Plaintiffs ask federal judge to force Apple to hand over the iPhone 1.1.1 source code in Jailbreaking case

Seth Weintraub
|
November 20, 2009
|
Share

Computerworld has the story.  A lawsuit that has been dragging on since the iPhone 1.1.1 update that bricked a lot of jailbroken iPhones got an interesting twist this week.  The plaintiffs in the case are requesting that Apple reveal the source code of the iPhone 1.1.1 software so they can ascertain whether or not Apple maliciously bricked jailbroken iPhones or whether is was just a by-product of the new software code.

Good luck with that. 

I can't think of anything that Apple would want to give up less than that source code, even if it is two years and iterations old.

 

Comments (10)

Henry (not verified) | November 20, 2009 - 1:53pm

Dont like it then you shouldn't of jaibreaked!

Simple

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 20, 2009 - 2:21pm

These guys are dreaming if they find it inplausible that messing with low-level firmware can hose a device.

I'm a former firmware developer.  My group delivered code that got loaded onto EEPROMs inside of machine tool controllers.

Let me tell you, we always tested on circuits with replacable firmware devices, because I personally have locked up hundreds of devices.  Screwing with the boot loader on an unremovable EEPROM is just unthinkable to me.  That's what some of these jailbreakers were doing.  WTF?  Duh, Apple uses that Bootloader.  You just can be changing it on them

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 20, 2009 - 3:02pm

Good Luck Plaintiffs... you're really going to get the source code. It's a funny story for a friday afternoon!

Warren (not verified) | November 20, 2009 - 3:24pm

Hmm. There seems to be an attitude in some of these comments that it's somehow wrong of people to want to have more control over a device that they own.

The lawsuit probably won't fly, but this isn't some kind of moral lesson about the risks of jailbreaking. It's foolish to behave as though it is.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 20, 2009 - 6:34pm

You have every right to do whatever you want with your device.

You can even hit it with a hammer everyday....

Just don't expect Apple to be responsible for fixing it when something's broken.

Gazoobee (not verified) | November 20, 2009 - 5:30pm

It's hard to know what's even going on given how badly the Computerworld article is written.  They make the rookie mistake of confabulating jail-breaking with unlocking, and they mention several times that Apple agreed to releasing the code and once that they didn't. WTF?  

 

Most of the emphasis also seems to be on proving that Apple purposely bricked "jailbroken" phones, when the law suit is actually about unlocking them. 

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 21, 2009 - 3:32am

so what is your point?

 

stay off the starbucks vente bold, and take a nap.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 20, 2009 - 7:50pm

I paid for it, it's mine. The worst they can do is deny warranty service, but if it's past 1 year old, then it's fair game even then

.

DistortedLoop | November 21, 2009 - 10:39am

All these comments about don't hack your phone, hacking is dangerous, no sympathy for jailbreakers is irrelevant to this article and lawsuit.

 

My understanding is that the question that this specific request for a review of the source code is asking is:  did Apple release a firmware update that had two DIFFERENT payloads in it, one payload that was delivered to non-hacked phones, the other a payload that was delivered to only hacked phones, and if so, was the payload that was targeted at hacked phones designed to INTENTIONALLY brick those phones in a punitive effort to force unlocked users to switch back to AT&T, the only cell provider that shared cell service revenues with Apple, thus giving Apple financial incentive to force you to AT&T.

 

If Apple intentionally bricked phones for the motive described above, then they may very well lose the lawsuit.  I'm as big a fanboy as the next, but step back a second and ask yourself, if any other company you put software on your device (phone, computer) from had a malicious payload that intentionally bricked your device because you weren't doing business with their subscription revenue partner, would you still defend it?  I think you'd be calling it malware and extortion.  I'm not sure why most fanboys give Apple a pass on this, if Apple actually did it.  There's no easy way to know if Apple actually did it (I don't think they did), unless the source code is reviewed, or some Apple employee steps forward and admits it.  Not likely to happen with NDAs and all that, even if it's true, which again, I don't believe it to be.

 

There were ways to obtain an iPhone, off contract from AT&T, and it is legal, under exemptions granted by the DMCA, to unlock your cellphone for use on any network you chose.  In 2007 you had to buy an iPhone at full msrp, no subsidies from the carrier.  You had to sign up and activate with AT&T as required, but then you could cancel your contract after 30 days, pay the $175 cancellation fee, and you now had a contract free, unsubsidized iPhone that was fully owned by you with no obligation to subscribe to AT&T.  The DMCA allows you to unlock the phone and use with another carrier.  With that in mind, if the allegations are true, what right did Apple have to intentionally brick your phone, if that's what happened?  If Apple didn't do it intentionally, then "oh, well, shit happens when you hack firmware" is a perfectly legitimate attitude to take against those that got bricked, but it's not if Apple essentially issued targeted malware.

Kvocal (not verified) | November 22, 2009 - 12:48pm

Sounds like you are part of the party lodging the lawsuit.  I hope you get called up for testimony.