4 ms·
Interesting. It seems like Cisco's attempt to make their firmware non-transferable is not enforceable because it's in conflict with first sale doctrine, which i
by hathawsh 8y ago
Interesting. It seems like Cisco's attempt to make their firmware non-transferable is not enforceable because it's in conflict with first sale doctrine, which is part of the copyright act of 1976:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoI read it as an attempt at a workaround for first sale. That they can't stop you from selling the hardware, but can prevent you from selling the license. IANAL, if it's invalid, great. AFAIK Cisco doesn't actually "enforce" this, so much as uses it to withhold providing updates. You need a support contract to download updates yourself, and while you can request an update be sent to you if there's a vulnerability you need to patch while not under a support contract, that is only applicable if your license is legitimate (i.e., that you are the original owner). In practice, most old third party hardware just gets used for homelab purposes, since it's not "legitimate". Which, as a side perk, actually keeps the resale prices of old Cisco hardware super low, which is nice for people who want enterprise class hardware at home.
- jandrese 8y agoIMHO (not a lawyer), this is one of those things the companies put in a EULA that won't stand up in an actual court of law. It's basically bullying their own consumers. If pressed on it they would probably fold, but not before making you spend a ton of money on lawyers.