3 ms·
> why should the manufacturer provide any support or be compelled to do so I don't think anyone is asking for that. The ask is 'don't disable existing paid-fo
by missosoup 7y ago
> why should the manufacturer provide any support or be compelled to do so
I don't think anyone is asking for that.
The ask is 'don't disable existing paid-for features on the car, thanks'.
The legal reductionist version of this situation is buying a house and finding that 2 rooms got demolished because the builder had a lease agreement on those with the previous owner.
- ddalex 7y agoOnce that car is yours, the software on the car is yours, too. It boggles my mind how the manufacturer modifying a car they don't own isn't computer trespass and/or straight theft as they deprive you of the rights of ownership.
- salawat 7y agoThey'll make some assertion along the lines of granting a license to specific configurations of the control software of the car. This is part and parcel of why I think IP on software is increasingly rearing it's head as an anti-pattern. Right of First Sale goes right out the window with the "marriage" model of smart appliance ownership we seem to be converging on via contract law.
- trenning 7y agoIt's also bizarre that people, especially on here, in this thread, think it's ok for a business to retroactively take away a feature that was already paid for. That price you paid on the used car has those features priced in. This is some weird crabs-in-a-bucket behavior but driven towards protecting a corporation.