Repairing your smartphone or installing a ROM will now be a crime in Mexico(xataka.com.mx)
xataka.com.mx
Repairing your smartphone or installing a ROM will now be a crime in Mexico
https://www.xataka.com.mx/legislacion-y-derechos/reparar-tu-smartphone-instalarle-rom-sera-delito-mexico-nueva-ley-que-proteje-candados-digitales-explicada
113 comments
That Norwegian decision is a travesty as presented here, how can a repair infringe on a trademark and how on Earth did that not lead to an appeal. Using aftermarket parts is a well established practice in automotive, I see absolutely no reason why that would not extend to phones. Are they going to demand cars are only repaired with OEM parts as well?
>The Norwegian judges made the final decision purely assessing trademark violations on these screens, based on obscure and technical details that are entirely invisible to consumers (...) while Huseby still maintains they were refurbished. (...)
>As Huseby puts it, Apple uses intellectual property law as a “weapon” by putting multiple logos and QR-codes on each component part of its screens, knowing that the Chinese grey market will not specifically cater to repairers in other countries that zealously enforce intellectual property. This creates a kind of “roulette” for repairers who want to import affordable, refurbished parts from China. Apple can then ask customs authorities in these countries to seize refurbished parts shipments.
https://repair.eu/news/apple-crushes-one-man-repair-shop/
>As Huseby puts it, Apple uses intellectual property law as a “weapon” by putting multiple logos and QR-codes on each component part of its screens, knowing that the Chinese grey market will not specifically cater to repairers in other countries that zealously enforce intellectual property. This creates a kind of “roulette” for repairers who want to import affordable, refurbished parts from China. Apple can then ask customs authorities in these countries to seize refurbished parts shipments.
https://repair.eu/news/apple-crushes-one-man-repair-shop/
They are treating this as if the phones are modern day tally sticks. What that amounts to is basically allowing private "taxation".
Disgusting.
You should read the actual court case. The online journalistic coverage is misleading and somewhat exaggerated. There are good reasons for why the case is not being appealed.
https://youtu.be/xKEdi6vXMrU
Here is one of the expert witnesses in the trial recanting his outage and explaining why Henrik was actually committing trademark infringement.
https://youtu.be/xKEdi6vXMrU
Here is one of the expert witnesses in the trial recanting his outage and explaining why Henrik was actually committing trademark infringement.
I'm sure there are good reasons but there has to be a more concise way of making that point than linking to 41 minutes of rambling video. I watched the first 5 and I'm none the wise yet.
Regardless of journalistic coverage it is still Apple suing for trademark infringement on parts that should not have been trademarked in the first place. So they are simply using trademark law as a weapon knowing full well that this was their intended use from day #1. Apple doesn't like 3rd party repairs of your devices, somehow they still feel that even if they sell you something they are owed a piece of the action for every bit of hardware that goes into it post sale.
We've come a very long way since the Apple II with it's nice and hackable expansion ports. This disgusts me in a way that not much else does.
Regardless of journalistic coverage it is still Apple suing for trademark infringement on parts that should not have been trademarked in the first place. So they are simply using trademark law as a weapon knowing full well that this was their intended use from day #1. Apple doesn't like 3rd party repairs of your devices, somehow they still feel that even if they sell you something they are owed a piece of the action for every bit of hardware that goes into it post sale.
We've come a very long way since the Apple II with it's nice and hackable expansion ports. This disgusts me in a way that not much else does.
The case was not about trademarked parts. It was about someone in China printing Apple trademarks on substitutes.
At first everyone, including Louis, assumed original Apple logos printed by Apple on Apple LCD module. Turned out Chinese refurbished decided to counterfeit the refurb to make it look like original part, by printing Apple trademarks on substitute parts.
At first everyone, including Louis, assumed original Apple logos printed by Apple on Apple LCD module. Turned out Chinese refurbished decided to counterfeit the refurb to make it look like original part, by printing Apple trademarks on substitute parts.
