![Bugatti Bird-gate Followup: Driver identity revealed <b>[*UPDATE:</b> Now with actual crash video!]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/11/bugatti-veyron-swim-1258147199_143x85.jpg)
Teen trades first unlocked iPhone for Nissan 350Z
The iPhone has been perhaps the most hyped tech gadget of 2007, and a 17 year-old from New Jersey recently achieved fame by being the first to "unlock" the Apple device. George Hotz, who many are referring to as the new "DVD John," rigged the $599 iPhone to operate on any network with any SIM card. For his epic hack, Hotz was given a free Nissan 350Z and three 8 GB iPhones. All he had to do was hand over the compromised handset to Terry Daidone, owner of phone refurbisher and aftermarket parts maker CertiCell. Not bad for a kid that hasn't even started his first day of college.
A bad-ass 350Z is definitely a hell of a deal in a trade for a phone that costs a mere $499-$599. If Hotz doesn't get into legal trouble for his work, we think the brilliant teenager will likely get a killer job with a tech company well before he finishes college... right about the time he gets his third speeding ticket.
[Source: iPhone JTAG]
Thanks for the tip, Phil!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Ben H. 10:15AM (8/28/2007)
Let's hope he's smarter by hacking his free i-Phones and selling them to other vendors. The first hack could have been sold for more. 4% will do. ;)
Reply
StinkyPete 10:20AM (8/28/2007)
I hope the 15 minutes of fame will be worth the 15 months of court battles.
Reply
Mike 10:20AM (8/28/2007)
I think the kid got ripped off. The money that will be made from selling unlocked iPhones will probably pale in comparison to the price of a 350Z...
Reply
Compy386 10:24AM (8/28/2007)
In my opinion what he did is illegal. Companies pay lots of money for exclusive rights to something like the iPhone. Althought I'm pretty sure it was said that the digital millenium copyright law doesn't cover cell phones. Probably new legal ground.
Reply
JSM 10:38AM (8/28/2007)
So, Compy, I guess you think that any who fits an aftermarket part to their care, particularly if it supplants an OEM supplier part, is committing an illegal act too. After all their deal with the automaker is premised on selling a lot of replacement parts too. Geez the extent to which some patsies buy the corporate line.
1) When you buy a piece of hardware you can do whatever you want to it. Period. You can paint it pink, throw it in a blender, or resell it for ten times the price. You can add functions, take it apart, improve it, modify it, or make it into a pretty floral bonnet. You do NOTHING wrong if you undermine the manufacturers business plan.
2) "Companies pay a lot of money" well la-de-da - maybe a wise company SHOULDN'T pay "lots of money" for something that a child of five could have told them would be broken in the first month. Could this mean financial losses for ATT? Maybe. Might some of their employees lose their jobs? Maybe. That is as it should be when companies make stupid decisions and it is not the responsibility of you, me or the United States government to do a damn thing about it.
One thing I can say with 100% certainty, neither this kid, nor the purchasors, nor any other hack distributor is in the least bit of legal danger, and, unlike AT&T, they are actually creative business people who are trying to give the market what they want instead of paying for a (legal) monopoly and than exploiting (legally) it by gouging consumers.
John B 12:44PM (8/30/2007)
Illegal? Not so.
"So will Apple and AT&T's legal action deter hackers? Hardly. Individual users are already allowed to unlock their own phones under an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that the U.S. Copyright Office issued last November. The exemption, in force for three years, applies to "computer programs…that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2007/tc20070827_230698.htm
Compy386 11:29AM (8/28/2007)
Retrofitting vehicles is not the same thing. Sure an automaker competes in the parts market, but they didn't pay for any sort of exclusive rights to your vehicle. AT&T paid Apple for the exclusive rights to use their device. You pay for an apartment, you'd be pissed if someone else was living there. Like I said I don't think cell phones aren't protected by name. Still there are a lot of other industries where this is clearly illegal (modding your gaming consoles to play copied games). Also your 2nd argument seems to be that if laws are easy to break then they shouldn't be enforced. Just because it didn't take people that long to crack the iPhone doesn't make it not illegal. If companies didn't pay to support these devices new phones would be a lot more expensive. Eventually maybe they'll stop, but then how does that benefit anyone. Is an $800 iphone that can be used with T-Mobile better than a $600 one that can be used with only AT&T.
paul34 12:12PM (8/28/2007)
But is it really for exclusive use? That would be a rather strange agreement. Isn't the agreement just for exclusive right of distribution?
epilonious 12:36PM (8/28/2007)
Compy: It was a shit deal. AT&T shouldn't have bartered and pandered "exclucivity". The best they could ever hope for is the glamor of being a "launch customer" and the only "official" supporter of these phones.
