I am still scratching my head. Because the Register was unable to deliver (or receive from the EFF and the few other consumer-advocacy groups) an adequate definition of the term "Tablet", they decided that they could not extent the jailbreaking exemption from smartphones (to avoid risking unintended wide-spread effects):
Quote:
|
For example, an ebook reading device might be considered a “tablet,” as might a handheld video game device or a laptop computer. Indeed, as Joint Creators note, the definition of “personal mobile computing device” may itself be susceptible to a wide array of interpretations, each of which could be subject to its own analysis in this proceeding. At least in this case, the record does not permit the Register to conduct the appropriate analysis with respect to the various types of devices that might fall within proponents’ broadly conceived “tablet” category.
|
and
Quote:
|
Perhaps in future rulemakings, as mobile computing technology evolves, such a definition will be more attainable; on this record, however, the Register must decline to recommend that the exemption include tablets.
|