So, the Chinese broke the law, not the refurbisher. And yet, it is the refurbisher that got sued here. I've seen similar things happen with Bosch vs Porsche, where Porsche parts retail for a fairly large multiple of the Bosch parts, the only difference being the Porsche logo. Functionally equivalent, made in the same factory, to all intents and purposes the same part.
Manufacturers that want to distinguish themselves by labeling commodity parts with their trademarks are not doing this with the intention of protecting their customers, they are protecting their bottom line.
Manufacturers that want to distinguish themselves by labeling commodity parts with their trademarks are not doing this with the intention of protecting their customers, they are protecting their bottom line.
> There are good reasons for why the case is not being appealed.
I would assume the fact that this was a decision by the supreme court might be one such reason.
I would assume the fact that this was a decision by the supreme court might be one such reason.
The practice in automotive is there due to historical legacy - it would never be allowed in modern world. If anything, the carmakers have started to prevent you from doing your own repairs by demanding their own proprietary software to pair car controller modules. That software is licensed only to dealers and trying to use it outside those licensed conditions is a DMCA violation.
With BMW pioneering car microtransactions (https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/2/21311332/bmw-in-car-purcha...) you can be sure that the corporations will bear down the DMCA/copyright/trademark lawyer hammer on anyone that even thinks of trying to add features to such cars without their consent. The times where you could upgrade your car with aftermarket parts are coming to an end with the sound of cheers for Apple and other corporations adding DRM everywhere to prevent your own repairs and upgrades.
With BMW pioneering car microtransactions (https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/2/21311332/bmw-in-car-purcha...) you can be sure that the corporations will bear down the DMCA/copyright/trademark lawyer hammer on anyone that even thinks of trying to add features to such cars without their consent. The times where you could upgrade your car with aftermarket parts are coming to an end with the sound of cheers for Apple and other corporations adding DRM everywhere to prevent your own repairs and upgrades.
I wonder if there's something that I, as a automotive embedded SW eng. can do to prevent this. There must be some kind of market that can be tapped or some kind of movement I can support regarding this.
I make my money out of this and I'm torn between quitting this field I spent quite a bit of time in or just sticking in for the money, but what is currently happening in automotive... it's insanity to me. I just get mad thinking about it.
I make my money out of this and I'm torn between quitting this field I spent quite a bit of time in or just sticking in for the money, but what is currently happening in automotive... it's insanity to me. I just get mad thinking about it.
Well, fuck BMW then.
For many reasons. Anecdotally every BMW owner I know is constantly taking their car in for repairs.
Indeed. The last good car they made was the E46 M3 anyway (2006!)
Have you driven any modern BMW's? If size is your issue the M2 Competition is far superior to the E46 M3, and the F80 M3 is far superior to the E39 M5 and E60 M5.
For the first two years of ownership. https://www.bimmerboost.com/content.php?7348-BMW-ignores-the...
If you want to cherry pick isolated issues in an attempt to downplay how much better performing modern BMW's are overall I can make a huge list of performance cars that have notable issues
* E36 M3 upper shock tower cracking
* E46 M3 subframe cracking
* C6 Z06 valve guides
* 996 and 997 Porsche IMS bearings
* GT-R transmission failures (had to have mine replaced)
* W204 C63 AMG head bolts
Happy to provide more examples.
* E36 M3 upper shock tower cracking
* E46 M3 subframe cracking
* C6 Z06 valve guides
* 996 and 997 Porsche IMS bearings
* GT-R transmission failures (had to have mine replaced)
* W204 C63 AMG head bolts
Happy to provide more examples.
Breaking aluminum bolts is another one that is surprisingly common in some brands. They also tend to live just long enough for the warranty to expire.
https://rennlist.com/forums/porsche-macan/1085919-cautionary...
IMS bearings are an issue until 2009, engines produced after that point starting with the 9A1 no longer have an IMS.
https://rennlist.com/forums/porsche-macan/1085919-cautionary...
IMS bearings are an issue until 2009, engines produced after that point starting with the 9A1 no longer have an IMS.
