5 ms·

Maybe that is what the law happens to say now, but it isn't necessarily what the law should be. Ideally, manufacturers have a right to sell what they want, und

Maybe that is what the law happens to say now, but it isn't necessarily what the law should be. Ideally, manufacturers have a right to sell what they want, under terms that they want. Buyers have a right to choose among the best available options on the market, or to not buy at all. Maybe this wouldn't lead to outcomes that the author wants, but then again, he's free to show that all of the other companies are doing it wrong by starting his own company! So let's allow other people vote with their dollars, rather trying to suppose what customers want and then forcing everyone to comply.

_ph_ 10y ago
Customers should have a reasonable expectation about what they can and cannot do with a device without consulting a lawyer first. A lot of consumer protection laws are there to ensure, that a company with very tricky lawyers cannot put customers at a disadvantage. While future customers might be able to vote with their money, those customers, who "find out" about unacceptable conditions after having spent their money, need protection too. Especially with common business terms like "warranty" the law should very clearly set boundaries for the conditions.
GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
Personally as someone who makes purchases, I'm entirely in favor of consumer protection laws and the strengthening and enforcement of same.
Fej 10y ago
The concept of "voting with one's dollars" or "letting the market decide" is predicated on all parties having perfect information, i.e. everyone understands all laws, including this one. Naturally, this is rarely true in practice, hence the need for consumer protection laws.
- maxharris 10y ago
  We're not living in the early 1970s anymore. Nowadays, if you want to dig into something, you're just a search away from deep knowledge about whatever you want. Learning is an inherently individual process, and it requires time and effort on the part of the learner. Just think back to when you were in school - we'll never all be equal in terms of what we know. (I shouldn't have to say this, but yes, it should be illegal to do things like sell a cake with an actual bomb inside it or something. Doing that is just plain murder, which is an entirely different phenomenon from what we're talking about here, which is whether or not a company has to honor a warranty for a device which the customer has tampered with in violation of contract.) Why should the range of options for those that avail themselves of information be limited for the benefit of those that do not?
  - Fej 10y ago
    It is not a reasonable expectation that consumers be aware of every law that may be applicable to a purchase. If we had to do that, we'd either have time for nothing else, or be lawyers.
dragonwriter 10y ago
The type of acts that the MMWA prohibites that are addressed in the article are not merely exploitations of insufficiently-cautious customers, but are mechanisms for leveraging market power in the market in which the original device is sold in order to monopolize associated markets (such as the markets for repairs and accessories for devices in the original market.)

_ph_ 10y ago

Customers should have a reasonable expectation about what they can and cannot do with a device without consulting a lawyer first. A lot of consumer protection laws are there to ensure, that a company with very tricky lawyers cannot put customers at a disadvantage. While future customers might be able to vote with their money, those customers, who "find out" about unacceptable conditions after having spent their money, need protection too. Especially with common business terms like "warranty" the law should very clearly set boundaries for the conditions.

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago

Personally as someone who makes purchases, I'm entirely in favor of consumer protection laws and the strengthening and enforcement of same.

Fej 10y ago

The concept of "voting with one's dollars" or "letting the market decide" is predicated on all parties having perfect information, i.e. everyone understands all laws, including this one. Naturally, this is rarely true in practice, hence the need for consumer protection laws.

maxharris 10y ago
We're not living in the early 1970s anymore. Nowadays, if you want to dig into something, you're just a search away from deep knowledge about whatever you want. Learning is an inherently individual process, and it requires time and effort on the part of the learner. Just think back to when you were in school - we'll never all be equal in terms of what we know. (I shouldn't have to say this, but yes, it should be illegal to do things like sell a cake with an actual bomb inside it or something. Doing that is just plain murder, which is an entirely different phenomenon from what we're talking about here, which is whether or not a company has to honor a warranty for a device which the customer has tampered with in violation of contract.) Why should the range of options for those that avail themselves of information be limited for the benefit of those that do not?
- Fej 10y ago
  It is not a reasonable expectation that consumers be aware of every law that may be applicable to a purchase. If we had to do that, we'd either have time for nothing else, or be lawyers.

dragonwriter 10y ago

The type of acts that the MMWA prohibites that are addressed in the article are not merely exploitations of insufficiently-cautious customers, but are mechanisms for leveraging market power in the market in which the original device is sold in order to monopolize associated markets (such as the markets for repairs and accessories for devices in the original market.)