Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 14th Mar 2010 15:12 UTC
Legal It's no secret to anyone that while Apple sued HTC, the lawsuit is more about Google than HTC itself. Since Android is open source, and owned by no one, it's kind of hard to go after Google itself, and as such, HTC was the prime target, since it is the number one Android smartphone maker. The New York Times has an in-depth article up about the subject, with a whole boatload of quotes from people within the two companies, and it paints a picture of all this being a highly emotional and personal vendetta - especially from Apple's side.
Permalink for comment 413749
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

The locked down defaults are just fine. The problem is criminalizing those users who want to go beyond the basic functions of the device and make use of what the hardware is actually capable of. Again, the example of Nokia comes up with a default limited setting for there Maemo devices and a "red pill" mode for those who choose to go beyond manufacturer's recommendations. Why should advanced users be limited to protect average users?

But it's not just that; the result of unlocking the phones true potential should simply void one's warranty. A basic warning and a yes/no. At worst, it should be a civil case for breach of contract. Apple is trying to include it under DMCA law; this effectively makes it a criminal case to modify your legally purchased device and that is completely insane. No one should be held criminally responsible for breaking into there own possessions. Imagine criminal charges against someone who broke into there own home because they forgot there keys. Apple wants to invoke criminal law for what is at worst, a breach of contract and rationally, a voluntary voiding of one's warranty.

Microsoft has control issues but Apple makes Mr Balmer look like a white night crusading for the good of the consumer.

Reply Parent Score: 4