If the iPad were a car, it would be illegal to open the hood.
That's incorrect, if the iPad were a car opening the hood would void the warranty. If the iPad were a car, it would be illegal to open the hood.
That's incorrect, if the iPad were a car opening the hood would void the warranty.That filing was provoked by the EFF's attempt to get it made specifically exempt from copyright protection, but their arguments didn't actually meet any of the established criteria for creating exemptions. Apple's filing, in context, was an objection to the EFF's claims mostly spent pointing this out. The EFF tries to characterize it as Apple trying to get jailbreaking made illegal, but that's not the case. If it weren't already a copyright infringement there would have been no point for the EFF to make their filing in the first place. The whole thing is a bizarre kind of legal trolling, and cringe whenever anybody mentions it because it so severely tarnished my image of the EFF.
Guys, come on here. It's not like apple is against jailbreaking or open development because it's going to destroy the product and they don't want to warranty it (like desoldering components are ripping apart your engine block would), it's that it will disrupt their business model. Why can't I get a grooveshark app without jailbreaking? Is that going to physically break my iPhone? No, it's going to let grooveshark encroach on apple's bottom line.