Database Users

Google takes a hit from oracle

http://androidspin.com/2010/08/13/oracle-hits-google-with-patent-and-copyright-infringement-lawsuit/
Could this put halt the development of android? Could this permanently damage android? What will android be without java running it?

Ace42;7667881
Could this put halt the development of android? Could this permanently damage android? What will android be without java running it?[/QUOTE said:
That is just legal speak for, "WE WANT MONEY! GIVE US MONEY!"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

So what?! Sun has been milking Microsoft to the tune of $1 million *a day* about 10 years ago for some java violation.
I think the platform is important enough for Google to settle/pay up. After all, they need more mobile devices with the internet access to generate more ad revenue.

stangri said:
So what?! Sun has been milking Microsoft to the tune of $1 million *a day* about 10 years ago for some java violation.
I think the platform is important enough for Google to settle/pay up. After all, they need more mobile devices with the internet access to generate more ad revenue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes but Microsoft as part of their settlement stopped development of their JVM completely. That's why you need to install java on new PC's before running java programs. If this goes the same way as the Microsoft settlement; then I would assume it would put an end to JVM core that makes android work.
That said, I belive Google will find a way through this.
-KAF
Sent from my Rooted T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide using XDA App running CR_Mod_1.35.531_OTA

GeekBrat said:
Yes but Microsoft as part of their settlement stopped development of their JVM completely. That's why you need to install java on new PC's before running java programs. If this goes the same way as the Microsoft settlement; then I would assume it would put an end to JVM core that makes android work.
That said, I belive Google will find a way through this.
-KAF
Sent from my Rooted T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide using XDA App running CR_Mod_1.35.531_OTA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Java is a vital part to android, if google has to remove it then it will threaten the OS pretty badly. I'm wondering if they waited this long since android is more popular now.

they obviously wanted to see how android did before they did anything about it, and when oracle acquired Sun they decided to say something to google before it got out of hand. android has just surpassed iphone in market share so i would think google would just pay up and maybe even buy some large chunk of sun/java/oracle, if they decide not to pay up then yes we are gonna be hurting real soon for android devices and frankly i don't think i can go back to a winmo device and i will NEVER put in iphone in my pocket as my daily phone. (and then there's symbian but that's a joke anyways)

tubaking182 said:
... i don't think i can go back to a winmo device and i will NEVER put in iphone in my pocket as my daily phone. (and then there's symbian but that's a joke anyways)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What about meego? (just curious).
Sent from my Rooted T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide using XDA App running CR_Mod_1.35.531_OTA

Lets get is strait. Oracle(Sun at that time) open sourced Java runtime environment under GPL 2.0. But with one condition - they promised to sue anyone who will release incompatible version of Java runtime over patent infringements - while promised not to go after those who comply with Suns rules. Sun also reserved and kept full copyright over the code. So anyone (good example is Blackberry/RIM) who want to extend JRE and/or do not wish to release their code/modifications under GPL have to pay royalties to Sun (now Oracle).
Basic definition of open source - it is a freedom to modify source code and distribute modified software free of royalties or any other type of payments. Sun effectively forbidden any modifications of Java using patent threats. Even before this story started, GPL v.3 already addressed an issue (if someone release software under GPL 3 they are giving up patents rights). But the problem that Java is under GPL 2.
Here comes the Google. Google wanted to move into mobile market, but they did not like to pay any royalties. So they come with Dalvik, a Java VM that was written from scratch. Google also took Java libraries from Apache Harmony project. And they come up with their own java bytecode/compiled file format. So they haven't used a single line of code that was written by Sun, but their VM fully support Java syntax (but not .jar files!) plus many standard Java classes. And they don't owe anything to Oracle. Plus from developer point of view porting over most of Java projects relatively simple task. Worst of all for Oracle, Google released Dalvik under non copyleft license, so basically anyone could use it for any purpose - including handset manufacturers who do not wish to open source their code.
Now lets take a look at a bigger picture. There are more then a billion mobile phones were sold last year. Most of them of them do run Java plus most of them were sold on so called emerging markets. So many are relatively cheap handsets and price is an issue. And we are talking about billions $, dozens of billions $ over years to come revenue stream toward Oracle. Plus there are set top boxes etc. And here come absolutely free Dalvik and Apache Harmony. Harmony, another Java VM similar to Dalvik have it own issues: it do use standard .jar file container, some parts of it covered by Oracle's patents. Apache also participating in Java Community Process, and restricted by compatibility requirements set by Oracle. Process itself is under control of an Oracle, for example Oracle have exclusive veto right. And here come Davlik. Dalvik is absolutely free, don't use any patented parts(.jar and/or java bytecode) etc and so on. And legally clean. Sure Oracle don't like it. But what can they do?
FUD. That is Oracle's only option to postpone Dalvik adoption by cell phone makers. Oracle could not attack fundamentals of Dalvik - Java syntax not patented plus Oracle have absolutely no way to influence what libraries would be implemented by Google. So it sue Google over 7 patents, some attack decoding algorithms of VM (could easily be rewritten, maximum damage new algorithms would be slower then current). Some attack Dalvik compiled code format(.dex files). That is more serious, but maximum damage again won't be mortal for Dalvik or Android - worst case scenario Android 3.0 would not be able to execute .apk that were compiled for Android 1.5-2.2. But I'm sure Google will find a way to update apk that were already uploaded to Market without developers requiring to upload new version themselves. And a last, and very least attack is on Android SDK. That is not even worse discussing.
In my opinion, most likely scenario - Google will win the case. Worst possible outcome - Google would be fined, and will have to rewrite some portions of Dalvik plus make new versions incompatible with currently fielded .dex file structure. But one way or another court would take years, and Oracle would make everything humanly(corporatively) possible to prolong the process. The longer hardware manufacturers are in doubt about fielding Dalvik - the more profit Oracle would make from royalties.

