4 ms·
Wow, this seems extreme... not in keeping with the First Sale Doctrine. > At the end of June, North announced it was being acquired by Google, and would not re
by aspenmayer 6y ago
Wow, this seems extreme... not in keeping with the First Sale Doctrine.
> At the end of June, North announced it was being acquired by Google, and would not release a planned second-generation device.
It also said it would "wind down" its first generation smart glasses, released last year.
> Customers found out that meant the smart glasses would be rendered "dumb" through a statement published on the company's website[1] and by email.
[1] https://support.bynorth.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045128691-Winding-down-Focals https://support.bynorth.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045128691-W...
- oh_sigh 6y agoI doubt it is being rendered dumb by, say, putting a different firmware on it. It probably just absolutely needs occasional or constant internet connectivity to their servers to work, and Google is shutting them down.
- elcomet 6y agoYeah, they're turning the brain off. So they are dumbing them down.
- aspenmayer 6y agoDo you know of alternate firmware for smart glasses? I’ve done some firmware patching before, but in the very much tool assisted way. I’m kind of bristling with anticipation with what could be possible with access to the firmware. Do you know much about these particular AR glasses, what software they could run, and how firmware could help? Other than keeping them from being bricked, I mean.
- jjcon 6y ago> not in keeping with the First Sale Doctrine. I’m confused - what does this have to do with first sale?
- joecot 6y agoFrom Wikipedia: > The first-sale doctrine is a legal concept that plays an important role in United States patent, copyright and trademark law by limiting the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. That means I should be able to sell my glasses to someone without the original creator causing problems with it. It's more complicated than that, but that's the gist. If I bought these glasses and they shut down the service and refund me, fine, whatever. But what if I bought the glasses, decided 4 months later I didn't like them, sold them on Craigslist for $600, and moved on with my life? After the shut down I get $800 back, and the poor sap who bought them from me gets a pair of worthless glasses and a dead craigslist email. Luckily this company will most likely get away with it because of the "it's more complicated than that" part.
- jjcon 6y agoFirst sale only applies to the goods - it does in no way (or in any country) apply to services. It certainly does not require a company to offer a service for free in perpetuity. You can still sell the glasses, first sale allows that. It doesn’t say they must maintain their value. There may be a false advertising case or fraud case here I’m not sure - but this has nothing to do with first sale.
- aspenmayer 6y agoRemote bricking of a device I own without my knowledge AND consent is legally actionable if I know where to send the certified letter from my lawyer. In this case, I do.
- jjcon 6y agoLiterally everything CAN be legally actionable. Unless it was previously explicitly agreed upon, a company can turn off a costly service they are providing at their will. Did you have an explicit agreement arranged? Again though... this has nothing to do with first sale.
- gamblor956 6y ago