Re: Ma Bell has spoken. !!

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Colin Hill <hillct () scoophost com>
Date: July 6, 2007 5:47:58 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Ma Bell has spoken. !!

Dave,
   A question for those on IP who have purchased an iPhone:

   What are the terms of the shrink wrapped license for the hardware
itself with respect to AT&T? Is it the purchase of the device or the
activation which makes AT&T party to any license which would normally be
between the manufacturer and the customer?
   I've not purchased an iPhone and haven't seen the license so I'm not
asking rhetorically. I'm just trying to understand the legal basis of
the comments by AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel when explaining how "[u]sing
the phone without AT&T's two-year service contract was unauthorized
under the phone carrier's exclusive network service contract with Apple"
   That contract is with Apple as I understand it. The phone buyer is
not a party to such an agreement until he/she activates the phone so by
activating using the tools and techniques presented by Jon Johansen the
only party that might have legal recourse is Apple, under the DMCA  
(maybe).
   Mark Siegel goes on to say: "We'll monitor situations like this and
if necessary we will take appropriate action," he said. "Our terms and
conditions are very clear."
   The article poses the question of what action might b e taken but
more interesting is who is the proposed target? Is he proposing that
AT&T would sue their business partner Apple, to force them to update the
iphone firmware to thwart each and every non-AT&T activation method? Say
what you want about Ma Bell; Surely AT&T would not be that short  
sighted.

Best Regards,
Colin Hill

--
Scoophost.com - a service of Pinnacle Digital
Scoop consulting and hosting services

PS: I did find an online copy of the activation service agreement though
I'm going bug-eyed reading it via the screen shots:
http://www.tuaw.com/photos/iphone-license-agreement/

Has anyone posted a copy of the license to which a buyer agrees when
purchasing the hardware?

David Farber wrote:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2155284,00.asp?kc=EWKNLEDP070607B
>
>
> AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel said it was necessary to activate the  
> iPhone
> on AT&T's network to ensure optimum performance. Using the phone  
> without
> AT&T's two-year service contract was unauthorized under the phone
> carrier's exclusive network service contract with Apple, Siegel added.
>
> "Any other use of the device is not authorized and we can't guarantee
> the device will perform as intended to. We'll monitor situations like
> this and if necessary we will take appropriate action," he said. "Our
> terms and conditions are very clear."
>
> He did not elaborate on potential action AT&T might take.
>
> Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris declined to comment on Johansen's  
> claims.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> --
> Archives <http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> <http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/>   [Powered by Listbox]
> <http://www.listbox.com>

--
Scoophost.com - a service of Pinnacle Digital
Scoop consulting and hosting services


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com