5 ms·

Who defines what counts as "tampering"? I didn't tamper with anything, I simply used the product the way I wanted to use it. I don't see how it's even remotely

Who defines what counts as "tampering"? I didn't tamper with anything, I simply used the product the way I wanted to use it. I don't see how it's even remotely reasonable to allow the manufacturer to set rules as to how you may use the product, and if you don't follow those rules they disclaim all responsibility for delivering a non-defective product by claiming that it's "tampering". And how is the potential problem that some things are difficult to judge for a court a reason to therefore allow one party to dictate the judgement? And why would that party be the manufacturer? Why don't I as the customer get to dictate the outcome? Is there any reasonable surety that the manufacturer did do their quality control properly? How could it possibly be reasonable to assume that I am at fault because the manufacturer says so? How is it possibly a reasonable solution to the supposed problem that courts lack resources to simply declare one party the winner by law? And no, the line does not have to be drawn anywhere, why would it? If I am willing and able to prove to any sufficiently competent person in the matter that a defect existed when the product was delivered ... what could possibly be a reason to "draw the line" somewhere and ignore the evidence? How is it not obvious that at the very least, if I can demonstrate that a defect existed when the product was delivered, it should be completely irrelevant whether I also modified the product?

KGIII 9y ago
We aren't going to fill the courts with that. If there's a manufacturing defect, return it before tampering with it. If it is a common defect, it will be covered by a recall and not a warranty. Sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere. You may be competent and I believe you are. However, Joe I Can Solder This With A Lighter is not qualified. We aren't going to tie up the courts determining the difference between you and him. It's just reality. In principle, I would love to agree with you. However, much like we can't assume perfect information, we're not going to assume perfect repairs. The courts are too valuable to be wasted with frivolity.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > We aren't going to fill the courts with that. Why not? > If there's a manufacturing defect, return it before tampering with it. What if I discover the defect only after I have started using it? (Please stop calling using my property "tampering", or explain what you mean by "tampering" if that is not what you mean.) > Sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Why? Just repeating this claims does nothing to justify it. > You may be competent and I believe you are. However, Joe I Can Solder This With A Lighter is not qualified. We aren't going to tie up the courts determining the difference between you and him. So, what are we going to do instead then? Let the manufacturer decide what they want to pay for? > However, much like we can't assume perfect information, we're not going to assume perfect repairs. Who is "assuming perfect repairs"? > The courts are too valuable to be wasted with frivolity. How is holding manufacturers responsible for defects in their products frivolity?
  - KGIII 9y ago
    > Why not? From your post above... > whatever I want to do I think we are done here. That's not how society works. You don't just get to do whatever you want to do and expect the manufacturer to still cover the warranty. They warranty it for an express set of conditions, for express purposes, as is understood by a reasonable person (a legal concept). If you tamper, see a dictionary, with the device then it is not their responsibility to cover it. That's actually pretty much how the law already is. Your house example is kinda silly. It's a house, not an electronic device. I'd love to agree with you but reality suggests otherwise. If you overclock your CPU, as a rough example, they aren't gonna let you RMA it. I don't blame them. Swapping out user serviceable parts, as a reasonable person might do, is an obvious exception. You might want to try looking at it as a reasonable person (the legal concept) would. You really seem to have a bit emotionally invested in this so I'm going to respectfully bow out now.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > I think we are done here. That's not how society works. You don't just get to do whatever you want to do and expect the manufacturer to still cover the warranty. Well, yes, actually, I do. And not only do I expect it, it's actually the law over here. > If you tamper, see a dictionary, with the device then it is not their responsibility to cover it. Well, OK, let me quote a dictionary: | a :to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse —used with with | b :to try foolish or dangerous experiments —used with with | c :to render something harmful or dangerous by altering its structure or composition (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tamper https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tamper) So, according to the dictionary definition, competently repairing or modifying the phone certainly would not fall under tampering, do you agree? > That's actually pretty much how the law already is. Actually, I doubt that it is, assuming that you are talking about the US. > Your house example is kinda silly. It's a house, not an electronic device. I agree that a house is not an electronic device. Why do you think that different rules should apply in the case of electronic devices? > I'd love to agree with you but reality suggests otherwise. Why? > If you overclock your CPU, as a rough example, they aren't gonna let you RMA it. Whether they "let me" anything really is not the question. The question is what their legal responsibilities are, i.e., what I can enforce via the judicial system if they do not voluntarily "let me". > I don't blame them. I think I got your standpoint. What's still missing is the justification. > Swapping out user serviceable parts, as a reasonable person might do, is an obvious exception. You might want to try looking at it as a reasonable person (the legal concept) would. You do understand that that is not a meaningful use of the legal term "reasonable person", right? That is about figuring out the intent of a contract if things are not spelled out. > You really seem to have a bit emotionally invested in this so I'm going to respectfully bow out now. Unfortunately, that is not really a justification for your standpoint either.
WaxProlix 9y ago
Please don't comment here anymore, I just want to hear liberterian POVs.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  Why do you think I should stop discussing in this public forum with people who are interested because you are not interested in what we are discussing?

