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

71–80 of 93 posts

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

#71

Post by ClumsyPilot »

saxonww wrote: post #44
tw04 wrote: post #34

Earlier 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…

> agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety

Not for tampering by a previous owner. You can do that with a laptop

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

#72

Post by ClumsyPilot »

tzs wrote: post #42
tofof wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> That would be consideration.

For device you already own? I don’t think so

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

#73

Post by ClumsyPilot »

charcircuit wrote: post #40
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 ar…

> The attackers are using Motorola's trademark to trick people.

I am sorry, this is absurd.

Firstly my right of ownership over my device is greater that Motorolas twice-removed claim over trademark, which is only a small part of its value.

Second -precedent. We have laptops, there is unblocked boot loader and this has never been the norm. If a crime occurs, it’s dealt with by the justice system, not by taking away my rights.

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

#74

Post by tacon »

tw04 wrote: post #37
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Unless you live in Germany:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeha...

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

#75

Post by duxup »

BadHumans wrote: post #61
duxup wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't make that stuff, I'm not making any assumptions. But considering the state of discussion on the internet, I wonder how many takers you might get. Do / say something unpopular and you're just signing up for abuse online, heck even if you don't do anything. HN is better places than most but recently (not on HN) I got down-voted in a discussion where I said I didn't mind the neighbor kids running through my yard…

Well, now I wanna know what you mean by "e-yell." If you say you don't mind and someone replies with dissension saying you should mind, is that not having the conversation? Not the point at all but I also think you should mind :P

E-yell is a sort of sarcastic term I use when folks show up and the intensity of response seems out of place.

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

#76

Post by rwaksmunski »

bigpaw wrote: post #41

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.

My Moto G42 has great AMOLED display, decent stereo speakers, and 13 days of battery with very light use when running LineageOS. $60 used without a scratch on it. Can't beat the value. 2 SIM cards, SD slot and a headphone jack are a bonus at this point. Stock OS and camera are junk tho.

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

#77

Post by godelski »

charcircuit wrote: post #63
godelski wrote: post #16

Any devs here create these types of things? Or other systems that make it hard to repair devices? Why do you do it? Do you see this as enshitification? Just need to pay the bills? (can't find a different job?) Think "someone else will do it if I don't?" (and don't think they'll have to pay more for the other person or that the other person will be of lesser quality or people turning down the jobs/not applying puts pr…

>Why do you do it? Because I enjoy the process of making software. >Do you see this as enshitification? No, I see this as needing to make a trade off where the result ends up with one party gaining something and consumers losing something. >Just need to pay the bills? No, money is not a motivating factor. >can't find a different job? I have no reason to switch job, but finding a different job wouldn't be an issue. >T…

Thanks for the response.

Do you think these trade-offs are actually meaningful? I can see how they might be useful in the short term, but at least to me they seem clearly poor strategy long term. It is unclear to me what exactly is gained by such actions. It is mentioned that preventing users from destroying their devices is a motivation, but I think this is such a limited set of users and I'm not sure letting more technical users bricking their devices is going to result in reduced sales. It does also result in others fixing your code for you if they can debug and inspect them. (So many times I just want to fix shit code but it's closed) It seems hackers and motivated actors are always able to get in anyways so I'm not sure what the real cost is. I think you might see things differently.

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

#80

Post by cameldrv »

dns_snek wrote: post #2

> And now a word from our lawyers. Finally, in order to unlock your device, you need to agree to important legal terms[1], which can be found on the next page. Agreeing creates a binding legal agreement, so be sure to read them carefully. From linked terms: > Devices that have been unlocked are for your personal use only. Once you unlock the device, you can only use it for our personal use, and may not sell or otherw…

Do not like this, but it is still better than Apple or most other phone manufacturers that won't let you unlock the bootloader at all.
Post reply on HN