I work in automotive repairs and i can assure you that all makes are in a fast race to the bottom. Is the conditions they created by brainwashing the consumers over a long time now they have to figure out what is the next “bankruptcy-saving” innovation all while keeping the price point, they choose to go the consumer electronics way but with >$30K “gadgets” so no wonder why you can call yourself lucky if your shiny machine lasts more than 5 years.
E46 subframe issue affected more than just the M3... ;(
Superior is an opinion just like mine.
I’ve not driven a modern M but I’ve driven the 330d and 420i loads and they’re incredibly dull. I’m sure the Ms are more fun and advanced and the fake engine noise pumped in to the cabin is exciting and all .. ;-)
I’ve not driven a modern M but I’ve driven the 330d and 420i loads and they’re incredibly dull. I’m sure the Ms are more fun and advanced and the fake engine noise pumped in to the cabin is exciting and all .. ;-)
>Superior is an opinion just like mine.
The increased performance is the only reason to buy an M over a lesser trim. Performance metrics are as objective as you can get and modern BMW's are far superior in that regard.
The increased performance is the only reason to buy an M over a lesser trim. Performance metrics are as objective as you can get and modern BMW's are far superior in that regard.
You're really over interpreting my initial comment and not wanting to believe people have preferences.
People like different things. E.g. some people might prefer cars that sound louder but are slower over a quiet cabin and faster.
Some people might think the engine is the only important aspect and prefer older engines.
And who said we're only talking M?
Chill...
People like different things. E.g. some people might prefer cars that sound louder but are slower over a quiet cabin and faster.
Some people might think the engine is the only important aspect and prefer older engines.
And who said we're only talking M?
Chill...
Why else would you buy an E46 M3 over another E46 3 series if you didn't care about performance? According to you it's the last good car BMW made. The M2 Comp is an objectively better car than the E46 M3 if you care about performance, which you certainly do. Stop playing the victim because you suddenly don't want to have a discussion about a comment you made on a public forum.
I laughed when I read “victim” but I guess yes you are being an aggressive jerk.
I'll never buy another one again after this.
The thing with BMW is that their DRM is usually cracked in about 5 years. Just about every BMW up to 2017 can have all of its electronic features enabled for free if you just buy a $20 cable and hook it to a laptop. Sometimes this is viewed as a positive thing it's something that has tons of features that can be enabled free by hacks then hackers like me will buy it at a discount. I bought a base model 3 was able to turn on all of the extra options for free including an additional amount of horsepower from modding wastegate actuation
That case was not quite that simple. It involved import of third-party refurbished/remanufactured parts still bearing the Apple logo (because they contained some original Apple parts). This is clearly problematic, and something auto parts manufacturers are well aware of. I buy many auto parts clearly made on the same mold as factory parts, but with the logo always removed--sometimes even just ground off.
The defendant in this case was aware of the problem and tried to solve it via blacking out the logo with a marker and describing the provenance of the part during the sales process. One can differ on whether these were sufficient measures, and perhaps note that Apple is making it extra hard to remove their logos, but restricting third parties from selling products I didn't make with my logo on it is fairly fundamental to trademark law.
The defendant in this case was aware of the problem and tried to solve it via blacking out the logo with a marker and describing the provenance of the part during the sales process. One can differ on whether these were sufficient measures, and perhaps note that Apple is making it extra hard to remove their logos, but restricting third parties from selling products I didn't make with my logo on it is fairly fundamental to trademark law.
I read it was not the Apple logo, rather the QR looking code that’s on the parts. Not sure why Chinese suppliers are putting those codes on third party items, but the Norwegian company wasn’t trying to mislead customers.
In the Norwegian case it turned out refurbishing company was the one printing additional Apple logos on _non Apple_ parts of the display.
Its one thing to refurbish a display by gluing replacement glass on original LCD. Its another to then plaster the glass part with Apple logos and fake serial numbers.
Its one thing to refurbish a display by gluing replacement glass on original LCD. Its another to then plaster the glass part with Apple logos and fake serial numbers.
>refurbishing company was the one printing additional Apple logos on _non Apple_ parts of the display.
Where did you get this? There is no such thing mentioned in the verdict nor any reporting. The closest you can find is one of the prior cases the court references where a fishery tools seller used logos of another company.
