shouting loudly

George Hotz Shouldn’t, Probably Won’t Patent iPhone Hack

On George Hotz’s blog, many commenters are urging him to patent his iPhone hack. This just misses the point.

Hotz is sad that, when he starts at RIT this fall, folks with more spare time will capitalize on his discovery. But he’s not sad that all this hacking will go on without his permission or without getting his chunk of the revenue. Rather, he wishes he could offer a software unlock that everyone could use on their own, for free. To whit:

So if you follow these steps, you should have an unlocked iPhone. I’m sorry about how hard they are to follow, but someone will get them to work, and simplify them, and simplify them more. Hopefully a software unlock will be found in the near future.

In short, Hotz sees a locked iPhone much the same way as does Tim Wu: needlessly tied down and needlessly crippled (e.g., no using wifi to make Skype calls). Freeing our cell phones from the locks and hobbles of the carriers would greatly enhance their value in all our lives, but the wireless carriers want to keep the price-to-value ratio as high as possible.

Hotz’s iPhone posts are a great example of the hacker ethic at work–information wants to be free, let everyone use the best new technology, tear down authority and decentralize control. In short, patenting his technique would go against everything Hotz has worked to become; it would move him from the company of Linus Torvalds to that of Bill Gates.

P.S. As the last post recounts, he got a Nissan 350z (nice site; too much flash) out of the deal. In those comments, many are assailing him for not getting a pile of cash instead of the car. I somehow suspect Mr. Hotz will do just fine for himself, but if not, he can always hack (and autograph) more iPhones.

P.P.S. This all helps illustrate the importance of the DMCA exemption for cell phones (see number 5 here). While the triennial exemption process is a highly dubious means of ensuring fair use, and while the applicability of the anticircumvention portion of the DMCA (section 1201) in this case is hardly iron-clad, this exemption substantially reduces Hotz’s potential legal liability.