On the other hand, if one buys a hacked iPhone, it's going to be a black sheep. If somebody scratches it or kills the battery or it decides to immolate and kills the family in the resulting house fire... Apple and AT&T have no responsibility whatsoever because you "modified it outside manufacturer specifications". Just like how a Honda with an aftermarket Cold Air Intake can be denied engine work...
no_slushbox 1:36PM (8/28/2007)
Retrofitting a vehicle IS the same thing, just like using non-OEM printer cartridges is. When you own something you can do whatever you want to it, since the beginning of the British common law system that the US inherited that is how property has worked.
Very large corporations that have bought and sold politicians to pass horrible legislation like DCMA may have changed what the law technically is, but with no right to do so (by the way, as of now there is an exception in the DMCA for what the kid did).
If cell phones sold in a competitive market and cell service sold in a competitive market phones and service would be much cheaper (and cell service would be much better), but AT&T and other large companies have mind f*cked millions of sheep into believing that their monopolistic behavior is the only way that phones can be affordable.
Using your logic cars and gas would be a lot cheaper if you had to buy your car from the oil company that you buy gas from, and then only use that company's gas for the life of the car. Rent Idiocracy, it's a movie about what happens to the US when people gullibly accept everything that corporations tell them.
geo.stewart 10:25AM (8/28/2007)
all he did was take apart a piece of equipment that he bought fair and square.
Then he sold a used phone with a void warranty, and a list of what was doen to it that voided the warranty, for ~35K.
Now, depending on what CertiCell does with the used phone could land them in court..
Reply
beanspants 10:28AM (8/28/2007)
he's gonna be on the hook for a heck of a tax bill, one would think.
Reply
Heffer 11:06AM (8/28/2007)
I'm sure all he has to do is hack the 3 new iphones he got and sell them to pay off his taxes.
Even if it was illegal. I doubt ATT will sue a 17 year old kid that is a darling in the media's eyes.
Heck both companies may be secretly thanking this kid b/c it'll at least sell more iphones.
DRFS Rich 12:01PM (8/28/2007)
" When you buy a piece of hardware you can do whatever you want to it. Period. You can paint it pink, throw it in a blender, or resell it for ten times the price. You can add functions, take it apart, improve it, modify it, or make it into a pretty floral bonnet. You do NOTHING wrong if you undermine the manufacturers business plan."
DMCA. You're wrong.
"One thing I can say with 100% certainty, neither this kid, nor the purchasors, nor any other hack distributor is in the least bit of legal danger, and, unlike AT&T, they are actually creative business people who are trying to give the market what they want instead of paying for a (legal) monopoly and than exploiting (legally) it by gouging consumers."
100% certainty? I'll take that bet. In today's litigious society, in a country where anyone can bring suit for any reason, and with a known lawsuit-happy company like Apple, you're totally and utterly wrong again.
Hack creators and distributors not in legal danger? Tell that to the videogame mod-chip creators and vendors that have been sued into oblivion.
- R
Kowell 11:05AM (8/28/2007)
Apple hasn,t made any legal move but AT&T has activated it's lawyer team since they had signed a contract of exclusivity for the product. Let's wish the kid the best of luck with this.
Reply
Eric 12:00PM (8/28/2007)
No, what he did was NOT illegal. Even with your backwards DMCA in the US there is a specific clause in it removing cell phones from protection by the DMCA. He's not going to be sued. If he was going to be, he would have been already.
Reply
Esprit bird 11:58AM (8/28/2007)
Just a 350Z? man like he couldent of picked more of a "me too" car.
Reply
Ligor 12:37PM (8/28/2007)
I think he'll be just fine, adn a 350Z is a fine car for the work he did.
the company can have people come in with their phone and get tem modified. you're still paying ATT it's dues, it says nothing in the contract about not being able to reprogram your phone, all it will do is void the warranty - like they even honor it anyhow, always finding excuses
Reply
bladwig 1:44PM (8/28/2007)
Compy, you apparently have no clue about United States law. The U.S. Supreme court determined it is NOT a crime to modify electronics you purchased. When you purchase a piece of electronic equipment it is yours and you are entitled to do anything you want to it. Think before you speak.
Reply
Prop_blu 1:19PM (8/28/2007)
No, the kid's gonna be fine... It's the the Guy/Company who bought them that's going bring down some heat if he starts a sideline modding iphones. DMCA (Bulls_t) not withstanding ... Apple is one of the most of a tight-assed companies out there. You can't even put their software on "non-branded Apple products" eventhough you F-ing bought it. So if this dude --now that he is in the spotlight starts (or is suspected of) doing this for people for money, Apple's legal team may come a-supoena-ing. ...and considering all the 'power people' on their knees waiting to service Mr. Jobs, it won't matter if the suit is baseless Apple would simply "win" a settlement battle, or win the long courtroom war by attrition.
Reply