Where did you get this? There is no such thing mentioned in the verdict nor any reporting. The closest you can find is one of the prior cases the court references where a fishery tools seller used logos of another company.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6936580/Norway.pd...
The screens were real Apple hardware, with newly reprinted Apple logos by someone in China.
point 20 "Høgsterett legg difor til grunn lagmannsrettens vurdering av at dei innførte skjermane ikkje er originale, at dei påførte varemerka er identiske med Apples registrerte figurmerke, at varemerka ikkje er påførte av Apple, og at dei er dekt over med tusj som let seg fjerne. "
+ the fact he was billed for "Original OEM screens"
The screens were real Apple hardware, with newly reprinted Apple logos by someone in China.
point 20 "Høgsterett legg difor til grunn lagmannsrettens vurdering av at dei innførte skjermane ikkje er originale, at dei påførte varemerka er identiske med Apples registrerte figurmerke, at varemerka ikkje er påførte av Apple, og at dei er dekt over med tusj som let seg fjerne. "
+ the fact he was billed for "Original OEM screens"
> how can a repair infringe on a trademark
I generally agree but I can also see apples pov. I’ve purchased quite a few used iPhones online (amazon, eBay stores etc) that are advertised as new or open box. So so frequently they come with terrible third party screens or super cheap replacement parts. If I didn’t have a point of reference I would think iPhones just have terrible screens/crappy switches/speakers etc. Apple is right to want to protect their brand from these hooligans but I think there are far better ways.
I personally think they should let the repair market be but throw an alert in settings and setup that let you know there are fake parts in a device. I’m not sure how feasible that would be butI think it would be more useful and effective than going at it from a legislative angle.
I generally agree but I can also see apples pov. I’ve purchased quite a few used iPhones online (amazon, eBay stores etc) that are advertised as new or open box. So so frequently they come with terrible third party screens or super cheap replacement parts. If I didn’t have a point of reference I would think iPhones just have terrible screens/crappy switches/speakers etc. Apple is right to want to protect their brand from these hooligans but I think there are far better ways.
I personally think they should let the repair market be but throw an alert in settings and setup that let you know there are fake parts in a device. I’m not sure how feasible that would be butI think it would be more useful and effective than going at it from a legislative angle.
You buy used phones, you can more or less expect them to be repaired. If you want the guarantee of a 'fresh' phone then you should pay the mark-up. Even the seller might not be aware that the phone has been repaired.
You should expect them to be repaired with genuine parts, though.
Why? If a repair costs $x with genuine parts and 1/3 of $x with aftermarket parts and the phone works then I really don't see any good reason. Cars have aftermarket pars fit to them all the time, brakes, tires, shocks, filters, engine components (turbos!) and so on. They're arguably a lot more critical than the screen of a phone which is just another wear part.
The exceptions list mentions:
> When the purpose is to test, investigate, or correct the security of a computer, system, or computer network.
> When a person wants their device to stop collecting personal information.
Aren't those the reasons most people install custom ROMs? For getting security updates past the life of the smartphone, and to stop Google tracking you.
> When the purpose is to test, investigate, or correct the security of a computer, system, or computer network.
> When a person wants their device to stop collecting personal information.
Aren't those the reasons most people install custom ROMs? For getting security updates past the life of the smartphone, and to stop Google tracking you.
I think it's more about boiling the frog. Temper the initial outrage with exceptions, let people get used to the idea that repairs are wrong but it's sometime ok, then remove exceptions later. It's the same long game the inkjet printer people have been unfortunately winning for a while now.
Exactly, it all starts with exceptions until it's time for "think about the children", "nothing to hide, right?" and it's easygame towards "safety of our people"
When it comes to phones, the excuse is "security" of the phone, locking down the device as much as possible. And it's sad how that sentiment is echoed even on forums like HN. Apple as already a closed walled garden, Android is quickly moving that way with each release.
Not that I view this comment with a cynical eye, rather with an inquisitive perspective, I would love to read more examples which started with an exception cause and ended up with a blanket rule enforcement.
