said by supergirl :

TCH - Nope! Unlocked phones are sold all the time. If the Razr is sold unlocked, I see no reason the iPhone can be sold "unlocked" to work on another carrier. Companies sell these phones everyday. And, no, it is not against any law including the DMCA. Apple can void the warranty unless the warranty has nothing about AT&T wireless only.

Check out buy.com for unlocked cellphones. I see no one suing them.

»www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=un···llphones

Follow that Google link and find all kinds of companies unlocking phones. Some even offer warranties.

Ebay has a bunch now: »search.ebay.com/unlocked-iphone_···fromZR40

Unlocking the phone for one's own use, for instance to place calls with a different carrier, appears to be legal. But if it's done for financial gain, the legality is less certain.

"Whether people can make profits from software that hacks the iPhone is going to depend very much on exactly what was done to develop that software and what does that software do," said Bart Showalter, head of the Intellectual Property practice group at law firm Baker Botts in Dallas.

The U.S. District Court in Orlando found that the DMCA exception did not apply to those unlocking a phone with the intent to resell it.

said by sporkme :

From another article:

»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070824/ap_···unlocked

There's nothing special about this phone compared to other phones and "unlocking", is there? There are plenty of places selling unlock software for other phones, even those that are subsidized by the telco selling them. Since those people are not being prosecuted, I have to imagine that article above is correct...

said by supergirl :

My point exactly. Unlocking phones isn't illegal. TCH needs to take some law classes.

The cell phone unlocking exemption covers cases where cell phone software locks are circumvented "for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network." Though TracFone's own lawsuits were partially the impetus for the exemption, the company argues the plain language still doesn't apply to the resellers it's suing. "We argued the large-scale unlocking ... was for the purpose of reselling the phone for profit overseas and therefore not subject to this exemption," says Baldinger. »www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2006/71fr68472.pdf

said by John Galt :

How about this:

»accessories.us.dell.com/sna/cate···en&s=bsd

said by TKJunkMail :

Looks like AT&T/Apple do think unlocking their iPhones is illegal.

»news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20070···ld/91354

San Francisco (IDGNS) - Fear of litigation has led to an indefinite delay in the planned Saturday release of software to unlock Apple Inc.'s iPhone.

John McLaughlin, founder of Uniquephones, based in Belfast, Northern Ireland, said Saturday that he received a phone call about 3 a.m. Saturday local time from a man claiming to be from O'Melveny & Myers LLP, an international law firm, calling on behalf of AT&T. The firm has worked with Apple in the past.

The man informed McLaughlin that if he posted the unlock code, he could be sued for copyright infringement and for dissemination of Apple's intellectual property (IP).

McLaughlin is concerned that fighting a lawsuit with AT&T or Apple would sink his small company, which does a modestly successful business unlocking wireless handsets in the U.K. and Europe. At the same time, he and engineers in several countries have invested time and money to come up with the unlock software.

"It really annoys me," he said. "We have the solution sitting there and we have the customers there, but if you connect the two you could lose everything."

said by jtudor :

Dude,

Get your institutions right. The Library of Congress does not write, make or enforce law. The Library of Congress is just like any other library, they are a repository for documents. You should refer to Congress, not the library.

To register a work, send the following three elements in the same envelope or package to:
Library of Congress
Copyright Office
101 Independence Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20559-6000

said by TKJunkMail :

The Library of Congress made no exemptions for unlocking cellphones.

said by TKJunkMail :

I was wrong. An end user can unlock the phone to connect to another service provider. But it won't be attempted by many, because the Library of Congress did not grant an exemption to those who unlock it for reselling. Those would still be liable under the DMCA.

said by Kearnstd :

the DMCA will never stand up if it gets dragged into the SCOTUS.

said by TKJunkMail :

I was wrong. An end user can unlock the phone to connect to another service provider. But it won't be attempted by many, because the Library of Congress did not grant an exemption to those who unlock it for reselling. Those would still be liable under the DMCA.
»tushnet.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html

said by sporkme :

From another article:

»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070824/ap_···unlocked

The court addressed the recent exemption for certain cell phone-related conduct in the Library of Congress DMCA exemption proceedings. Because that exemption allows circumvention “for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network,” the court ruled it inapplicable – defendants were circumventing for the purpose of profitable resale, not connection.

said by TKJunkMail :

No. Bypassing security systems on a device is against the law. Check out the DMCA sometime. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA
The Library of Congress made no exemptions for unlocking cellphones.

There is apparently no U.S. law against unlocking cell phones. Last year, the Library of Congress specifically excluded cell-phone unlocking from coverage under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Among other things, the law has been used to prosecute people who modify game consoles to play a wider variety of games.

said by pokesph :

sue them for what? If I buy something, it's MINE. I can do whatever I want with it.. include modify it, break it or sell it.
At most all this does is void the warranty.

In addition to the safe harbors and exemptions the statute explicitly provides, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1) requires that the Librarian of Congress issue exemptions from the prohibition against circumvention of access-control technology.

said by justin :

It is all kind of irrelevant now that that unlocking company will be selling software unlocks for "whatever the market will bear" (at least until AT&T try to sue them).

said by TKJunkMail :

»NJ teen unlocks iPhone for use on T-Mobile

»NJ Teen unlocks iPhone

»So, who buying an iphone?

We all know that isn't going to happen. We also know that VERY FEW users of the iPhone are going to unlock it. So few that I doubt AT&T is concerned at all.

Some say AT&T and Apple should just get rid of their exclusivity agreement.