drTestPilot said:
Lets get is strait. Oracle(Sun at that time) open sourced Java runtime environment under GPL 2.0. But with one condition - they promised to sue anyone who will release incompatible version of Java runtime over patent infringements - while promised not to go after those who comply with Suns rules. Sun also reserved and kept full copyright over the code. So anyone (good example is Blackberry/RIM) who want to extend JRE and/or do not wish to release their code/modifications under GPL have to pay royalties to Sun (now Oracle).
Basic definition of open source - it is a freedom to modify source code and distribute modified software free of royalties or any other type of payments. Sun effectively forbidden any modifications of Java using patent threats. Even before this story started, GPL v.3 already addressed an issue (if someone release software under GPL 3 they are giving up patents rights). But the problem that Java is under GPL 2.
Here comes the Google. Google wanted to move into mobile market, but they did not like to pay any royalties. So they come with Dalvik, a Java VM that was written from scratch. Google also took Java libraries from Apache Harmony project. And they come up with their own java bytecode/compiled file format. So they haven't used a single line of code that was written by Sun, but their VM fully support Java syntax (but not .jar files!) plus many standard Java classes. And they don't owe anything to Oracle. Plus from developer point of view porting over most of Java projects relatively simple task. Worst of all for Oracle, Google released Dalvik under non copyleft license, so basically anyone could use it for any purpose - including handset manufacturers who do not wish to open source their code.
Now lets take a look at a bigger picture. There are more then a billion mobile phones were sold last year. Most of them of them do run Java plus most of them were sold on so called emerging markets. So many are relatively cheap handsets and price is an issue. And we are talking about billions $, dozens of billions $ over years to come revenue stream toward Oracle. Plus there are set top boxes etc. And here come absolutely free Dalvik and Apache Harmony. Harmony, another Java VM similar to Dalvik have it own issues: it do use standard .jar file container, some parts of it covered by Oracle's patents. Apache also participating in Java Community Process, and restricted by compatibility requirements set by Oracle. Process itself is under control of an Oracle, for example Oracle have exclusive veto right. And here come Davlik. Dalvik is absolutely free, don't use any patented parts(.jar and/or java bytecode) etc and so on. And legally clean. Sure Oracle don't like it. But what can they do?
FUD. That is Oracle's only option to postpone Dalvik adoption by cell phone makers. Oracle could not attack fundamentals of Dalvik - Java syntax not patented plus Oracle have absolutely no way to influence what libraries would be implemented by Google. So it sue Google over 7 patents, some attack decoding algorithms of VM (could easily be rewritten, maximum damage new algorithms would be slower then current). Some attack Dalvik compiled code format(.dex files). That is more serious, but maximum damage again won't be mortal for Dalvik or Android - worst case scenario Android 3.0 would not be able to execute .apk that were compiled for Android 1.5-2.2. But I'm sure Google will find a way to update apk that were already uploaded to Market without developers requiring to upload new version themselves. And a last, and very least attack is on Android SDK. That is not even worse discussing.
In my opinion, most likely scenario - Google will win the case. Worst possible outcome - Google would be fined, and will have to rewrite some portions of Dalvik plus make new versions incompatible with currently fielded .dex file structure. But one way or another court would take years, and Oracle would make everything humanly(corporatively) possible to prolong the process. The longer hardware manufacturers are in doubt about fielding Dalvik - the more profit Oracle would make from royalties.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nicely said, i learned something new today.

