A junk phone maker anyway.
A friend got a g54 power because the online reviews praised the battery life, guess what, he needs to charge it twice a day, older phone with 1000mah less battery had better stamina. Screen is horrible, camera is junk. Earphone has massive sound distortion. He hates this brand now.
Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device
41–50 of 93 posts
Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device
#42Absent 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.
If I've understood the Motorola page correctly, they do not give you the unlock code for your device if you do not agree to the terms. That would be consideration.
Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device
#43The 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.…
Does the warranty in Australia deal with the manufacturer, or is it related to the reseller/point of sale?
There are similar laws in the EU in various implementations, but most of them make the party that sold it the one to warrant the product, and the manufacturer isn't really involved (unless the manufacturer is the one that sold it).
Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device
#44This 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 selle…
I agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety. This happens, right? Someone is harmed and they assert it's because the manufacturer of the thing didn't take adequate care to prevent a situation?
Like I said in another comment, I think it's ridiculous. I'm just open to the idea that they are doing it to protect themselves rather than trying to give (I assume) a very very small minority of their users the finger.
Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device
#45In Europe that’s absolutely void, I’m glad to have consumer rights
To be fair, it's void in the US as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
edit: Going to leave this up, but the first-sale doctrine gets a little iffy around "materially different" devices. IANAL so it's pure speculation on my part.
Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device
#46This 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…
If you buy it second hand, I don't see why you'd have a warranty regardless. The manufacturer has a contract with the original buyer; they never made an agreement with the secondary buyer
Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device
#47A junk phone maker anyway. A friend got a g54 power because the online reviews praised the battery life, guess what, he needs to charge it twice a day, older phone with 1000mah less battery had better stamina. Screen is horrible, camera is junk. Earphone has massive sound distortion. He hates this brand now.
Another data point: A while ago I bought a Motorola Edge 30 Ultra. It works pretty well. For the price the specs were even better than on Xiaomi phones.
Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device
#48Absent 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.
First sale just says that if you sell a copy you legally own of a copyrighted work that does not infringe the copyright owner's distribution right. That just means that if the copyright owner wants to stop the sale they will not be able to turn to copyright law to do so.
It does not mean that they can't turn to some other method to stop the sale. In this case they would turn to contract law. You defense to that would not involve first sale. It would involve trying to argue that a contract was not formed.
Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 selle…
I agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety. This happens, right? Someone is harmed and they assert it's because the manufacturer of the thing didn't take adequate care to prevent a situation? Like I said in another comment, I think it's ridiculous. I'm just open to the idea that they are doing it to protect themselves rather than trying to give (I assume) a very very smal…
>I agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety. This happens, right? Someone is harmed and they assert it's because the manufacturer of the thing didn't take adequate care to prevent a situation?
I'm not aware of any example of a company getting sued for consumer safety due to a consumer buying a good, modifying it in a way to cause intentional harm, then reselling it to another party. I would be absolutely fascinated to read if someone has an example of it.
There's a lot of things our legal system gets wrong, but that would be absolute insanity. No business would be able to function with what is essentially unlimited liability.
Re: Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device
#50Is this the Louis Rossmann effect on HN?
I don't think you understand that Louis Rossmann's job and attitude used to be the norm. Owning and repairing things are core to industrial living, but modern economic forces want to make you think that its about licensing and disposability. Ownership and agency are part of liberty, renting and dependence is not.
My comment was more about the influence of Louis on media in general (in this case HN) and less of a critique of the topic in question.
Why are you strawmaning?
The fact that I made this comment the same day he released his video in fact means I actively follow him and his mission.