Google Is Forbidding Users From Reselling, Loaning Glass Eyewear • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Is Forbidding Users From Reselling, Loaning Glass Eyewear

#21

Post by GHFigs » Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 2:11 AM UTC

ok_craig wrote: post #15

unnali wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the terms, in the non-Device Specific Addendum: > You may not commercially resell any Device, but you may give the Device as a gift, unless otherwise set forth in the Device Specific Addendum. So, nope.

> May not commercially resell Sounds like you can still give / gift / sell / otherwise transfer a glass unit to another individual privately. This all sounds completely normal.

The addendum for the Explorer Edition states: you may not resell, loan, transfer, or give your Device to any other person.

That's what the story is about, because there are no other editions of Glass.

Re: Google Is Forbidding Users From Reselling, Loaning Glass Eyewear

#22

Post by simonsarris » Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 2:17 AM UTC

This seems normal and precedented.

When they handed out free Chromebooks 860 days ago[1] they had the same terms.

Of course they also said: "Do not expose the device to water, moisture, or rap music." Not sure how we were supposed to take the rest of the message seriously...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1987536

Re: Google Is Forbidding Users From Reselling, Loaning Glass Eyewear

#23

Post by AndrewKemendo » Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 2:23 AM UTC

antihero wrote: post #7

If you buy a thing, do they have the right to do this? Is there a difference between "purchasing a physical item" and "entering a contract where someone supplies you a physical item on specific terms"? Surely there are consumer rights that protect us from this insane greedy abhorrent shit? What fucking right do companies have over your property? Surely even free-market capitalists should be recoiling in horror over t…

I think the difference is in the contract agreement. The right comes from the user agreeing in writing to forbid doing certain things with the item. Given the fact that no one is being coerced into buying it I think the boundaries can be drawn pretty wide on those agreements.

I think the question is, is it reasonable to assume that if the user broke the contract, the seller could repossess the item. I would imagine it wouldn't be any different than if someone didn't pay their car payment to the auto dealer/bank. In either case the user and seller agree to actions which each will take over a set period of time.

Re: Google Is Forbidding Users From Reselling, Loaning Glass Eyewear

#24

Post by hkmurakami » Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 2:23 AM UTC

antihero wrote: post #7

If you buy a thing, do they have the right to do this? Is there a difference between "purchasing a physical item" and "entering a contract where someone supplies you a physical item on specific terms"? Surely there are consumer rights that protect us from this insane greedy abhorrent shit? What fucking right do companies have over your property? Surely even free-market capitalists should be recoiling in horror over t…

In 20 years time, this thing is probably going to have some memorabilia value. I wonder if this provision makes it impossible to sell as a collector's item too.

Re: Google Is Forbidding Users From Reselling, Loaning Glass Eyewear

#25

Post by kunai » Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 2:44 AM UTC

This is what RMS has been preaching all along.

It finally makes sense now.

Re: Google Is Forbidding Users From Reselling, Loaning Glass Eyewear

#26

Post by crgt » Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 2:47 AM UTC

greenyoda wrote: post #16

crgt wrote: post #11

I wonder about the relevance of the recent Supreme Court decision that stopped publishers from trying to limit the resale of imported textbooks: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/03/20/supreme-court-... But maybe someone with a better understanding of the law could help clarify the connection - if any?

With Google Glass you're signing a contract agreeing to specific terms. But when you buy a book, you haven't signed away any of your rights.

So why wouldn't publishers just make people sign a similar agreement if it's that simple?

Re: Google Is Forbidding Users From Reselling, Loaning Glass Eyewear

#27

Post by mh- » Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 2:50 AM UTC

kunai wrote: post #25

This is what RMS has been preaching all along. It finally makes sense now.

except it's not. and nonsensical invocations, like yours, just make skeptics of his find him even more delusional.

this is a restriction on tester hardware (so-called Explorer Edition devices), which were already only available to people who paid for the privilege of being able to buy them.

and please save any slippery-slope reply for another thread.

Re: Google Is Forbidding Users From Reselling, Loaning Glass Eyewear

#28

Post by swiftonespeaks » Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 3:01 AM UTC

This was explicitly stated in the rules for the #ifihadglass lottery in advance. I'm all for railing against the decay of first-sale rights, but this seems like a sufficiently limited case that I have no worries. I find the article to be sorely lacking in such details.

Re: Google Is Forbidding Users From Reselling, Loaning Glass Eyewear

#29

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 3:08 AM UTC

simonsarris wrote: post #22

This seems normal and precedented. When they handed out free Chromebooks 860 days ago[1] they had the same terms. Of course they also said: "Do not expose the device to water, moisture, or rap music." Not sure how we were supposed to take the rest of the message seriously... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1987536

[deleted]

Re: Google Is Forbidding Users From Reselling, Loaning Glass Eyewear

#30

Post by quadhome » Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 3:11 AM UTC

mh- wrote: post #27

kunai wrote: post #25

This is what RMS has been preaching all along. It finally makes sense now.

except it's not. and nonsensical invocations, like yours, just make skeptics of his find him even more delusional. this is a restriction on tester hardware (so-called Explorer Edition devices), which were already only available to people who paid for the privilege of being able to buy them. and please save any slippery-slope reply for another thread.

... paid for the privilege of being able to buy them.

Did they buy them or not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Edit: upon further reflection, first-sale doctrine is around intellectual properties like books and music. I presumed there was a legal right to sell goods you've bought... but maybe not?