drTestPilot said:
Legal mumbo jumbo...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great post by a relatively new member. Thanks
Edit: Now tell us how you really feel

It's not Rooting, its Openness says google

I found this article VERY interesting, and thought some of you may enjoy it.
Posted by Google themselves; http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/12/its-not-rooting-its-openness.html
If you don't understand that, the people at digimoe made it more clear...
http://digimoe.com/google-says-andr...droid-os-is-made-for-rooting-nexus-s-included

As a developer phone, that's certainly true. I don't know. I mean Samsung doesn't have a reputation for locking their phones down hard, even on the non-google line. A reputation for **** development and longterm support, perhaps. And maybe that was google's thinking in choosing them as the Nexus 1 follow up. Certainly google has plenty to gain by helping Samsung out on the Galaxy S line. We'll see what the future brings.
But it's also easy for Google to talk about openness while sitting in the comfy confines of Mountain View. Can anyone go find me Google's support number for the Nexus S?

Not exactly Google's number, but there is this:
http://www.google.com/nexus/#/help
Google provides the OS, but Samsung is the manufacturer and the one in charge of quality control is responsible for support. This is as it should be.
They do provide a direct support phone number, it is just for Samsung.

good read.

T313C0mun1s7 said:
Not exactly Google's number, but there is this:
http://www.google.com/nexus/#/help
Google provides the OS, but Samsung is the manufacturer and the one in charge of quality control is responsible for support. This is as it should be.
They do provide a direct support phone number, it is just for Samsung.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point was that it's easy to call for openness when you don't care about the consequences. Would you rather Tmobile/Samsung provide a link to root your phone at the time of purchase that also immediately voids your warranty? I doubt most here would take that offer.
I like Google's talk about openness, as selective as it may be. But I suspect the manufacturers and carriers roll their eyes when they get these lectures, and I don't necessarily blame them.

WoodDraw said:
My point was that it's easy to call for openness when you don't care about the consequences. Would you rather Tmobile/Samsung provide a link to root your phone at the time of purchase that also immediately voids your warranty? I doubt most here would take that offer.
I like Google's talk about openness, as selective as it may be. But I suspect the manufacturers and carriers roll their eyes when they get these lectures, and I don't necessarily blame them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except for 1 thing, they are choosing to of their own free will sell a device that is based on a free, open source operating system that has a license that states a requirement of openness, and even that their source modifications are required to be submitted back to the source tree.
The drivers are proprietary, and that is fine - even if it is the reason for the requirement for us to use leaked ROMs to get all the hardware to work. Rooting does not change the drivers, and this discussion ended at rooting. That said even after rooting the parts that get changed are just the open source parts that the devs have the source for because it is in the AOSP depository.
If they don't want to support your changes to the OS that is their prerogative, but they still have a responsibility to support the hardware for defects.
At some point I would like to see someone with the money, time, and conviction sue their carrier when they refuse to honor the warranty because it was rooted. See that clause breaks many of the original licenses that make up the various parts of the OS. In fact they are required to provide a copy to the GPL or at least a link to it AND the source itself. They know they can't win this, which is why I think they like to say it voids the warranty, but as long as the phone looks like it is stock (which is more about not supporting errors you introduced) then they don't really look too hard.
If they don't want to let people exercise their rights under the various open source licenses, then they should stick to devices with enforceable, proprietary operating systems like iOS, Windows Mobile, Symbian, and Web OS.

"Openness" is an excuse, obviously.
I like how Google is trying to save face, and that other site is trying hard to help them along.
People these days seem to just be less concerned about security.
Actively fixing security holes doesn't matter for an OS that cannot be esily pushed out to users as updates. Does it really matter if you fix security holes, but half o fyour users never recieve those fixes?
Well, yea, it does... Just not as much as they think it does.
Also the sandboxing thing is a joke, studies have been conducted and lots of Android apps are sharing data with each other foe the benefit of Advertisers, etc.

Trolling on Samsung Infuse Forum...

