Somehow a subset of slashdotters has been getting reasonable posts (front page articles) tagged as trolls. Although these posts present a point of view that the archetypal slashdotter might disagree with, they offer a glimpse into marketing and real world considerations that aren't always visible to the slashdot community. Two cases in point.
That would only apply to the rightful owner of the software (on the phone), not to a thief.
Theft doesn't automatically release an owner from his obligations under a license, so the license remains in effect until it expires or is terminated under its terms, or until invalidated by a court. And even if the license terms allow Apple to unilaterally terminate the license for some reason (including their determination of a possible theft), their act of bricking the phone in response seems to fall squarely in line with concerns about self-help.
Legitimate theft that a licensee reports is a completely different matter, and it should be easy for both user and provider to agree to brick the phone until it's recovered.
There are two states, Maryland and Virginia, under which remote disablement of software is allowed under UCITA, the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act. Even then, bricking, or "self-help" as UCITA calls it, has some limitations, and it's not allowed in "mass market transactions" such as those involving non-negotiated licenses. The intent was to address shrink-wrap licenses, but a cell phone contract is similarly non-negotiable. This sounds like an "invention" that can't really be used in most of the US.
UCITA and its self-help provisions have been an issue for a long time, and a lot has been written about it that's probably applicable here too.
What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?