KGIII 9y ago

We aren't going to fill the courts with that. If there's a manufacturing defect, return it before tampering with it. If it is a common defect, it will be covered by a recall and not a warranty. Sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere. You may be competent and I believe you are. However, Joe I Can Solder This With A Lighter is not qualified. We aren't going to tie up the courts determining the difference between you and him. It's just reality. In principle, I would love to agree with you. However, much like we can't assume perfect information, we're not going to assume perfect repairs. The courts are too valuable to be wasted with frivolity.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> We aren't going to fill the courts with that. Why not? > If there's a manufacturing defect, return it before tampering with it. What if I discover the defect only after I have started using it? (Please stop calling using my property "tampering", or explain what you mean by "tampering" if that is not what you mean.) > Sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Why? Just repeating this claims does nothing to justify it. > You may be competent and I believe you are. However, Joe I Can Solder This With A Lighter is not qualified. We aren't going to tie up the courts determining the difference between you and him. So, what are we going to do instead then? Let the manufacturer decide what they want to pay for? > However, much like we can't assume perfect information, we're not going to assume perfect repairs. Who is "assuming perfect repairs"? > The courts are too valuable to be wasted with frivolity. How is holding manufacturers responsible for defects in their products frivolity?
- KGIII 9y ago
  > Why not? From your post above... > whatever I want to do I think we are done here. That's not how society works. You don't just get to do whatever you want to do and expect the manufacturer to still cover the warranty. They warranty it for an express set of conditions, for express purposes, as is understood by a reasonable person (a legal concept). If you tamper, see a dictionary, with the device then it is not their responsibility to cover it. That's actually pretty much how the law already is. Your house example is kinda silly. It's a house, not an electronic device. I'd love to agree with you but reality suggests otherwise. If you overclock your CPU, as a rough example, they aren't gonna let you RMA it. I don't blame them. Swapping out user serviceable parts, as a reasonable person might do, is an obvious exception. You might want to try looking at it as a reasonable person (the legal concept) would. You really seem to have a bit emotionally invested in this so I'm going to respectfully bow out now.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > I think we are done here. That's not how society works. You don't just get to do whatever you want to do and expect the manufacturer to still cover the warranty. Well, yes, actually, I do. And not only do I expect it, it's actually the law over here. > If you tamper, see a dictionary, with the device then it is not their responsibility to cover it. Well, OK, let me quote a dictionary: | a :to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse —used with with | b :to try foolish or dangerous experiments —used with with | c :to render something harmful or dangerous by altering its structure or composition (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tamper https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tamper) So, according to the dictionary definition, competently repairing or modifying the phone certainly would not fall under tampering, do you agree? > That's actually pretty much how the law already is. Actually, I doubt that it is, assuming that you are talking about the US. > Your house example is kinda silly. It's a house, not an electronic device. I agree that a house is not an electronic device. Why do you think that different rules should apply in the case of electronic devices? > I'd love to agree with you but reality suggests otherwise. Why? > If you overclock your CPU, as a rough example, they aren't gonna let you RMA it. Whether they "let me" anything really is not the question. The question is what their legal responsibilities are, i.e., what I can enforce via the judicial system if they do not voluntarily "let me". > I don't blame them. I think I got your standpoint. What's still missing is the justification. > Swapping out user serviceable parts, as a reasonable person might do, is an obvious exception. You might want to try looking at it as a reasonable person (the legal concept) would. You do understand that that is not a meaningful use of the legal term "reasonable person", right? That is about figuring out the intent of a contract if things are not spelled out. > You really seem to have a bit emotionally invested in this so I'm going to respectfully bow out now. Unfortunately, that is not really a justification for your standpoint either.

WaxProlix 9y ago

Please don't comment here anymore, I just want to hear liberterian POVs.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
Why do you think I should stop discussing in this public forum with people who are interested because you are not interested in what we are discussing?