[HTC EVO 3D] ZachPA:
I did read it. And so will a judge. And nothing about the law, the way it is written, extends any olive branches to any person who modifies his ESN in order to gain access to a network he wouldn't have otherwise had access to with his device in its unmodified state.

In order for this debate to be truly germane to our purposes, we need to be apprised of not only what the law is, but what the law isn't. You've heard of people "getting off" on a technicality, I'm sure. What you don't hear about are the many more people who are convicted of crimes based on technicalities. This is why we hire attorneys to represent us in court.

That time when you were 18 that you stole a CD from Wal-Mart could be the "smoking gun" in a trial against you for ESN Cloning because stealing that CD 15 years ago means you are predisposed to committing a crime. That time you posted to one forum that you successfully cloned your phone yet posted to a different forum that you had trouble and couldn't do it calls into question every single thing you say on the stand at your trial (and you will definitely be taking the stand to offer your affirmative defense). The most innocuous things in your life now could all be used against you in court to hang you for your crime.

Here is an example of a concept that stymies most laypersons, yet attorneys and judges are well versed in: hearsay. Hearsay is testimony in a court that is not a fact with direct knowledge. You can't testify that Tom called you to call the police because **** is beating up Harry. You can't testify that Harry told you that **** beat him up. You can't even testify that **** himself told you he beat up Harry. You CAN testify that you SAW Harry with a shiner and a broken nose, and you CAN testify that you SAW **** running from the scene with blood on his hands.

Or is all of that backwards because of one or more of the 30-40 exceptions to federal and state hearsay rules? Testifying to what Tom said during that call might be admissible because it was an excited utterance. Testifying at Tom's conspiracy to assault trial that Tom told you **** was beating up Harry may be admissible because Tom actually lured Harry there to be beaten up, and anything Tom says he witnessed implicates himself and therefore creates a statement against penal interest. And, testifying that **** admitted to you that he did it may be admissible because it's an admission of guilt.

The bottom line is that hearsay is one of the most common objections raised at trial, and it is incredibly complex with many nuances and much case law. Now think of the multitudes of rules and laws with their thousands upon thousands of nuances and technicalities, and realize that you, the layperson, are clearly outclassed and outmatched by a legal system steeped in its case history.

Sprint intentionally keeps a record of all ESNs allowed on their network and specifically includes those ESNs on their network to the exclusion of all other ESNs in the world. The fact that they specifically include only certain ESNs and will steadfastly refuse to add other ESNs creates a precedent whereby they have reserved the right to choose who and what devices they allow on their network.

If you come along with your device, and you ask Sprint nicely to add your ESN, they will refuse, and therefore your device is not authorized on their network. The fact that you failed to ask Sprint at all to add your ESN doesn't make your device any more welcome on their network. Ignorance of Sprint's desire to safeguard their network and Sprint's policies to that end is no excuse for taking it upon yourself to cram your device down their gullets, just the same as the old adage that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

The whole thing boils down to one question that you must ask yourself: do you really want to languish in a 6 foot by 10 foot cement block cell while a convict named Bruno eyes your pancakes and grits, while your case meanders its way through an appellate process that takes a bare minimum of three years to get before a federal court of appeals with teeth? Case law is never written through proceedings in courts of original jurisdiction (like the federal court in which you'd be tried if you were caught cloning your phone). Original courts are the finders of fact, and it won't take much evidence to convince 12 jurors or one judge of your guilt. Whether you should have been tried in the first place is the bailiwick of the appellate division, a process that takes patient years and deeper pockets.

Do you really want to be the test case for it? Do you want to be the guy they hang who fights back and wins thanks to a SCOTUS decision five years from now? Do the owners of XDA want to have all of their equipment confiscated and held as evidence because they promoted ESN cloning?

Once again, for the record, I would love nothing more than to legally clone my EVO 3D to work on Verizon's network. I would love networks that all operate in a compatible manner where phones are purchased from any vendor at all and are expected to work on Sprint's network the same way it works on AT&T's. But the fact remains that there are just too many hurdles to be overcome for that to happen and for Verizon to let my EVO 3D on, not the least of which is the fact that Verizon has not had an opportunity to thoroughly test the EVO 3D to ensure that it will not create conditions detrimental to its network or other users of its network.

TL;DR: Hogwash! It matters what a judge says, not what you think. I want XDA to be around for a while, so let's not post how-tos on ESN cloning.

EDIT: Also, my apologies for hijacking your thread with my long-long-winded replies.