View Single Post
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 01-28-2009, 10:18 PM
rgildoss's Avatar
rgildoss
Regular 'Geeker
Offline
Threadstarter
Location: Nort East
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 405
Reputation: 1085
rgildoss is halfway to VIP status based on reprgildoss is halfway to VIP status based on reprgildoss is halfway to VIP status based on reprgildoss is halfway to VIP status based on reprgildoss is halfway to VIP status based on reprgildoss is halfway to VIP status based on reprgildoss is halfway to VIP status based on reprgildoss is halfway to VIP status based on rep
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Send a message via AIM to rgildoss Send a message via MSN to rgildoss
Re: So the big deal with RAPH800

Quote:
Originally Posted by rstoyguy View Post
I believe the issue is in the OEM floating around here, it was grabbed from a rom where the carrier paid their licensing fee to have that software on their rom, a Raphael rom. Someone assumed that since it was like that, the software is free with no trial period. It's not and illegal. Same is going on at xda with adobe flash v3.1 and their legal team, surprised it hasn't hit here yet....Same thing with Music ID here as well.

I think i understand ...your saying that the carrier paid to have the app exclusively on thier device? so realy the illegal activity is the actual application not the fact that a ROM has a diffrent Device ID .. Or is it?

If someone was to make a ROM that had the Device ID of RAPH800 with no illegal application , would that still be considered WARZE?
Reply With Quote