And from a few posts I read that Samsung has not only released the source code for their roms, but have actually reached out to the developer community to help with custom rom development.
Must be nice...
Sent from my Dell Streak using Tapatalk

If you asked me a year ago what I thought of samsung I would have had some nasty words...But in the past year they have stepped up their game like none other. Not only have they resolved many of the issues they were having in the past (GPS), but they are updating their phones a lot quicker, and have some of the best displays in the business. I will most likely be getting an SGS2 once it's released in the states because it's not only the top android phone now but samsung has become a top notch android company (pretty much opposite of dell) and that's very important to a lasting positive experience with a phone.

That's a pretty refreshing turn of events and gives me new respect for Samsung also. It's about time that these companies realize that the modding community is the best friend they could ever have in many ways.
Supporting grass roots innovation is always a good thing!
I'll buy a Samsung device if they open up the driver and kernel to the community like that. Definitely a plus.

Something interesting I read recently somewhere else (can't remember now, might have been Reg Hardware), in order to be GPLv2 compliant (as Android is released as), point 3 of the license states that ALL source code must be made available, including the drivers...
No idea if this helps anything at all with our Streaks, but certainly the drivers are the current sticking point for DJ Steve and Fards et. al.

android is NOT gpl
the linux kernel inside it is gpl2
everything else (ie the entirety of android minus the kernel itself) is apache which means they can basically do whatever the hell they want with it

chaosdefinesorder said:
Something interesting I read recently somewhere else (can't remember now, might have been Reg Hardware), in order to be GPLv2 compliant (as Android is released as). . . .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android is not GPLv2 it is Apache Software License, 2.0.
License page
One of the reasons that is is Apache licensed and not GPL is that there are less restrictions on marrying proprietary bits with the main OS. Makes it easier for phone manufacturers to mate Android with the hardware and software bits they want to keep secret.

Yea, read this and weep:
http://www.neowin.net/news/samsung-embraces-cyanogenmod-gives-away-sgs2-to-devs
Definitely jealous...
Sent from my Dell Streak using Tapatalk

marvin02 said:
Android is not GPLv2 it is Apache Software License, 2.0.
License page
One of the reasons that is is Apache licensed and not GPL is that there are less restrictions on marrying proprietary bits with the main OS. Makes it easier for phone manufacturers to mate Android with the hardware and software bits they want to keep secret.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Aww pants, here's me being optimistic that we can force the drivers out of them

Will there ever be ports to ___? No!

There won't be ports to say, the Motorola Xoom or the HP TouchPad. Let me explain:
1. In it's current state, Windows 8 doesn't support ARM architecture, although it will later, so I suppose this is only a semi-valid point.
2. and 3. Windows 8 isn't open source, so any ports would be illegal and without source, it's basically impossible.
Please don't fill this subsection with questions concerning if it'll ever come to your tablet/phone/etc., because it won't.

your right,I almost forgot about legal stuff! +1 for pointing this out!

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4811/windows-8-tablets-running-on-ti-qualcomm-nvidia-amd-intel-silicon
???????
i guess we can be confident that 1. will happen

NikolaiT said:
There won't be ports to say, the Motorola Xoom or the HP TouchPad. Let me explain:
1. In it's current state, Windows 8 doesn't support ARM architecture, although it will later, so I suppose this is only a semi-valid point.
2. and 3. Windows 8 isn't open source, so any ports would be illegal and without source, it's basically impossible.
Please don't fill this subsection with questions concerning if it'll ever come to your tablet/phone/etc., because it won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Microsoft does have Windows 8 running on ARM, the only thing they haven't done is release a dev build. We'll either get it at a later date or we'll have to wait for the beta.

NikolaiT said:
There won't be ports to say, the Motorola Xoom or the HP TouchPad. Let me explain:
1. In it's current state, Windows 8 doesn't support ARM architecture, although it will later, so I suppose this is only a semi-valid point.
2. and 3. Windows 8 isn't open source, so any ports would be illegal and without source, it's basically impossible.
Please don't fill this subsection with questions concerning if it'll ever come to your tablet/phone/etc., because it won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not being open source didn't stop the HTC HD2 from recieving Windows Phone 7

Saljen said:
Not being open source didn't stop the HTC HD2 from recieving Windows Phone 7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mobile OSes are less work than a full fledged operating system, plus, you need to consider legality.

