Murphy's Law: The Library of Congress Wakes Steve Jobs' Dragon
Huzzah! Throw up the flags! Send off the fireworks! Summon the townspeople! Apple has lost! The people have won! Huzzah!
I’m referring, of course, to Monday’s ruling by The Library of Congress, which explicitly carves out a legal exception for those looking to jailbreak their iPhones. No longer will industrious little hackers (or those who downloaded a one-button jailbreak app off the Interwebs) be subject to Digital Millennium Copyright Act smack-downs over their choice of Cydia instead of the App Store.
But don’t just take my word for it. The provision, thrown down by Librarian of Congress James Billington, comes with a fairly specific exception:
“Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.”
In short, so long as you’re jailbreaking your iPhone to make it work with a third-party application that, itself, isn’t kosher on a vanilla iPhone, you’re in the clear. I’m not quite sure what you would do with a jailbroken phone otherwise—perhaps smash it with a hammer to test its durability or something--but there you have it.
Now, we’ve won, right? The choice of how and why you use your iPhone has finally been wrested out of the turtleneck-laden hands of Apple CEO Steve Jobs. The people are in control now, and we all have carte blanche to do with our handheld devices as we please! Yay!
Yay?

I liken this to the classic movie Wargames, whereby the fateful line goes, “The only winning move is not to play.” In this case, it’s the consumers that are caught between the cat-and-mouse game that is prevailing law and common sense versus Apple. And I don’t say that as some kind of judgment on Apple’s business practices per se; it’s just the lay of the land.
On one side, there’s a perfectly legitimate (and simplified) reason as to why consumers should be allowed to do whatever they want with devices they purchase. Here goes: they purchased them and they own them, so why can’t they throw them off a cliff, run them over with a car, or install whatever additional modifications they want to slap on to their devices? Once we pass the point of sale, Apple already has its money; where’s the fairness in dictating how you can use the device that you, yourself, own?
And here’s the answer: You might own the phone, but Apple wants own the experience. Letting anyone and everyone mess with the operating system (or, worse, open it up to that-which-Apple-has-not-vetted) has the potential to give a person a user experience that, for whatever reason, is completely contrary to what Apple has sought to provide.
As always, it’s a marketing game. If your phone starts crashing more, or if it looks uglier when you show it to friends as a result of your custom UI, or if it just plain uses features that Apple itself hasn’t built into the OS yet, then that makes Apple look bad—and Apple hates looking bad, especially when one of its own devices is being used to do so.
Now, it’s my opinion that the very act of making jailbreaking “legal,” as it were, is nothing short of a nuclear warhead in this wargame of common sense versus Apple’s locked-down desires. For it’s somewhat of a moot point as to whether individual modification’s to one’s own devices is legal per the DMCA. Apple, after all, retains the right to make life as difficult as it possibly can be for would-be modders in a style that’s not unlike the rumors surrounding Motorola’s treatment of the Droid X.
Up until this point, Apple has really had little reason (or, perhaps, care) to escalate the situation by employing some kind of “self-destruct” mechanism for those running jailbroken phones. Be it a full-fledged software brick that nukes your phone if a modified firmware is detected, or a phone-home type of situation that scans your mobile device for unapproved apps, there are a number of ways Apple could—and, I fear, will—go after jailbreakers. Don’t forget about the ol’ iPhone warranty as well.
Like an angry dog that’s been pressed to a wall, Jobs will invariably have no choice but to bring the full weight of his anti-tampering ingenuity to bear against would-be iPhone modders. With the legal option out of the picture, what recourse does Apple have left, save for actually doing a hardcore job of preventing jailbreaking on the iPhone? None.
As the popular saying goes, consumers might have won the battle on this one… but Apple’s well-equipped to take the war.
David Murphy (@ Acererak) is a technology journalist and former Maximum PC editor. He writes weekly columns about the wide world of open-source as well as weekly roundups of awesome, freebie software. He did not jailbreak his Android phone.
![]()
hotmetalslugs
August 02, 2010 at 1:12pm
I guess if it's in the EULA, and says your iPhone could be bricked, then you will have been forewarned.
This is not entirely unlike the Wii system updates. They tell you flat out: if you've messed with the software, and installed 3rd party stuff, don't blame us when you hit GO and this device is inoperable.
(Complaining about it would only get one so far, though that is MaxPC's favorite sport.)
![]()
M1K3Z0R
July 28, 2010 at 10:45pm
Anyone recall how hard apple tried to stop palm devices from syncing with iTunes? and that was just iTunes, which anyone can get for free. Behold the rage!
![]()
thinknoffcenter
July 27, 2010 at 7:54pm
If Steve Jobs were to incorporate a way to brick the iphone when it detected "unapproved" firmware, his precious iphone sales would tank, no doubt about it.....though he may be steaming about this whole thing, he realizes there is really nothing he can do about it....and that's why I love it so much.
