Submitted by Steven Sokol, Aug 27, 2007 17:11

Mr. Furchtgott-Roth,

I respectfully disagree with your supposition that use of the iPhone on other networks represents a theft of intellectual property. Apple created the iPhone and selected AT&T as its marketing and network partner for the US. When an iPhone is sold Apple reportedly receives a net margin of 50 points ($300) on the 8GB phone. When an iPhone is activated on the AT&T network, AT&T receives an activation fee, the customer's contracted business and has the opportunity to up-sell on a number of points. I did both and love both the phone and the service. Others, however, may want the phone and not the service (and so far as I can tell, there's nothing to force them to accept it).

There are a very few places in the US where the AT&T service isn't available. There may be places where AT&T's service isn't as good as T-Mobile's. There are many markets outside of the US where Apple has not partnered with a service provider. If a user in any of these cases were to buy an iPhone and manage to activate it on another network neither Apple nor AT&T is loosing anything: Apple received its money at the time of sale, and AT&T was not going to make a sale anyway.

The big question here is to what degree a vendor can encumber a "hard" product. Imagine buying a new car from a Ford dealership located in New York. You love the car but the dealer tells you that you can't drive on highways in New Jersey. It's not against the laws of New Jersey -- it's just that Ford hasn't partnered with New Jersey to receive a kickback on gasoline taxes collected (or some other revenue share arrangement). If you happen to live in New Jersey and love Fords, this would be as annoying as it is preposterous.

So, in a fit of obstinacy you buy the car and head home. It's street legal in New Jersey. You have a full tank of gas. The only problem is that a built-in GPS receiver cuts off the gas when you cross through the Holland tunnel, leaving you stranded (and a whole lot of people calling you offensive names). Now imagine you're a skilled auto mechanic and have the ability to remove or disable the GPS cutout system. By doing so you get to use YOUR car where you want.

If you apply the above logic (and by the way, the entire silly situation was hypothetical -- conspiracy theorists please sit down, take off your tinfoil hats and stop wondering if New York has a secret deal with Ford) to the iPhone, you'll come up with the same conclusion: altering a product you own to fit your needs is wholly acceptable behavior in a civilized society. Such tinkering is part and parcel of innovation. Why is it any different with the iPhone?

Those who are working to activate the iPhone on other networks (or otherwise modify products they legitimately purchased) are not violating intellectual property laws. At worst they are knowingly voiding their warranties. The phone was designed and built by Apple (who, as we already mentioned, received its money at the point of sale). So far as I can see: no harm, no foul.

If I'm wrong, please show me how. I would like to know where a crime or tort against AT&T is taking place in the activation of the iPhone on another GSM network.

Respectfully,

Steve Sokol

NOTE: The above is strictly my personal opinion and in now way reflects the opinion of my employers, associates, friends, family etc.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.