Nitro_123 said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4811/windows-8-tablets-running-on-ti-qualcomm-nvidia-amd-intel-silicon
???????
i guess we can be confident that 1. will happen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While it will support ARM, I'd say it's doubtful that it would be released on a disk that you could just load onto your existing device, it will probably only come preloaded on devices by OEMs.
Saljen said:
Not being open source didn't stop the HTC HD2 from recieving Windows Phone 7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Traditionally MS haven't been worried about piracy of their mobile OS's. Their mobile OS efforts have mainly been about keeping people in the Windows eco-system, and to a much lesser degree selling licenses for CE to OEMs making embedded devices. In most cases of mobile OS roms being posted, they've just been updated/enhanced roms for existing Windows mobile devices and so haven't really cost sales and have possibly enhanced the ecosystem.
They're generally much much more concerned about piracy of their main OS. It remains to be seen how they will react to people trying port the ARM version of Windows 8, but they could easily react as strongly as they would for a normal x86 windows.

NikolaiT said:
Mobile OSes are less work than a full fledged operating system, plus, you need to consider legality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's never stopped developers from porting anything before...
I think at this point the largest hurdle is getting a build from an ARM dump. And drivers...can't forget about drivers.

NikolaiT said:
Mobile OSes are less work than a full fledged operating system, plus, you need to consider legality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would the legality be an issue? As long as you have a valid licence and key, when it officially becomes for sale, wouldn't it be ok?

dhiral.v said:
Why would the legality be an issue? As long as you have a valid licence and key, when it officially becomes for sale, wouldn't it be ok?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It most likely won't.

ugothakd said:
It most likely won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not?
If you've paid for the license, I am free to put it on which ever device I own be it my laptop, desktop or tablet.

dhiral.v said:
Why not?
If you've paid for the license, I am free to put it on which ever device I own be it my laptop, desktop or tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I mean the arm copy...it'll most likely never be sold as a seperate product. Just built in

1. WinMo wasn’t open source either. Unlike WinMo, Windows licenses can be purchased.
2. Considering the fact that Intel and Google are now working together, the likelihood of cross compatible hardware specs are high for both Arm and Intel chips
3. This OS if it stays in close to current form will be a sort of hybrid of mobile/desktop OS. The mobile side will create a need for sideloaded apps, tweaks, reg hacks etc.
4. It is almost certain that Windows Phone will converge with this os down the line and I would argue that this forum has potential to be the most used forum of the site so the earlier the devs get started the better!

TechJunkiesCA said:
4. It is almost certain that Windows Phone will converge with this os down the line and I would argue that this forum has potential to be the most used forum of the site so the earlier the devs get started the better!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This porting work will indeed happen. Just not on this forum aparently/unfortunately. Discussions about illegal software is a far cry from hosting illegal software. Developers often experiment with breaking laws for learning about a system. exe - tutorials about changing esn # with specific notes that you should not do it. It's just an experiment.
My question is it against the rules to discuss or link to other sites that house these ports? It used to be at least overlooked. See example below and there are countless others in the older stuff.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=362344&page=3
In the past XDA was much more loose about this type of stuff and was my first place to look for the dream goal of putting a desktop class OS on a PDA.

ugothakd said:
It most likely won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But do you honestly think anyone will care much about it?
Take Mac OS X for instance. It clearly states in the EULA that installing the software on unapproved/non-Mac hardware are illegal, and yet there are tons of people with dedicated forums hacking away at it to make it run on various PC hardwares, and still ongoing for years.

eXecuter.bin said:
But do you honestly think anyone will care much about it?
Take Mac OS X for instance. It clearly states in the EULA that installing the software on unapproved/non-Mac hardware are illegal, and yet there are tons of people with dedicated forums hacking away at it to make it run on various PC hardwares, and still ongoing for years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point...people will try. But the bootloaders are most likely different. Maybe devices with hacked bootloaders (captivate) would be possible.
sent from my epic 4g. with the key skips.

You are 100% right NikolaiT...

If you own a valid license it can't be illegal anyways be it ARM version or not.
We'll see how microsoft releases the product and how many different versions there are in what form.

Indeed, i think we need to leave the legalities aside, and use the assumption of....
You have your Legal and valid licence key, this is how you can get it working on x y and Z
Of course, if it is only Sold as OEM then legally you dont have leg to stand on, OEM copies are for the sole use on the hardware in which is was purchased with, i think the licence says it allows a number of hardware upgrades but you are not intitled to rip it off one PC and dump it on another one. (assuming its the same as a Win 7 Licence), yes people do do it, but that doesnt make it legal or condonable, so if thats the case the XDA couldnt allow anything to do with it
But lets say it can be brought as a retail package, then there is nothing to stop us from attempting to install it on anything we like, infact it may even be easier than we think given that MS usually gives a shed load of drivers, the tricky bit will be getting the bootloaders to allow it.

eXecuter.bin said:
But do you honestly think anyone will care much about it?
Take Mac OS X for instance. It clearly states in the EULA that installing the software on unapproved/non-Mac hardware are illegal, and yet there are tons of people with dedicated forums hacking away at it to make it run on various PC hardwares, and still ongoing for years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Forbidden, not illegal. The EULA doesn't really have any legal basis whatsoever. Apple can deny you support on your product if you break the EULA though.

