This is all good stuff, but actually raises another important question for our new wave of technologies: how do/should we regulate products where some form of a

This is all good stuff, but actually raises another important question for our new wave of technologies: how do/should we regulate products where some form of after-sale updates is necessary to maintain proper function? For example, in my country, it is typically the merchant who sells you a physical product who will be on the hook under consumer protection legislation if the product fails to meet acceptable standards somehow. It's implicit that they would in turn try to recover any losses from their own suppliers later, but that's not the end customer's problem, and the merchant is the one who loses out if they don't have such a recovery mechanism available. However, that's hardly fair if there's a third party involved (the developer of some software component within the product) who can update it in whatever good or bad ways they want without any knowledge or consent on the part of the merchant. It is particularly unfair if that third party is also a relatively large or even monopoly supplier and can dictate more-or-less arbitrary terms to merchants selling their products, who typically do not benefit from a baseline of legal protections against exploitation in the same way that end customers do. In short, our entire framework of consumer protection and product liability laws has been built around the model of a linear supply chain resulting in a single point and time of sale, but that model simply doesn't apply any more in many cases.