Altering iPhones

I have just been reading some of the articles about Apple disabling iPhones via a software update. The phones in question have been hacked to work on networks other than AT&T, or have had third-party software installed on them. It is now virtually impossible to run any non-Apple software on iPhones.

These comments come at the end of the article in the New York Times:

J. Noah Funderburg, an assistant dean at the University of Alabama School of Law in Tuscaloosa and a longtime Mac user, had little sympathy for iPhone hot-rodders.

“Anyone who hacks must know that they are taking certain risks,” Mr. Funderburg said. “If they aren’t willing to assume the risks upfront - like a brick iPhone - then maybe they should not hack the device.

“We have a free marketplace,” he said. “Buy a product, including using it on the terms accompanying the purchase, or don’t buy it. And learn to live with not always getting everything you want.”

I agree with the first part of his statement. When you hack or alter a piece of software - either on a computer or on a phone - it is your fault if it stops working.

But I’m not so sure about the second part of his statement. Are the ‘terms of use’ an intrinsic part of any purchase? Is it the case that after you have purchased something, the company you bought it from has some say in how you use it? If something is mine, why can’t I use it in whatever way I like, without breaking the law? Is Apple’s restriction akin to Sainsbury’s insisting that I grill my sausages rather than fry them?

To be honest, I would have to argue that it is - especially the restriction on third-party applications.

The next question is - and this one is more personal - does Microsoft have the right to insist I buy two copies of Windows XP if I want to set up my PC so I have one operating system for general use, and one for games? This is not installing it on two separate computers, where both can be used at the same time, it is installing Windows twice on one computer, where only one can be used at any one time. I argue that doing this does not break the law - it is like using a book as a doorstop, and then later reading it.