Posts by BrynnBrenner 7 publicly visible posts • joined 15 Nov 2008
Understood. The last resort when a person has lost an argument is to rely on personal attacks against the individual. Thanks for declaring my points un-arguable.
As to my grammar and spelling errors, I apologize. But regardless, My argument still stands, even with my poor grammar.
And in fact, I am British, albeit living in America. Don't act like our (UK) education is world class.
@ Rolf-
You said: "And don't forget the main reason for companies like Apple to try to patent these seemingly obvious extensions is to protect them from some opportunistic third party coming along and trying to patent this sort of thing themselves, ie. it's to ensure that Apple itself is allowed implement such a device, not necessarily to stop other people doing something similar."
Last time I checked, patents were not so a company could do something, its so a company can keep others from doing it. Companies get patents so they can lock anyone else out of the idea unless they pay some ass high license. If you dont believe me, go read the details at the actual patent offices. (I did just to be clear on this).
Need I remind you about your precious Apple wanting to sue Palm becuase of Palm's new User interaction on the Pre? Yea, they have no problem with other companies doing something similar.
Sigh... You're apple fanboy status is becoming legendary.
@rolf
Also, I forgot to put this with my other reply. There is a big difference between encouraging users to mod something and discouraging it. And that I think is the key difference.
I have Palm Treo. Palm has said quite clearly, we arent responsible for anything you put on your device thats not ours. You can put whatever you want on it, but we are not responsible.
Thats sensible. Its saying, the choice is the users.
What Apple is saying, is that the user has no choice. You either buy apps for your phone from apple... or not at all. I feel Apple is doing this for money. After all if you can only run aps they allow, then get a nice chuck of change off each software sale. But if anyone can develope and run aps... well then... there goes their ability to get a piece of the action.
I went back and read your original post... you said: "If Apple were to implicitly endorse running unapproved software by not defending this case then as the manufacturer they could potentially open themselves up to all sorts of litigation." Again... you're saying if apple were to endorse this stuff. They dont have to endorse it, they could simply allow it and leave the responsibility with the user, like most other companies do.
Endorsing modification is totally different than allowing it. The former is encouraging it... the latter is just understanding that it will happen.
@ Rolf
I understand what you're saying about car modifications. Most car companies look at it very simply. they say "If you modify the car from factory specs, you void your warranty". They dont tell you NOT to do mods. They just tell you if you do, your responsible. While some auto companies embrace the aftermark industry, others just ignore it.
What Apple is doing is the opposite. They are trying to prosecute people who are moding their phone. So your claim about Apple being liable if the user messes something up and cant dial 911 or their battery blows up is just silly. Apple cannot be held liable for the actions of someone using their product, no more than Sony can be liable for copyright infringement or any other crime I commit with my Viao Laptop. What apple is doing on the iphone would never fly with a Mac computer, or any other computer. As someone said if MS tried to jail people for loading a non MS product on their computer... MS would be ripped to pieces by the justice system. But when Apple tries to do it on their Phones... people try to defend their actions.
@ Rolf
No, you're missing the point. You said "Then there are liability issues. What happens if the jailbroken software has a bug in the power management code, causing the battery in an iPhone to explode? Or a bug in the baseband processor that crashes the local cell transmitter, or prevents the phone making an emergency call, or means the phone is no longer FCC compliant? If Apple were to implicitly endorse running unapproved software by not defending this case then as the manufacturer they could potentially open themselves up to all sorts of litigation."\
What happens? The same thing that happens if I modify my car and it blows up on me. Its my problem. If I do something to my car and its no longer legal to drive, the police will arrest ME, not my car manufacturer. If I modify my brakes and plow into an intersection killing 10 people... its not the company who built my cars fault. Its MINE. Insurance companies always look for holes to not pay claims using this very fact. If you modify your car and dont tell them, they can deny covering any claim. It all falls back on the owner of the car. Just as it should with the phone. If I do something to my phone and i cant call 911... thats not their fault. Its something I did. If I hit my phone with a hammer it wont call 911 either, but they cant be held liable for that.
They are trying to say they would be held liable... when they wouldnt be. Its just their excuse to try and stop people from using non approved stuff, so they can make more money.
As quoted from Stephen Baskerville, American political science professor.
"Not since the overthrow of the Weimar Republic have the leaders of a major democracy used their offices and the mass media to disseminate invective against millions of their own citizens. In fact it was Adolf Hitler who urged that "the state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people" and who explained, in the words of Rabbi Daniel Lapin, that "as long as government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people happily will endure almost any curtailment of liberty." Using children to tug on our heartstrings may be not only a weakness of the sentimental. It also may be a ploy by those cynical and unscrupulous enough to exploit children for their own purposes. This is likely to be remembered as one of the most diabolical perversions of governmental power in our history, a time when we allowed children to be used and abused by fast-talking government officials and paid for it with our families, our social order and our constitutional rights."
Stephen Baskerville, writing on fathers' rights in Insight on the News, June 26, 2000
The state wants to start a database of everyone, but using the 'we're helping the children' reason will get everyone ok with it. But what will happen with that information after the child finishes school? Will it be deleted or just moved to 'another system for archiving' which within a few years will start to have lots of adults on it. Let a generation pass and well... you get the idea. They can avoid the cries of paranoid people by just doing it really really slow, and no one will realize whats happening until its too late.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