I think the general pattern here is "mission creep"[0] of which [1] is a classic example.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/11/anti-terror_l...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/11/anti-terror_l...
I installed custom ROMs on my Samsung and Oneplus devices in the past to improve performance. The hardware was more than capable but only custom ROMs were optimised enough to run smoothly. Doing the same to all the Xiaomi devices in my family too.
Used to do that with every phone I had, especially the Xiaomis due to them sending lots of tracking with the default install.
The OnePlus 8 Pro is the first phone I feel doesn't need a custom ROM. It has some annoiying things such as Facebook or Chrome preinstalled, but those were either uninstalled or hidden quite fast.
Let's see how long this will get updates though...
The OnePlus 8 Pro is the first phone I feel doesn't need a custom ROM. It has some annoiying things such as Facebook or Chrome preinstalled, but those were either uninstalled or hidden quite fast.
Let's see how long this will get updates though...
It seems stallman had the foresight to predict things like this in 1997. I think the days where one needs to be licensed to use a debugger might not be far away.
I think macOS already blocks the debugger. You couldn't debug iTunes last I checked.
You can't debug anything via lldb/gdb without having an administrator password AFAIK. You can debug non native programs using for example pdb and other language specific debuggers, but I find it hard to make that more inconvenient anytime soon.
> I think the days where one needs to be licensed to use a debugger might not be far away.
GNU/Linux and the BSDs have never before looked so essential to the survival of computing as we know it.
GNU/Linux and the BSDs have never before looked so essential to the survival of computing as we know it.
What good is Linux and free software if the hardware won't let us run the programs we want? Computers could ship with a preconfigured Linux distribution that does all sorts of abusive things and since we wouldn't have the cryptographic keys to the machine it's impossible to do anything about it.
In the future, all computers could very well be just like video game consoles: devices which refuse to run software not cryptographically signed by their true owners. Software development kits are restricted to corporations and likely provised under strict licenses and NDAs. Users are supposed to just consume content within the narrow context defined by corporations. We're not supposed to create or change anything. They don't want us to be able to run software they don't approve of.
In the future, all computers could very well be just like video game consoles: devices which refuse to run software not cryptographically signed by their true owners. Software development kits are restricted to corporations and likely provised under strict licenses and NDAs. Users are supposed to just consume content within the narrow context defined by corporations. We're not supposed to create or change anything. They don't want us to be able to run software they don't approve of.
This reminds me of ARM SBCs including the raspberry pi. The manufacturer creates a device specific build of Linux. Usually the vendor doesn't care and just provides you with an ancient 2.6 kernel because the SoC vendor provides GPU drivers that only support 2.6. There are also often device specific modifications in the kernel and since Chinese vendors don't care about upholding the GPL they just give you the kernel without source code.
Ironically nobody cares about these SBCs because of their poor software support for new versions of the linux kernel.
Ironically nobody cares about these SBCs because of their poor software support for new versions of the linux kernel.
Fair enough. The FOSS operating systems are not sufficient to save computing as we know it. But they are necessary. So I don't think it's wrong to bring up their importance. Hardware under our control won't do us any good if we don't have the software.
Yet, one of the main companies behind Linux is Microsoft and one of the main companies behind BSD is Apple. It's really hard not to have a negative outlook on both.
Apple is not behind BSD at all, using Darwin is not being behind BSD. Any of the the popular BSD distributions is not backed by Apple. Not to mention Microsoft needs linux, not the other way around. Microsoft is desperate to get linux developers on windows, using WSL. They had to rename Windows Azure to Microsoft Azure. Linux would not be affected at all if Microsoft stops contributing. Azure will be if it stops offering Linux VMs.
Apple doesn't rule a shit over OpenBSD.
It appears this is a result of the harmonization of laws between Mexico, Canada, and the US.
That's right, this was an "ask" from the USA in order to implement the T-MEC (USMCA in English). Given the current US political climate, Mexico got the short stick in this new "deal": Tax was increased (from 16% to 17%, 18% and even 19%), Mexico has to implement these laws and we keep being the "cheap maquila labour" that guarantee the country won't develop in the short/mid term.
