Apple and AT&T in the way they are handling the iPhone unlocking[i] and "jail breaking"[ii] I believe has only one precedent in commercial products and that was brought down by the anti trust laws. In this case the manufacturer Apple and the service provider AT&T are trying to extend their control of the product beyond the point where the consumer is the full and legal owner. I believe this is a case where they are outside of the law. Only the government has the right to tell people what they can and can’t do with an item they own and the government usually only exercises this right as a matter of public safety. While Apple has tried to assert that this is such a situation the facts do not agree with that. What these companies are trying to do is hold on to the revenue that the subscription to phone service and software sales generate.
Please read the rest of this before commenting!
During the life of the initial service contract AT&T and Apple are certainly within their rights of limiting access to only their network and software they approve of. The purchase price subsidy paid by AT&T is supposed to be paid back by part of the subscription fee. One could look at this as being similar to a finance contract. Apple as the manufacturer has a duty to both AT&T and the consumer to make sure the iPhone remains operational. It is also likely to be contractually bound to AT&T to not allow applications that may interfere with AT&T’s revenue stream. At the successful end of the contract none of these duties continue. The consumer has paid AT&T and Apple their due and is now the sole owner of the phone. They should be allowed to switch carriers as the technology permits. They should be able to load without restraint any and all software they wish.
The only precedence I can think of is in the 1960s when IBM would bundle their software and hardware together. They actively suppressed the market for third party software and hardware. That changed on June 23, 1969 when under pressure from the US government and various competitors IBM separate the software and hardware.[iii] This did not bring an end to IBM or cause much harm to their profits.
What AT&T and Apple are doing is trying to extend their control past the point of purchase. While the government can limit how items are used after purchase. Companies do not have that right. For safety reasons you can’t reuse disposable pressurize gas cylinders, only licensed professionals can service fire extinguishers, and you can’t disable your emissions control devices on your car. Where as a ladder company just puts a sticker on that tells you not to use the top 2 steps. A clock manufacturer stamps on their clocks "no user serviceable parts inside". They can recommend that you don’t do something but the do not actively prevent you from opening the clock. They do not booby-trap it so once opened it will not work. They set markers that show it has been opened and void the warrantee.
This may be the reason Apple has claimed that a "jailbroken" iPhone is a threat to national security. They are attempting to hoodwink the government into outlawing the practice. Laws are for the law abiding. Any terrorist is likely planning other illegal acts of a more severe nature so what does it matter that they are breaking one more. Other phones and radio devices would be better suited to interfere with cell service. The iPhone is low power and uses a radio that can only affect 2 carriers in the US.
Apple and AT&T not supplying the unlock code after the end of the contract, as they do with other phones, is them preventing the rightful owner using the iPhone as they wish. The code updates that Apple produces that render a "jailbroken" iPhone unserviceable is both unethical and possible illegal. I believe the control of products in the Application Store for the iPhone is also a violation of anti-trust. They have in effective a monopolistic control of a market and are using that control to limit competition. I for one am happy that the Federal Trade Commission is looking into the gvoice application being taken down from the App-Store. I hope they will broaden the scope to the whole Apple and AT&T policy issue. If this stands as it is it will bee a precedent that could in the future extend to any device with software and capable of being updated.
[i] Unlocking a phone allows you to use it on any compatible carrier
[ii] "Jailbreaking" the iPhone allows you to load applications from sources other than Apple
[iii] http://singularitylaw.com/...