Is it now illegal to root the Nexus 7

I read the courts reviewed the ruling of phones being legal to root, but then judged that Tablets were a different story. I heard that with tablets to legally be able to root, you have to contact the manufacturer and get permission per ruling. I know this is bogus to many people, and most of you here I assume wouldnt care either way what the courts rule. So this thread is about the legality of the issue, not really meant for debate. I just want to know if it is considered legal to root the Nexus 7, is it allowed?

Righteous Joe said:
I read the courts reviewed the ruling of phones being legal to root, but then judged that Tablets were a different story. I heard that with tablets to legally be able to root, you have to contact the manufacturer and get permission per ruling. I know this is bogus to many people, and most of you here I assume wouldnt care either way what the courts rule. So this thread is about the legality of the issue, not really meant for debate. I just want to know if it is considered legal to root the Nexus 7, is it allowed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you read this? Doesn't sound right to be honest, not sure how rooting a tablet would differ in a legal sense from rooting a phone, they are near enough the same device after all. Ultimately it is your device that you own so you are free to do with it as you wish, its not as if you're rooting will have a major impact on anyone else. Unless you are caught installing pirate apps which would be considered as illegal.

Writing "I read [...]" and then not following up with a source means you completely lack credibility
Maybe you are referring to the decision cited in these sources
http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/25/3556740/copyright-dmca-jailbreak-unlock-mod-ruling
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...pyright-protection-systems-for-access-control
Take your time and read these sources
Also take your time to read up on material by senior xda members on the difference between rooting your device and unlocking your bootloader. It basically renders your "illegal to root" statement completely invalid.
Moving back to the Nexus 7, although the ruling is vague as #@!$ when it comes to tablets, your not forcibly breaking open the bootloader; its practically an on/off switch on the N7--Google is not coming after you.

The common belief that jailbreaking is legal is wrong. US Digital Millennium Copyright Act was challenged, and it was accepted that it's legal to "jailbreak" a device for the purpose of carrier unlock, but not for other purpose.
As most tablets don't have 3G and thus no carrier......

Jailbreaking is illegal for iPad.
But unlocking and rooting a Nexus 7 is a whole different story. You don't need a exploit, thus you are not breaking any protection, that is why it is legal.
At least in the EU.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app

There is a further distinction that can be drawn. In the case of an Android tablet it is using an OS that is in effect free of any restrictions - so you can "copy the book, change it and publish it, provided you acknowledge the source", contrast this with Microsoft and Apple ......sue,damages etc.

CrazyPeter said:
The common belief that jailbreaking is legal is wrong. US Digital Millennium Copyright Act was challenged, and it was accepted that it's legal to "jailbreak" a device for the purpose of carrier unlock, but not for other purpose.
As most tablets don't have 3G and thus no carrier......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are incorrect good sir. The jaillbreaking exemption, which is no longer valid, didn't come about from a legal challenge. It was granted by the Librarian of Congress under the normal review process that takes place every three years. Furthermore, rooting phones for purposes of installing and operating legally obtained software is also exempted.
To address the OP, there's a lot of FUD going around about rooting tablets. The factual reality is that absolutely nothing at all has changed. Rest assured that, contrary to the sensationalism from some, the sky is in no danger of falling.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

If rooting a tablet (tablet computer) is illegal, then why don't we get only user account on windows (Administrator account locked) and when we install Ubuntu, why are we not only provided with our user folder and don't have access to anything else? It's exactly the same. I don't know why Android, as basically another one of oh-so-many Linux distros would be the only one, where you are not aloud to access root folders? Linux is open source, and it is your right to be provided with root access.
And since the purpose of root on Android is not installing cracked apps (you can sideload them with enabling 'outer sources'), I see absolutely no reason, why wouldn't it be legal.
Is editing your BIOS settings on PC legal? Again, I don't see why different rules would apply to desktop then to smaller version of PC (which smartphones pretty much are).
You bought the device, it's yours. Even if you decide to take it to another carrier, you paid them, you accepted the contract, you pay penalty in case you cancel the contract sooner. Just because I bought a car in Germany, doesn't mean it's suddenly illegal to drive it in Slovenia.
iOS is different issue. It's not open source, but again I don't see why jailbreaking would be illegal. Of course, installing cracked apps is different, but that's illegal anywhere.