Repairing phones and installing custom ROMs are illegal in us/canada?
Under section 1201 of the Digital Millenium Copyright, it would be illegal to install a custom ROM or repair your phone without permission from the manufacturer.
However, the Copyright office get to make official exceptions to the law and they made an exception for jailbreaking a phone. I'm not sure about repairing or installing custom ROMs. Those might fall into different categories.
However, the Copyright office get to make official exceptions to the law and they made an exception for jailbreaking a phone. I'm not sure about repairing or installing custom ROMs. Those might fall into different categories.
Wouldn't the recent "Right to Repair" push in the US counter any efforts to prohibit repairs by independent repair businesses?
Sometimes it feels as if politicians and lawmakers are drawing inspiration from the direst scenarios envisioned in the science fiction literature.
Do they really not understand the long-term consequences of preventing the kind of tinkering, exploration, repurposing, interconnecting, i.e., hacking, that leads to innovation?
Do they really not understand the long-term consequences of preventing new kinds of competition from "garage upstarts" that find new, better, cheaper ways of doing thins?
Do they really think this is beneficial for everyone in the long run?
Do they really not understand the long-term consequences of preventing the kind of tinkering, exploration, repurposing, interconnecting, i.e., hacking, that leads to innovation?
Do they really not understand the long-term consequences of preventing new kinds of competition from "garage upstarts" that find new, better, cheaper ways of doing thins?
Do they really think this is beneficial for everyone in the long run?
It is more about the lobying and money they receive and not about understanding what they ultimately push and vote on. Most of them don't even read or understand what they vote on.
People are tinkering with phones in order to circumvent law and make quick, short term profit at the cost of tax paying citizens. None of the noble reasons you'd think of apply.
You're overgeneralizing. A company has a limited amount of employees that are working full time. Meanwhile the millions of people who install ROMs may spend a week tinkering and then it's over for them. The chance that a few thousand of them become interested in making their own ROMs (and therefore become software engineers) will become zero thanks to this law.
Governments should not enforce international trade agreements on the off-chance that someone somewhere might have an epiphany while installing illegal software? No.
The term "illegal" deserves some definition. Arguing that something is forbidden because it is illegal is circular reasoning.
I would appreciate if you provide a definition of illegal that doesn't amount to "prohibited by law". In this case, the set of laws that are placed in order to protect international trade agreements.
These are pretty bold points that would deserve to be expanded, as they cover everyone doing non-standard things with their hardware or even just changing their battery. The whole statement sounds like a "think of the children"-style argument to me.
We need FOSS phones and a big enough company to implement the project and mass produce it to lower costs.
I'm optimistic with Pine64's PinePhone. It's bolstered numerous Free Software projects who aim to produce mobile phone OSes, like UBPorts and PostmarketOS. Hopefully the project proves that a workable and open smartphone can succeed.
Also, even if it isn't a big success, the devs of those OS projects will have experience building a Linux environment for a smartphone. There'll be more documented knowledge of how to implement SMS, calling, powersaving, telephoning and the rest. So even if it sinks, we still stand to gain.
Also, even if it isn't a big success, the devs of those OS projects will have experience building a Linux environment for a smartphone. There'll be more documented knowledge of how to implement SMS, calling, powersaving, telephoning and the rest. So even if it sinks, we still stand to gain.
Librem, Pine64, Fairphone.
>Do they really think this is beneficial for everyone in the long run
Do you really think that politicians are concerned about "everyone's benefits"? I think they do not give a flying f..k about it. They're being lobbied by big corps and then after their terms they get cushy jobs in the same corps. Joe/Jane Does are only remembered at the time of the vote.
Do you really think that politicians are concerned about "everyone's benefits"? I think they do not give a flying f..k about it. They're being lobbied by big corps and then after their terms they get cushy jobs in the same corps. Joe/Jane Does are only remembered at the time of the vote.
Is it really "your" smartphone if you are not allowed to modify it?
If the telcos had their way, once your contract ended the phone would vaporise before your eyes.
