
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you even read the letter?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda app-developers app
graydiggy said:
Did you even read the letter?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mopar cant read man. Cut him some slack, kid can't even keep his pants on in public.
I like to break stuff!
-EViL-KoNCEPTz- said:
Mopar cant read man. Cut him some slack, kid can't even keep his pants on in public.
I like to break stuff!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol... i read it granted half asleep but from what I see it's still illegal and they have to follow in compliance with fcc and such
Sent from an Apple devouring JellyBean
moparfreak426 said:
lol... i read it granted half asleep but from what I see it's still illegal and they have to follow in compliance with fcc and such
Sent from an Apple devouring JellyBean
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As of right now it is still illegal. In time things will get fixed. Cell companies will lose a lot of money because no one will spend huge amounts of money on a phone off contract now. If I can't unlock a phone to use on another carrier, why spend good money on it?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda app-developers app
I wonder, how chaotic would it be with no restrictions on any our devices and such....
Sent from an Apple devouring JellyBean
moparfreak426 said:
I wonder, how chaotic would it be with no restrictions on any our devices and such....
Sent from an Apple devouring JellyBean
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not all that chaotic. Both the original service providers of the devices and second party providers will make boatloads of money.
graydiggy said:
Not all that chaotic. Both the original service providers of the devices and second party providers will make boatloads of money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would be super awesome if cdma devices were also gsm and gsms were all also cdma.... I'd like to have an Asus pasfone
Sent from an Apple devouring JellyBean
moparfreak426 said:
It would be super awesome if cdma devices were also gsm and gsms were all also cdma.... I'd like to have an Asus pasfone
Sent from an Apple devouring JellyBean
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hehe but there is... CDMA world phones ;p
I read yesterday that the major companies are trying to keep the law I place by selling locked and UN locked versions of all new phones. So basically we will get to pay them more for a right we should have as a paying customer.
E4GT Rom-a-holic. Running anything that looks cool at the time
"This is the Droid I have been looking for!"
Febby said:
hehe but there is... CDMA world phones ;p
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I mean if all were interchangeable... like 4core gs3, Asus padfone, etc
Sent from an Apple devouring JellyBean