This kind of garbage bugs be to no end... If I buy product A, then I should be able to do what ever I want to product A how ever I want, in regards to electronics. I bought the device, and no judge is going to tell me I can not unlock/root/etc it.

Just ignore...how many movies/apps have you pirated...?
Most Android OEMs LET us root. No judge can change that, nor the open-source nature of Android as an operating system.
(Most) GNU/Linux distributions do allow us to login as the root user. Rooting an Android device is the same concept as logging on as root on GNU/Linux. It's there, you're welcome to use it, but don't blame us if something goes wrong.
---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 PM ----------
CrazyPeter said:
The common belief that jailbreaking is legal is wrong. US Digital Millennium Copyright Act was challenged, and it was accepted that it's legal to "jailbreak" a device for the purpose of carrier unlock, but not for other purpose.
As most tablets don't have 3G and thus no carrier......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How many people that jailbroke their iOS devices have not installed pirated apps? Does anyone _actually_ care about the DMCA?
In other words, you can't stop a hacker.

gnustomp said:
Just ignore...how many movies/apps have you pirated...?
Most Android OEMs LET us root. No judge can change that, nor the open-source nature of Android as an operating system.
(Most) GNU/Linux distributions do allow us to login as the root user. Rooting an Android device is the same concept as logging on as root on GNU/Linux. It's there, you're welcome to use it, but don't blame us if something goes wrong.
---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 PM ----------
How many people that jailbroke their iOS devices have not installed pirated apps? Does anyone _actually_ care about the DMCA?
In other words, you can't stop a hacker.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You know what, comments like you piss me off. I have downloaded my fair share of music, but when it comes to apps I will not pirate them. These developers work their asses off to make a decent app and then put a .99 price tag on them, and you claim that that is too damn expecive? You aren't a hacker, your just a jerk. I have bought over 150 apps on the play store, and I will continue to support the developers that work oh so hard for so little.
Good day sir.

AFAinHD said:
You know what, comments like you piss me off. I have downloaded my fair share of music, but when it comes to apps I will not pirate them. These developers work their asses off to make a decent app and then put a .99 price tag on them, and you claim that that is too damn expecive? You aren't a hacker, your just a jerk. I have bought over 150 apps on the play store, and I will continue to support the developers that work oh so hard for so little.
Good day sir.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No offense, but the overly white knight attitude is just as bad as the pirate attitude.

when google comes after me for supporting their os with a law suit for changing my devices gui via root would be the end of days. So, yeah won't happen. sony and microsoft just ban people and their mac ip on their console i'd assume if they ever did do anything, they could ban you from market?

I Am Marino said:
No offense, but the overly white knight attitude is just as bad as the pirate attitude.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im not trying to be a white knight, I don't care about pirating music and movies, because they are overpriced as hell, but app developers work very hard for something that they put a .99 cent price tag on. There is no reason why you should not support them.

AFAinHD said:
There is no reason why you should not support them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I see at least one reason, (which of course is valid only to some apps, not all of them), and that is usualy true to big games only:
- how long have you today to request reffunds for apps you do not like / want / can not use? 15 minutes? or is it even shorter time now? (I do not know how it is now, sorry, I only use free/ad-supported apps now)
- how long does it takes for you to download 2GB of app data? For me it is definitly a LOT longer time that 15 minutes...
- which one of these (above mentioned) apps offer some kind of trial or limited demo or something? How can you try such apps to find out whether you like it or not ?
Can you see the reason for why not to support such apps? Or at least in the first place? Of coure that it is better (for many reasons) to buy the app in the end if you like it. But you can not tell that if you can not evaluate it.
And you are wrong that these apps cost lest than $1 and thus are cheap (or at least I understand that this was something you were triing to say), most of such apps cost $5-$15, and that can be realy a lot of money if you are not from US, just because you earn $15 per hour does not mean everyone does, there are countries where people works whole day or even week for $15.
Oh, and just to be clear: I do not thing that pirating software is good thing, but sometimes it is the only way how to evaluate something. And you should be allowed do do that, right? Or would you buy a car without (at least) triing to sit in it?
All right, all right, we can just preted that the apps (or game or music or anything) which looks like we want (or need) it does not exists, but to be honest: Can you realy do that? Especially when there is no similar replacement? Or would you just happily pay any price the DEV asks, hoping that it will be usefull to you?
And one more thing:
Lot of people here is stating that court or local law or anyone forbids/encourages something - well this kind of information is totally useless if you forget to tell us in which country/region is that true.
And just to prove my point: there is a country that legaly allows downloading of audio files. Also there is a coutry that allows legaly to use pirated Operating system (namely that was true for Windows XP, not sure if they extended that somehow). Is that information usefull to you? I do not think so, unless you live there and in that case, you should already now...

