Comments on: Apple’s Jailbroken iPhone Patent Outrage: Really?

By: plasticsyntax

plasticsyntax — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:03:39 +0000

“This is about as ridiculous as the headlines about police charging a teenage girl with child pornography after she published naked pictures of herself.”
–
Or, alternatively, the victims of this type of crime also include society in general, in which case it’s entirely appropriate to charge the girl. Agree or not, but that’s the basis for most laws involving standards of decency.

By: IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: March 30th, 2009 - Part 1 | Boycott Novell

IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: March 30th, 2009 - Part 1 | Boycott Novell — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:38:18 +0000

[...] http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/03/…; [...]

By: Joe Sa

Joe Sa — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:09:39 +0000

“Smells like John Fogerty to me.”

except that Apple has not signed any of it’s rights over to anyone. So yeah, it’s not like that at all.

By: hmciv

hmciv — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:19:55 +0000

Smells like John Fogerty to me.

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creedence_Clearwater_Revival
“With the Centerfield album, Fogerty also found himself entangled in new, tit-for-tat lawsuits with Zaentz over the song “The Old Man Down the Road” which was, according to Zaentz, a blatant re-write of Fogerty’s own 1970 Creedence hit “Run Through the Jungle”. Since Fogerty had traded his rights to Creedence’s songs in 1980 to cancel his remaining contractual obligations, Fantasy now owned the rights to “Run Through the Jungle” and sued Fogerty essentially for plagiarizing himself. While a jury ruled in Fogerty’s favor, he did settle a defamation suit filed by Zaentz over the songs “Mr. Greed” and “Zanz Kant Danz”. Fogerty was forced to edit the recording, changing the “Zanz” reference to “Vanz”.”

By: jfatz

jfatz — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:18:10 +0000

Slow weekend? This was TERRIFICALLY pointless…

Comments made have either been “that’s odd” or blatantly tongue-in-cheek about it, and it IS odd to see stuff like that showing up in a patent application.

The tech press manufactures a crapton of “controversies” about Apple, and you do a good job of pimp-slapping them for it. Try to shy away from manufacturing “controversies” of your own, though.

By: airmanchairman

airmanchairman — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:33:15 +0000

There is a trivial sense of irony and humour here, but hypocrisy is pushing it too far. Put yourself in the place of Apple R&D for a moment, and there are several layered reasons for the company to “jailbreak” its own device.

Primarily, to have a finger on the pulse of the jail-breaking effort itself. It is no secret that several legit apps (as I predicted they would) have made it into the “walled garden” of the official App Store (especially after quantum leaps in iPhone battery life and device response), so as an alternative test-bed for memory and power intensive software, it makes sense.

Secondly, few will forget the mass outcry and negative publicity that attended the very first firmware upgrade after the first “jail-breaking” effort, which ended up breaking the latter. Few of these impassioned critics appreciated the fact that the jail-breaking software and the firmware upgrades were using the very same memory address space, with predictable results. Hence another use of jailbroken iPhones would be either to mitigate these bad vibes by anticipating conflicts, or to ignore them and cut the jail-breaking effort off at the pass, if other (legal etc) efforts do not yield quick results.

It is part and parcel of an R&D department’s job description to “think the unthinkable”, people. There’s nothing to see here, move along now…

By: KA

KA — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:33:49 +0000

Please, tell me you find this funny:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00j8f4b/The_Now_Show_Series_26_Episode_4/

By: CCS

CCS — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:50:30 +0000

Okay. But it’s humorous. :-)

By: pdwm

pdwm — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:20:11 +0000

This is so stupid, as to be not worth wasting your good time upon.

By: danieleran

danieleran — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:18:30 +0000

Yes it is the same, which is why this is such a puzzle. Apple isn’t breaking a contract with itself by using its own software as it wishes. Apple isn’t licensing itself to use Mac OS X, which is why the company can run its own software on PCs if it likes. It can also defeat its own security to run its own iPhone firmware as it cares to.

There is nothing in either action that prevents the company from asking other individuals and groups not to use its software *as if it were theirs to do whatever they wanted with it.*

If I write some original software, it’s only a copywrite/license violation if somebody else makes unauthorized copies and modifies them for distribution. It’s not if I do it: it’s mine!