If that's the case, why don't they already do this? It's totally feasible to design a phone that will brick itself when your contract ends. There's no legal impediment to doing it either.
Don't give them the idea. I can imagine the reasoning: "We've had disposable cameras that were never truly the customer's property, may as well extend it to phones."
It could be argued that Apple were already doing this. Remember their updates that knowingly slowed down older phones? They claimed it was for performance reasons, but nowhere informed the user of this practice... Src: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171222/15380038868/apple...
It could be argued that Apple were already doing this. Remember their updates that knowingly slowed down older phones? They claimed it was for performance reasons, but nowhere informed the user of this practice... Src: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171222/15380038868/apple...
I agree with that. The reason I'm on Android is because my only iPhone became unusably slow 2 years into its life after a new OS update came out. I've never retired any other phone I've had for performance reasons, and I've kept them 3-4 years
Apple's claim, which seems reasonable, was that they were slowing down phones on older batteries to prevent surprise shutdowns which were otherwise becoming very common. They did totally botch communication.
Phones whose batteries cannot be easily changed pretty much fit that definition.
Slim hates true competition, or even any competition
How does this interacts with FLOSS software used on the phone?
This is an example of "tivoization" and should be prevented by GPLv3
This is an example of "tivoization" and should be prevented by GPLv3
Do any phones use GPLv3 code? Closest that I know of is Linux under v2, but Android generally is permissively licensed.
The large majority of Android is Apache 2, rich requires attribution but no release of source code.
There's a good amount of software under GPLv3 on f-droid.
Reparieren das ist schlecht, Neues kaufen, das ist recht! (Repairing is bad, buying new is good, from Qualityland by Marc-Uwe Kling)
How about creating a "derivative work"?
I am unclear on what is meant by ROM. Don't most smartphones store their operating system on the same flash memory as user data? If it is all on one writable device, then ROM chips don't enter into this discussion.
ROM refers to third party distributions of OSs for phones.
I can't find anything documenting the etymology, but I assume it's derived from rips of games used in emulation, which are in fact downloaded from "read-only memory".
I can't find anything documenting the etymology, but I assume it's derived from rips of games used in emulation, which are in fact downloaded from "read-only memory".
The device contains memory that is only writable during ROM image flashing. The rest of the time this storage is not writable. So it is effectively ROM even if it isn't implemented by actual read only memory.
What if you build your own phone with a Pi, or similar?
Then you become the new Apple and rule the world. And you'll see all these politicians licking your shoes.
If it was that easy!
Something like this? https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/piphone-home-made-raspberry...
Edit: Access to mobile networks is a deep rabbit hole and you might immeditately run into issues regarding patented algorithms. But you can integrate an off-the-shelf module and keep it at arms length to your system. If you're fine being stuck on 3G. The bigger issues are you will have similar issues with the hardware. Unless RISC-V takes off and yields some affordable, auditable hardware, the ROM concerns still apply.
Edit: Access to mobile networks is a deep rabbit hole and you might immeditately run into issues regarding patented algorithms. But you can integrate an off-the-shelf module and keep it at arms length to your system. If you're fine being stuck on 3G. The bigger issues are you will have similar issues with the hardware. Unless RISC-V takes off and yields some affordable, auditable hardware, the ROM concerns still apply.
I'm sure you're breaking at least some of patents or use some intellectual property of the US corporations and their lawyers will make short work of you.
You write a blog about it, and get hired in the US... problem solved ;)
Then you're halfway through to getting VCs to fund your company.
We need to take back the rights
How are they going to enforce that? Halt aufhören und aufhören show me your phone show me your stock ROM
It's one more way to charge people who are suspected of something. Sometimes law enforcement actually has a difficult time coming up with a charge that sticks. If the phone does not respond to a backdoor that law makers require vendors to deploy, they would have a convenient case.
This stifles competition as corporations are in control for how long hardware or software remain usable and who can provide alternative solutions. In the US this topic flared up again once the farmers felt the consequences of this. Now their modern vehicles and tools either have to be replaced a lot more often or they can't choose where to seek replacements.