..

I don't mean to derail the thread but since it's been brought up I wanted to address this quickly.
AFAinHD said:
Im not trying to be a white knight, I don't care about pirating music and movies, because they are overpriced as hell, but app developers work very hard for something that they put a .99 cent price tag on. There is no reason why you should not support them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm going to try to do this without any self promotion.
It's funny that you say that. As a musician and songwriter who sells tracks at $.99 a piece (and have spent more money on recording equipment and music distribution to never break even), I beg to differ, and I don't have a band helping me out. I put out my albums for the cost of total tracks or maybe a dollar less for that "added value" feeling. Or I let people pay whatever they want thanks to my official online store giving me the ability to set that.
I'm not trying to start an argument or fight, but I just want to enlighten you on this point. Whether it's music or app development, creativity and hard thinking and writing\coding is involved. In both processes there is a lot of trial and error, time and money spent. The pricing of an app or a music track seems to be dependent on the value to the people as seen by the authors. Music seems more standardized whereas different apps will have different prices depending on what they do. But that does not mean there was any less effort or creativity put into music or films than an app. To offset the pirating a lot of musicians at least ask to recommend to friends in hopes that someone buys our tracks to help offset the cost of what we had to pay to put the music out there in the first place.
In the days of filesharing about 8 or so years ago I had downloaded some music. Those programs got old and died, and since then I have only bought CDs or used legal streaming services, typically from those artists I used to download music from. Now that my music is for sale in places I understand the arguments both in favor of free sharing and against it. There's a solution to both.
In either case, in the end we all just want to make even a little money for our creations. I don't think it's logical to suggest that music is overpriced because doesn't take as much effort as app development.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming....

This i totally agree with .This can stand for anything rather its music apps or even a drawing of a home done in Cad or even a book.. Think if you spend 2 years writing a Book. Then two days after its released you see it on a pirated site when its being retailed for 13.00 .While you have 2 years worth of bills piled up unpaid.Hoping the book sales. App developers often go thru this same thing. I like most everyone else did download some music in the past.NO longer would I do so . Never software and never reading material. Now if its not legal its not coming in our home or on my devices..If its to expensive the author or developer did not want to sell it.
Bottom line is support the people who Create the things that make your life enjoyable and easier to live. They wanna make ends meet to.. But its not really about the money its about what is right and wrong..
sgtpepper64 said:
I don't mean to derail the thread but since it's been brought up I wanted to address this quickly.
I'm going to try to do this without any self promotion.
It's funny that you say that, as a musician and songwriter who sells tracks at $.99 a piece (and have spent more money on recording equipment and music distribution to never break even), I beg to differ, and I don't have a band helping me out. I put out my albums for the cost of total tracks or maybe a dollar less for that "added value" feeling. Or I let people pay whatever they want thanks to my official online store giving me the ability to set that.
I'm not trying to start an argument or fight, but I just want to enlighten you on this point. Whether it's music or app development, creativity and hard thinking and writing\coding is involved. In both processes there is a lot of trial and error, time and money spent. The pricing of an app or a music track seems to be dependent on the value to the people as seen by the authors. Music seems more standardized whereas different apps will have different prices depending on what they do. But that does not mean there was any less effort or creativity put into music or films than an app. To offset the pirating a lot of musicians at least ask to recommend to friends in hopes that someone buys our tracks to help offset the cost of what we had to pay to put the music out there in the first place.
In the days of filesharing about 8 or so years ago I had downloaded some music. Those programs got old and died, and since then I have only bought CDs or used legal streaming services, typically from those artists I used to download music from. Now that my music is for sale in places I understand the arguments both in favor of free sharing and against it. There's a solution to both.
In either case, in the end we all just want to make even a little money for our creations. I don't think it's logical to suggest that music is overpriced because doesn't take as much effort as app development.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse