4 ms·

Interesting bit (translated) : > A practice contrary to the principle of the anti-waste law > In France, serialization is theoretically prohibited, according

Interesting bit (translated) : > A practice contrary to the principle of the anti-waste law > In France, serialization is theoretically prohibited, according to Alexandre Isaac. Since the entry into force of the anti-waste law in November 2021, the consumer code mentions that "any technique, including software, by which a marketer aims to make it impossible to repair or recondition a device or to limit the restoration of all the functionalities of such a device outside its approved circuits is prohibited”.

netsharc 3y ago
Huh, I wonder if a lawyer could win the argument that printer companies who restrict 3rd-party cartridges violate this law... Next on eBay: "Buy French ink for HP printers, use VPN to download the French drivers!". "PC CHARGER LA LETTRE?! WTF does that mean?"
- jMyles 3y ago
  Pourquoi ça indique "bourrage de papier", alors qu'il n'y a pas de bourrage?
- LeanderK 3y ago
  I think it's possible and it would be a good thing. Although I wonder...I use a slightly older brother printer (prob. 4-5 years old) with 3rd-party cartridges without problems. Is it different with other printers?
- seszett 3y ago
  There has already been a class action against HP[0] ending with a settlement and reimbursement of some customers, but that's not very conclusive. It seems clear to me though that they violate this law, we just lack enforcement. [0]https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/hardware/hp-will-pay-customers-for-blocking-non-hp-ink-cartridges-in-eu/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/hardware/hp-will-pay-c...
throwaway290 3y ago
Any technique with makes it impossible to repair or recondition by definition also makes it more difficult to pwn. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35954422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35954422 for one example.
- realusername 3y ago
  That isn't a repaired product but a fake one. You can also buy fake iphones today which are near indistinguishable from the real thing unless you have a deep knowledge into the product, you can have a look on youtube. Preventing repairs did not help them on that aspect.
  - brookst 3y ago
    By "did not help", you meant "did not completely 100% solve the problem", right? In the same way that seat belts do not help traffic fatalities because there are still traffic fatalities?
    - realusername 3y ago
      No, I meant that it did not solve any issue in this area at all, fake iPhone are as easily available as other fake brands. It's 0% affecting fake products which have their own separate supply chain anyways.
      - brookst 3y ago
        Again, the existence of X does not mean that all efforts to reduce the incidence of X were completely useless and therefore should not have been undertaken. Binary thinking is full of such pitfalls.
        realusername 3y ago
        Fake iphones don't and won't use any genuine parts. So locking said genuine parts achieves absolutely nothing against fakes, so yes that does means that if that's the goal, it's pointless. It's not an "effort", it's misdirection.
lostmsu 3y ago
So hypothetically if I get an app into iPhone app store, that is later removed by Apple for "duplicating functionality of the OS" (obviously, incomplete), would the inability to sideload the app from a web site be a violation of this law?

netsharc 3y ago

Huh, I wonder if a lawyer could win the argument that printer companies who restrict 3rd-party cartridges violate this law... Next on eBay: "Buy French ink for HP printers, use VPN to download the French drivers!". "PC CHARGER LA LETTRE?! WTF does that mean?"

jMyles 3y ago
Pourquoi ça indique "bourrage de papier", alors qu'il n'y a pas de bourrage?
LeanderK 3y ago
I think it's possible and it would be a good thing. Although I wonder...I use a slightly older brother printer (prob. 4-5 years old) with 3rd-party cartridges without problems. Is it different with other printers?
seszett 3y ago
There has already been a class action against HP[0] ending with a settlement and reimbursement of some customers, but that's not very conclusive. It seems clear to me though that they violate this law, we just lack enforcement. [0]https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/hardware/hp-will-pay-customers-for-blocking-non-hp-ink-cartridges-in-eu/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/hardware/hp-will-pay-c...

throwaway290 3y ago

Any technique with makes it impossible to repair or recondition by definition also makes it more difficult to pwn. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35954422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35954422 for one example.

realusername 3y ago
That isn't a repaired product but a fake one. You can also buy fake iphones today which are near indistinguishable from the real thing unless you have a deep knowledge into the product, you can have a look on youtube. Preventing repairs did not help them on that aspect.
- brookst 3y ago
  By "did not help", you meant "did not completely 100% solve the problem", right? In the same way that seat belts do not help traffic fatalities because there are still traffic fatalities?
  - realusername 3y ago
    No, I meant that it did not solve any issue in this area at all, fake iPhone are as easily available as other fake brands. It's 0% affecting fake products which have their own separate supply chain anyways.
    - brookst 3y ago
      Again, the existence of X does not mean that all efforts to reduce the incidence of X were completely useless and therefore should not have been undertaken. Binary thinking is full of such pitfalls.
      - realusername 3y ago
        Fake iphones don't and won't use any genuine parts. So locking said genuine parts achieves absolutely nothing against fakes, so yes that does means that if that's the goal, it's pointless. It's not an "effort", it's misdirection.

lostmsu 3y ago

So hypothetically if I get an app into iPhone app store, that is later removed by Apple for "duplicating functionality of the OS" (obviously, incomplete), would the inability to sideload the app from a web site be a violation of this law?