Yes, the Safari autofill issue (not present in WebKit or Chrome, introduced specifically by Apple) really shows their passion to protect their customers. I’m even more impressed by their passion not only to not fix it, but to stay completely silent.

Isn’t a jailbreaking exploit also a security exploit so apple has an obligation to patch all security risks? Apple has always been boasting about their security. Don’t get me wrong, I have a jailbroken iPhone, but couldn’t someone use the same exploit for harm? Like a virus is downloaded to your computer that sits there and waits for an iPhone to be plugged in. Then the virus uses the exploit to hack it’s way in and steal all of your information.

as far as it voiding your warranty, yes a restore will get rid of all traces, people are aware of that, but the fact that apple may not be able to refuse service means you won’t have to “hide” the fact that you do it. ….maybe.

This DMCA exception has nothing to do with lawsuits; it just means that Apple cannot pursue any criminal charges against jailbreakers. It has nothing to do with any civil action whatsoever, and would not be a defense if Apple pursued a civl matter. They would have to find grounds, most likely on breach of contract. IF Apple put explicit anti-jailbreaking language in the license agreement, they could theoretically make some noise about breach of contract, but that is not a criminal matter.

Apple is unlikely to do more than grumble about any civil action, however. If they put their legal money where their mouth is, it would immediately become the acid test on the validity of contracts/EULA’s that can only be signed/clicked after the purchase has been made, and it is far from clear the courts would rule in Apple’s favor there. A ruling declaring EULA’s invalid would be far more devastating to Apple (and other software companies) than anything they would gain from going against jailbreakers, so as a rational company they will likely not risk it.