> Yes, because it's a legal case we are discussing here and that's called "breaking the law". It is an issue for society at large, fair use should include repa

> Yes, because it's a legal case we are discussing here and that's called "breaking the law". It is an issue for society at large, fair use should include repair materials, and if you look at judgements from vehicles and farm equipment cases you'll see that the legal side isn't clear cut anyway. Not least of all because you're conflating OWNING stolen materials and REDISTRIBUTING them. Copyright largely covers the latter and not the former. In this case they're simply owning a "stolen" document and using the knowledge from it, which isn't within itself a copyright infringement or illegal. Unless you can explain how simply owning a stolen document is "breaking the law." Which law? > Failing to understand that means I cannot discuss this article with you at all since a really important common understanding has been missed on your part. You don't wish to discuss it because it challenges your whole viewpoint. Which is in essence that Apple's rights extend into a device they sold to a user, and that a user shouldn't be legally allowed to "tamper" with their own property.