4 ms·

Is that even legal? Cricut does not own those machines any more, the people who bought them do. So by what right can they restrict the owners access to their ow

Is that even legal? Cricut does not own those machines any more, the people who bought them do. So by what right can they restrict the owners access to their own property?

avs733 6y ago
This is what I have never understood about 'clickwrap' on hardware (like my car). I have already bought it...shopped, signed a contract, paid for it, agreed with a bank in some cases on financing it...before I encoutner or have access the the licensing agreement. If I disagree with licensing can I juts take it back? Am I just precluded from using my smart driving features? I bought it, you don't get to establish rules after the fact...
- paulgb 6y ago
  There used to be (possibly apocryphal but seemingly true) stories about people who manage to get the OEM cost of Windows refunded on a new computer purchase by telling Microsoft they did not agree with the terms. They were going to install Linux on it anyway so didn’t need it. I’m not sure if it was official policy (out of fear that clickwrap isn’t enforceable if you can’t opt out) or if it was just worth it to pay off people who went to that much effort, but either way good for them.
  - ectopod 6y ago
    There was a case in Italy the other day. Lenovo fought hard but had to pay, plus €20,000 damages for being a PITA. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26456524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26456524
  - flatiron 6y ago
    http://marc.merlins.org/linux/refundday/#:~:text=For%20those%20who%20hadn't,with%20the%20machine%20they%20bought http://marc.merlins.org/linux/refundday/#:~:text=For%20those....
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Johnny555 6y ago
The restriction is not on the machine, it's on the cloud based software that you have to use to send a design to the machine. (and there's no limit on printing designs that you create within their software, only on images that you upload and convert). So technically, this isn't a limit on the hardware, but on the software, even if realistically it's the same thing if you print a lot of uploaded designs since you can't use the machine without using their cloud software. So legally they are probably in the clear to put limits on the "free" software, even if morally it's the equivalent of a hardware restriction.
- playpause 6y ago
  I can’t see that defence standing up if it is brought before a judge. The law isn’t always about enforcement of smallprint technicalities in favour of the unscrupulous. Equity law exists.
  - Johnny555 6y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but I assume Cricut had their own lawyers vet this and that it's well covered by their terms of service. I'd be surprised if a court reverses this. But public opinion might.
    - playpause 6y ago
      I'm not a lawyer either, but I know that putting something in your terms of service doesn't give you legal carte blanche to deceive people. The law understands that most people don't read the whole ToS before clicking "I agree". This doesn't mean a ToS has no legal effect, but it's supposed to be for clarifying details. Any obviously major conditions (like "We might make your device stop working at some point in future and you'll have to pay us to make it work again") usually need to be stated in plain language, not buried in section 8 paragraph 9 of legal waffle. This sort of thing is what equity law is for, and why judges are paid so much - they often have to make rulings on what is 'reasonable'. I agree Cricut must have had their legal team vet this decision, but that does not mean they necessarily believe they'd have a watertight defence if taken to court over it. It just indicates they made a business calculation and decided it's a good risk/reward ratio. Not many disputes make it to court. For example (pure speculation): maybe their lawyers estimated a 90% chance that they make lots of money out of this scam, just giving a few refunds and apologies to the angriest customers; a 9% chance that a serious lawsuit emerges (in which case they can probably just backtrack on the whole thing at some small cost); and a 1% chance that they somehow end up in serious hot water with a regulator.

Is that even legal? Cricut does not own those machines any more, the people who bought them do. So by what right can they restrict the owners access to their own property?

avs733 6y ago

This is what I have never understood about 'clickwrap' on hardware (like my car). I have already bought it...shopped, signed a contract, paid for it, agreed with a bank in some cases on financing it...before I encoutner or have access the the licensing agreement. If I disagree with licensing can I juts take it back? Am I just precluded from using my smart driving features? I bought it, you don't get to establish rules after the fact...

paulgb 6y ago
There used to be (possibly apocryphal but seemingly true) stories about people who manage to get the OEM cost of Windows refunded on a new computer purchase by telling Microsoft they did not agree with the terms. They were going to install Linux on it anyway so didn’t need it. I’m not sure if it was official policy (out of fear that clickwrap isn’t enforceable if you can’t opt out) or if it was just worth it to pay off people who went to that much effort, but either way good for them.
- ectopod 6y ago
  There was a case in Italy the other day. Lenovo fought hard but had to pay, plus €20,000 damages for being a PITA. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26456524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26456524
- flatiron 6y ago
  http://marc.merlins.org/linux/refundday/#:~:text=For%20those%20who%20hadn't,with%20the%20machine%20they%20bought http://marc.merlins.org/linux/refundday/#:~:text=For%20those....
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Johnny555 6y ago

The restriction is not on the machine, it's on the cloud based software that you have to use to send a design to the machine. (and there's no limit on printing designs that you create within their software, only on images that you upload and convert). So technically, this isn't a limit on the hardware, but on the software, even if realistically it's the same thing if you print a lot of uploaded designs since you can't use the machine without using their cloud software. So legally they are probably in the clear to put limits on the "free" software, even if morally it's the equivalent of a hardware restriction.

playpause 6y ago
I can’t see that defence standing up if it is brought before a judge. The law isn’t always about enforcement of smallprint technicalities in favour of the unscrupulous. Equity law exists.
- Johnny555 6y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I assume Cricut had their own lawyers vet this and that it's well covered by their terms of service. I'd be surprised if a court reverses this. But public opinion might.
  - playpause 6y ago
    I'm not a lawyer either, but I know that putting something in your terms of service doesn't give you legal carte blanche to deceive people. The law understands that most people don't read the whole ToS before clicking "I agree". This doesn't mean a ToS has no legal effect, but it's supposed to be for clarifying details. Any obviously major conditions (like "We might make your device stop working at some point in future and you'll have to pay us to make it work again") usually need to be stated in plain language, not buried in section 8 paragraph 9 of legal waffle. This sort of thing is what equity law is for, and why judges are paid so much - they often have to make rulings on what is 'reasonable'. I agree Cricut must have had their legal team vet this decision, but that does not mean they necessarily believe they'd have a watertight defence if taken to court over it. It just indicates they made a business calculation and decided it's a good risk/reward ratio. Not many disputes make it to court. For example (pure speculation): maybe their lawyers estimated a 90% chance that they make lots of money out of this scam, just giving a few refunds and apologies to the angriest customers; a 9% chance that a serious lawsuit emerges (in which case they can probably just backtrack on the whole thing at some small cost); and a 1% chance that they somehow end up in serious hot water with a regulator.