Hasta La Gadget!

Uh oh, Ashton, it looks like Apple might have a thing or two to say about that jailbroken iPhone of yours. Every three years the Copyright Office asks for proposed exemptions to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act’s rules against breaking access protections, and this time around the lovable scamps at the Electronic Frontier Foundation have asked that jailbreaking phones — like, yes, the iPhone — be classified as one of those exceptions. As you might have guessed, Apple’s response to the EFF isn’t exactly supportive of the idea: it says the proposed rule will “destroy the technological protection of Apple’s key copyrighted computer programs in the iPhone device itself and of copyrighted content owned by Apple that plays on the iPhone.” Both sides have filed long briefs supporting their positions with extremely detailed legal arguments, but the main takeaways are that the EFF thinks that allowing jailbreaking will result in more apps and innovation, and Apple points out that the App Store is already hugely successful and that jailbroken phones are technically running unauthorized modifications of Apple’s copyrighted iPhone code that allows them to run pirated applications. Interestingly, Apple’s convoluted App Store approval process is the center of a lot of discussion, and Apple is totally disengeniuous about it, saying there’s no “duplication of functionality” rule and as proof claims to have allowed “multiple general web browsers… and multiple mail programs.” Note to the Copyright Office: if you believe this we have a very nice bridge to sell you.

Now, let’s be clear: while we’re definitely hoping the EFF pulls this one out, the worst thing that can result of all this is the status quo — Apple isn’t asking for jailbreaking to specifically be ruled illegal, it’s just asking that it not be specifically ruled legal. If that sounds like a fuzzy distinction, well, it is, but that’s the sort of gray area that keeps everyone else out of court for the time being. We’ll find out more in the spring, when the Copyright Office holds hearings — final rulings are due in October.

Read – EFF page on the jailbreaking debate
Read – EFF’s brief (PDF)
Read – Apple’s reply (PDF)
Read – EFF’s second brief (PDF)

Filed under: Cellphones

Apple and EFF spar over iPhone jailbreaking and the DMCA originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:52:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Hey, so does the Kindle 2’s Read to Me text-to-speech feature really infringe on authors’ copyrights?

It’s nice to be back! It’s been a while.

Yeah yeah. Get to it.

Okay, so the issue is that the Kindle 2’s Read to Me feature obviously threatens the audiobook market, and while at first blush it seems like the Authors Guild has a pretty weak case when executive director Paul Aiken says things like “They don’t have the right to read a book out loud,” it’s not necessarily as ridiculous as it seems.

Continue reading Know Your Rights: Does the Kindle 2’s text-to-speech infringe authors’ copyrights?

Filed under: Handhelds

Know Your Rights: Does the Kindle 2’s text-to-speech infringe authors’ copyrights? originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:38:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Apple and Palm kicked a lot of dirt at each other last week — acting Apple CEO Tim Cook flatly told analysts that “We will not stand for people ripping off our IP” when asked specifically about competition like the Palm Pre, and Palm responded with a similarly-explicit “We have the tools necessary to defend ourselves.” At issue, of course, is that the Pre employs a multitouch screen and gestures almost exactly like those made famous on the iPhone — and if you’ll recall, Steve Jobs introduced multitouch on the iPhone with a slide reading “Patented!” To top it all off, the past few days have seen a number of media outlets proclaim that Apple’s been awarded a “multitouch patent” without so much as a shred of analysis, instead hyping up a supposed future conflict. That’s just not how we play it, so we enlisted Mathew Gavronski, a patent attorney in the Chicago office of Michael Best & Friedrich, to help us clear up some of the confusion and misinformation that’s out there — read on for more.

Continue reading Apple vs. Palm: the in-depth analysis

Filed under: Cellphones, Portable Audio, Portable Video

Apple vs. Palm: the in-depth analysis originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:28:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

So it looks like wannabe cloner Psystar’s supposedly hotshot law firm of Carr and Ferrell regrouped for a deep think after pumping out some fairly weak arguments in its case against Apple — according to a new draft of Psystar’s countersuit, the Florida-based computer reseller should be allowed to sell whitebox Mac OS X machines because it legally purchased copies of Leopard at retail. That’s the first sale doctrine, if you’re into copyright law — it states that the purchaser of copyrighted materials (like a book) can sell or dispose of them however they want. Here’s the thing though: a big part of Apple’s case (but not all of it) is based around the fact that consumers license OS X under the terms of the EULA — and courts are basically up in the air over whether the first sale doctrine should apply to software transactions. It’s an interesting tactic with a ton of repercussions beyond Apple if it’s successful, but we honestly can’t see it working — in the cases where first sale has been used to overcome a EULA, it’s generally been for used software, not companies like Psystar, who are modifying and installing new copyrighted software sold by a first party. We’ll see how Apple responds — things just got interesting again.

Update: World Of Apple notes that this argument has been present from the outset, but it sounds like Psystar’s really pushing it now. We’d say so — we think it’s the only plausible one we’ve heard so far.

[Thanks, iB3nji]

Disclaimer: Nilay’s a lawyer and about to fall over from CES, but he’s not your lawyer, and this isn’t legal advice or analysis.

Filed under: Desktops, Laptops

Psystar’s lawyers regroup, try another tactic against Apple originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:13:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Psion, Psion. We hadn’t really heard from the British portable maker since the halcyon days of the Series5, but it’s back and making waves with a series of nastygrams asserting its trademark of the word “netbook.” Psion’s legal team followed up with jkOnTheRun, and according to them, it’s only going after those sites and companies “making a direct, financial profit from use of the ‘Netbook’ trademark.” (As opposed to profit in kind, we suppose — did you know our advertisers pay us in toaster waffles and aviator sunglasses? True story.) Psion says it’s mostly focused on retailers and manufacturers using the term netbook to sell machines, not “straight blogs” and other sites. Of course, that means next to nothing, since Psion says it’ll still go after those sites that have sponsored ads or for-profit links containing the word “netbook” — including automatically-placed ads and links like AdSense and Amazon affiliate ads that site owners typically have no control over. +10 weasel, dudes. Anyway, considering the widespread adoption of “netbook” in the past year with nary a peep from Psion, we’d say the term is pretty well generic and no longer a valid trademark at this point — we’ll see how it goes when it drags the first heavy-hitter using the term (like Intel) into court.

Disclaimer: Nilay’s a lawyer and secret Asian netbook ODM, but he’s not your lawyer and this isn’t legal advice or analysis.

Filed under: Laptops

Psion says it’s only going after those “profiting” from the term netbook originally appeared on Engadget on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 17:17:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments