Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device

en-us.support.motorola.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 93 posts

Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device

#31

Post by saxonww »

Zak wrote: post #28
saxonww wrote: post #25

This feels like they don't want to be liable if someone roots a phone, installs malware or something, sells it to another person, and then proceeds to exploit the compromised phone they just sold. Which would be entirely understandable. IDK if that's what this is, or if this is the best way to do that. edit: in a way, once you do this it's not "a motorola phone" anymore. They are selling you a device and software con…

I'm wondering how many used Windows PCs have been sold with malware on them, and whether anyone has ever attempted to hold the OEM legally responsible for it.

Let me be clear: I think it would be ridiculous to do that. But a lot of what I read about that's "our lawyers said to do this" comes off as ridiculous to me. And some court decisions I read about, and the reasoning, seem ridiculous to me.

So I don't trust that anything legal-ish that seems ridiculous to me is not legitimate.

Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device

#32

Post by Sakos »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #27
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #17

The no sale requirements in the "contract" is interesting. However, is the following actually legal in the US? > You have only yourself to blame. Once you get the unlock code, your device is no longer covered by the Motorola warranty; in other words, please don't blame us if things go wrong, even if they appear unrelated to unlocking the bootloader. In Australia they can revoke the "Motorola warranty" all they want.…

Warranties are just normal contracts. If both parties agree to modify a contract, they are pretty much always allowed to do so. In this case, Motorola is offering a second contract, which modifies an earlier agreement (the warranty) in exchange for the key to unlocking one's phone.

> Warranties are just normal contracts. If both parties agree to modify a contract, they are pretty much always allowed to do so. In this case, Motorola is offering a second contract, which modifies an earlier agreement (the warranty) in exchange for the key to unlocking one's phone.

That's just not true. Most countries have regulations, or concrete laws, around what manufacturers and retailers are required to offer as warranty, as well as when they're allowed to refuse honoring the warranty.

It's not just a "contract". The same way you can't just sign away your labor rights in Germany, for example. Doesn't matter if it's a contract. Laws determine what contracts are actually allowed to do.

Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device

#33

Post by smt88 »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #27
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #17

The no sale requirements in the "contract" is interesting. However, is the following actually legal in the US? > You have only yourself to blame. Once you get the unlock code, your device is no longer covered by the Motorola warranty; in other words, please don't blame us if things go wrong, even if they appear unrelated to unlocking the bootloader. In Australia they can revoke the "Motorola warranty" all they want.…

Warranties are just normal contracts. If both parties agree to modify a contract, they are pretty much always allowed to do so. In this case, Motorola is offering a second contract, which modifies an earlier agreement (the warranty) in exchange for the key to unlocking one's phone.

You can't just put anything in a contract and expect a judge to enforce it.

Contracts have limits determined by statutes and common law. People also have rights that they legally can't give away in a contract.

Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device

#34

Post by tw04 »

saxonww wrote: post #25

This feels like they don't want to be liable if someone roots a phone, installs malware or something, sells it to another person, and then proceeds to exploit the compromised phone they just sold. Which would be entirely understandable. IDK if that's what this is, or if this is the best way to do that. edit: in a way, once you do this it's not "a motorola phone" anymore. They are selling you a device and software con…

That doesn't really make sense either though. If you buy a brand new Ford, and punch a hole in the brake lines on purpose, then sell the car - Ford isn't getting sued by the buyer when something horrible happens. They have 0 liability, and are under no obligation to put in measures to prevent you from damaging the brake lines.

Someone jailbreaking a phone, then installing malware sounds like a great way for the seller to face criminal and civil crimes, but I don't see why Motorola is under ANY responsibility for the state of the device after initial sale unless it's refurbished by Motorola.

Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device

#35

Post by throwanem »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #27
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #17

The no sale requirements in the "contract" is interesting. However, is the following actually legal in the US? > You have only yourself to blame. Once you get the unlock code, your device is no longer covered by the Motorola warranty; in other words, please don't blame us if things go wrong, even if they appear unrelated to unlocking the bootloader. In Australia they can revoke the "Motorola warranty" all they want.…

Warranties are just normal contracts. If both parties agree to modify a contract, they are pretty much always allowed to do so. In this case, Motorola is offering a second contract, which modifies an earlier agreement (the warranty) in exchange for the key to unlocking one's phone.

Warranties in the US are not normal contracts. They are heavily regulated by the Federal Trade Commission, including those implicit in offering a product for sale, which cannot be unilaterally terminated post facto by a manufacturer: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/businesspers...

Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device

#36

Post by ysofunny »

Zak wrote: post #28
saxonww wrote: post #25

This feels like they don't want to be liable if someone roots a phone, installs malware or something, sells it to another person, and then proceeds to exploit the compromised phone they just sold. Which would be entirely understandable. IDK if that's what this is, or if this is the best way to do that. edit: in a way, once you do this it's not "a motorola phone" anymore. They are selling you a device and software con…

I'm wondering how many used Windows PCs have been sold with malware on them, and whether anyone has ever attempted to hold the OEM legally responsible for it.

I wonder how many USB storage devices have had their firmware infected without anybody ever even knowing about it

like SD cards and other sorts of storage devices with embedded microcomputers; why storage? for a huge binary payload for the host system!

all it takes is one super secret 64-bit instruction that makes the cpu drop its pants and bend over, or one super secret exploit

Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device

#37

Post by tw04 »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #27
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #17

The no sale requirements in the "contract" is interesting. However, is the following actually legal in the US? > You have only yourself to blame. Once you get the unlock code, your device is no longer covered by the Motorola warranty; in other words, please don't blame us if things go wrong, even if they appear unrelated to unlocking the bootloader. In Australia they can revoke the "Motorola warranty" all they want.…

Warranties are just normal contracts. If both parties agree to modify a contract, they are pretty much always allowed to do so. In this case, Motorola is offering a second contract, which modifies an earlier agreement (the warranty) in exchange for the key to unlocking one's phone.

>Warranties are just normal contracts. If both parties agree to modify a contract, they are pretty much always allowed to do so. In this case, Motorola is offering a second contract, which modifies an earlier agreement (the warranty) in exchange for the key to unlocking one's phone.

You're completely glossing over the part where an illegal contract is invalid whether both parties agree to it or not. If I write up a contract that says you agree to let me murder you, and you sign it, I can't just murder you without repercussions.

Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device

#38

Post by Sakos »

tofof wrote: post #23
ajross wrote: post #15

Absent a winning court case on some very novel arguments, this is pretty obviously illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine You can put anything in a click-through license, but that doesn't make it a contract nor override established legal paradigms.

Can downvoters explain why they are doing so? I agree with both of these points (first sale doctrine and that a license is not a contract) and would like to hear explanation of why they are mistaken here. In particular, there is no consideration offered by either party, and so this cannot be contractual on its face.

Agree. Contracts can't override legal obligations. You can't sign away your rights and companies can't write contracts that absolve them of their legal obligations. It doesn't matter if both parties involved "agree" to it.

Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device

#40

Post by charcircuit »

ajross wrote: post #15

Absent a winning court case on some very novel arguments, this is pretty obviously illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine You can put anything in a click-through license, but that doesn't make it a contract nor override established legal paradigms.

I can see how trademarks could allow for them to restrict the selling of such phones. This is to fight against people who buy Motorola phones, unlock them, install a new operating system on them including malware, and then sell them to consumers as a Motorola phone. Normal consumers think they are getting a Motorola phone, but in actuality they aren't and they are buying a device that is compromised. The attackers are using Motorola's trademark to trick people.
Post reply on HN