Unfair verdict for Apple

I don’t disagree with the judge ruling that Apple might have violated the anti-monopoly provisions of the antitrust laws for its agreements with AT&T. However, when the judge says that Apple has violated federal and California criminal computer fraud and abuse statutes by releasing version 1.1.1 of its iPhone operating software when Apple knew that doing so would damage or destroy some iPhones that had been ‘unlocked’ to enable use of a carrier other than AT&T, this is not fair.

I own an unlocked iPhone. And while I would be pissed if my phone was to get bricked if I was to upgrade the firmware, the truth is, I have an unsupported phone. I would deserve the pain associated with that upgrade. The risk should be mine, not Apple’s.

And the bigger problem is, it’s difficult to be 100% backwards compatible in a 1.x release of any product. After the original release, it will take 1-2 more years to stabilize a big project in a way that nothing else is going to get broken again. The judge must understand this. That’s how software works. Apple should only get fined if they broke the compatibility on purpose, in order to take revenge on the unlockers. But how do you even prove that in a court of law without the engineers coming forward?

Comments are closed as this blog post is now archived.

Lines, paragraphs break automatically. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The URI to TrackBack this blog entry is this. And here is the RSS 2.0 for comments on this post.