![]()
nHeroGo
July 27, 2010 at 7:21pm
...since Dr. King had a dream, I'm sure. At least for a handful of hackers and their iJobs. Front page stuff on NY Times - let's calm down. You will still happily give your money away, because you are not holding it it right. I don't have AT&T. I don't have an iTelephone. Who's the winner here?
![]()
IFLATLINEI
July 27, 2010 at 12:54pm
This is just a small win for the consumer. Theres ways to go yet. You may even argue that this means very little since people have, are, and will continue to "Jailbreak" their phones anyways. The consumer has spoken loud and clear for some time now and the message is Freedom Rules whether we exercise it or not.
All this really is though is a response to what no one can stop or control. Many of us simply choose to ignore many of these rules about DRM for example because if we buy it we think we can do what we please with it stopping short of distributing it and profiting of course.
![]()
Mark17
July 27, 2010 at 12:38pm
It's a great day for the consumer, but I now wonder what Steve Jobs' and Apple's reaction to this will be. What will they will try to do to circumvent people from jailbreaking their phones now?
![]()
jacobhweeks
July 29, 2010 at 8:47am
No way will that ever happen to Android phones. The CEO's of Google are not like that prick Steve Jobs, they are for the people. Google is more like a modern day Robin Hood of the web. They take the money from large businesses to fund their advancements in web technology. Not from the people like Apple, or Microsoft. The only reason Google would dislike modded Android ROM's is because certain ROM's had taken the liberty of stealing apps from Google, modifying them and allowing them to be installed with their ROM. Google is for the open source movement, but there has to be a limit.
In my opinion, Jobs is the ultimate evil! He takes chunks of the peoples money, then tries to take away their choice of what to do with their belongings. EVIL!
![]()
Five Rabbits
July 27, 2010 at 10:03am
It'll be interesting to see what apple does next. I wouldn't put it past them to brick jailbroken iPhones, but that could put them in danger of getting hit with an anti-trust. Its not totaly unprecendented, MS got hit by one for bundling IE with Windows among other things.
I think its amazing people put up with this in phones and a few other 'technological' devices. What if you had to buy GM or Toyota brand gas for your car, or could only put on their brand of after-market modifcations? What if you couldn't modify a house after you bought it because you wouldn't experince the house as the realtor intended you to? Im having a hard time thinking of a market that's as controling of the user's experince as the smart-phone market. Even the RIAA and MPAA don't have that much control over their products (though they probably wish the did).
![]()
Hg Dragon
July 27, 2010 at 1:46pm
Your car analogy is a little off. Car manufacturers can and do void warranties for aftermarket parts. I replaced my clutch assembly with a unit that didn't slip as much as the factory and changed to a lightened flywheel since the stock one was so heavy that the engine revs were sluggish accelerating and decelerating. The upshot? A much more responsive engine and better shift "feel." The consequence? When I went in to have the third gear syncro replaced, my drivetrain warranty was rejected because of those parts, even though the manufacturer issued a tech service bulletin stating that there was a defect leading to failure with it and that the repair would be warrantied.
![]()
Five Rabbits
July 27, 2010 at 2:50pm
I'll acknowledge the analogy wasn't perfect, most aren't, but most manufcaturers won't honor warranties if you've done after-market modifications that could effect the integrity of the product. And I fully expect Apple will still void or partially void warranties on iPhones depending on what has been done to them.
But from my understanding this was about whether consumers were even allowed to legaly jailbreak their iPhones. In the example of your car you were legally allowed modify your clutch assembly; the consequnce, whether fair or not, was it voided warranty associated with the drivetrain. But you can also still get it repaired else where, just not under warranty. In any-event you legally had a choice to make the modifications you did, and accept the consequnces that came with it. I'm assuming you're still allowed to drive your car and enjoying very much.
I suspect Apple's next move will be to suggest allowing jailbroken iPhones some how endangers the security of all the users on their network. Its hard to get a ruling in your favor because you're trying to protect a person from their own actions (unless its life threatening). However if you can show another person's actions are effecting others negatively it stands a better chance.
![]()
Bustout
July 27, 2010 at 2:15pm
but...
What if all you had done was paint your car a different color, maybe even put a car seat cover on because you didn't like the original upholstery, or even changed out your floor mats, and they still refused to honor your warranty because you "Modded" your car?
![]()
Caboose
July 27, 2010 at 2:11pm
I hope you got the part repaired. Some mechanics can be real douches. Others will look past the aftermarket parts and replace the factory recalled components.
![]()
bikerbub
July 27, 2010 at 2:11pm
that's wrong. may have been you're experience, but unless they can prove that your mod had something to do with the failure, the part is still legally under warranty.














