7 ms·
Motorola's legal terms claim to strip owners of their right to sell their device
- bogota 3y agoI don’t like what the world has become over the last 20 years.
- chgs 3y agoThese types of “agreements” existed in the 90s too.
- ls612 3y agoAnd were about as enforceable back then as a prohibition on gravity. Strong cryptography and ubiquitous internet have completely changed that.
- throwaway09223 3y agoNot really. Clickwrap licensing only came about near the end of the 90s and didn't really take off until post-2000.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dns_snek 3y ago> And now a word from our lawyers. Finally, in order to unlock your device, you need to agree to important legal terms[1], which can be found on the next page. Agreeing creates a binding legal agreement, so be sure to read them carefully. From linked terms: > Devices that have been unlocked are for your personal use only. Once you unlock the device, you can only use it for our personal use, and may not sell or otherwise transfer the device. [1] https://en-us.support.motorola.com/ci/fattach/get/741421/1385047216/redirect/1/filename/Boot_revised.pdf https://en-us.support.motorola.com/ci/fattach/get/741421/138... edit: Thank you to Louis Rossmann for bringing this to our attention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2k9D81fbpA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2k9D81fbpA
- bobtender 3y agoUnfair contract terms are illegal and carry a fine of up to $50,000,000 in Australia. [1] [1] https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/businesses-urged-to-remove-unfair-contract-terms-ahead-of-law-changes https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/businesses-urged-to-re...
- penguin_booze 3y agoInquisitive question: is there such a thing as a unfair contract? There's this saying 'the price is always right'. Likewise, isn't the contract always fair?
- cameldrv 3y agoDo not like this, but it is still better than Apple or most other phone manufacturers that won't let you unlock the bootloader at all.
- drivingmenuts 3y agoIt kind of makes sense. If you unlock it, install software and then try to sell it, it is a Motorola branded device, but it no longer functions as Motorola designed or intended. I can see where the lawyers are trying to prevent the consequences of actions by the end-user from falling back on them. Seems like an area of the law that's a bit unclear.
- LinAGKar 3y agoSure, if you sell a phone with unofficial modifications, without disclosing that it's been been modified, I could see that being a problem. But not a blanket ban.
- elmerfud 3y agoGood luck with that.
- gessha 3y agoIs this the Louis Rossmann effect on HN?
- kernoble 3y agoI don't think you understand that Louis Rossmann's job and attitude used to be the norm. Owning and repairing things are core to industrial living, but modern economic forces want to make you think that its about licensing and disposability. Ownership and agency are part of liberty, renting and dependence is not.
- iwontberude 3y agoThis is first principles thinking, people cringe at the descriptor but I really appreciate you simplifying your argument.
- gessha 3y agoMy comment was more about the influence of Louis on media in general (in this case HN) and less of a critique of the topic in question. Why are you strawmaning? The fact that I made this comment the same day he released his video in fact means I actively follow him and his mission.
- anon115 3y agoso its a rented phone then?
- DiabloD3 3y ago[flagged]
- iraqmtpizza 3y agoI just made 0.36%. Thanks for the tip
- OsrsNeedsf2P 3y ago[flagged]
- FpUser 3y agoI do not own Motorola's devices but would still like to send them big warm FUCK YOU. As for me personally now it is guaranteed that I will never buy any of your crap.
- probably_satan 3y agoRIP Motorola
- ajross 3y agoAbsent a winning court case on some very novel arguments, this is pretty obviously illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine You can put anything in a click-through license, but that doesn't make it a contract nor override established legal paradigms.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tofof 3y agoCan downvoters explain why they are doing so? I agree with both of these points (first sale doctrine and that a license is not a contract) and would like to hear explanation of why they are mistaken here. In particular, there is no consideration offered by either party, and so this cannot be contractual on its face.
- Sakos 3y agoAgree. Contracts can't override legal obligations. You can't sign away your rights and companies can't write contracts that absolve them of their legal obligations. It doesn't matter if both parties involved "agree" to it.
- tzs 3y agoIf I've understood the Motorola page correctly, they do not give you the unlock code for your device if you do not agree to the terms. That would be consideration.
- ajross 3y agoWhich as mentioned would be a pretty novel argument. In all other circumstances in the industry, it's just an EULA you have to click through to download software. Those have repeatedly been found unenforceable any time someone tries to do something tricky or weird with one. Clicking away your right to sell your own property is awfully weird. Contracts that do complicated things involve negotiation and signatures, generally. The more you rely on caveat emptor and the assumption that the License Clicker read through all the fine print, the more likely you are to get your contract tossed. And of course there's a wikipedia page on this too, in parciular the "contracts of adhesion" paragraph under the US law section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract
- godelski 3y agoAny devs here create these types of things? Or other systems that make it hard to repair devices? Why do you do it? Do you see this as enshitification? Just need to pay the bills? (can't find a different job?) Think "someone else will do it if I don't?" (and don't think they'll have to pay more for the other person or that the other person will be of lesser quality or people turning down the jobs/not applying puts pressure on them?) I really am curious. FWIW, you can create an anonymous account if you want to truthfully answer these questions. HN just needs an email address and you can use disposable ones or masks. I really do want honest answers. Note: I __DO NOT__ want answers form others who are just making assumptions about what people creating these things actually do or think. Point is to actually not understand, not "make an ass out of you and me". But if you worked on some other similar program or something like the Sony Playstation stuff, I am happy to have your comment. I just want to keep the theme relevant and not muddied with emotional conjecture that's such a common response to these questions. I appreciate that the people with conjectures want to help, but let's wait and hear responses before we jump to conclusions.
- duxup 3y agoI don't make that stuff, I'm not making any assumptions. But considering the state of discussion on the internet, I wonder how many takers you might get. Do / say something unpopular and you're just signing up for abuse online, heck even if you don't do anything. HN is better places than most but recently (not on HN) I got down-voted in a discussion where I said I didn't mind the neighbor kids running through my yard, and some folks stopped to e-yell at me how terrible it is ... I'm more riffing off of a "Can we even have these conversations?" kinda question here, but I am interested if anyone would take you up on your offer if only because of the lay of the internet land.
- BadHumans 3y agoWell, now I wanna know what you mean by "e-yell." If you say you don't mind and someone replies with dissension saying you should mind, is that not having the conversation? Not the point at all but I also think you should mind :P
- Benjamin_Dobell 3y agoThe no sale requirements in the "contract" is interesting. However, is the following actually legal in the US? > You have only yourself to blame. Once you get the unlock code, your device is no longer covered by the Motorola warranty; in other words, please don't blame us if things go wrong, even if they appear unrelated to unlocking the bootloader. In Australia they can revoke the "Motorola warranty" all they want. However, everything sold comes with a warranty that can't be revoked which entitles you to repair, replacement or refund for a reasonable time frame (yes it's intentionally open ended). You have to be using the item as intended, but if the company lets you unlock the device, then that's an intended use case. Even if you do "unlock a device" against a company's wishes, you're able to make warranty claims against the individual parts which are being used as intended. The company would have to demonstrate your tampering was responsible for the damage. I'm aware the US does not have these same consumer rights, but can a company revoke a warranty?
- IncreasePosts 3y agoNot generally - they can refuse a warranty service if it seems like the custom modification you made is causing whatever issue you're trying to use the warranty for, but they can't deny it if it unrelated. So if you have a warranty on your car, and you put a custom engine in it, and then it turns out you received defective seatbelts, the warranty is still active. But if your drive train is trashed from the extra power of the new engine, then the warranty will not be honored.
- userbinator 3y agoThe US has the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
- OkayPhysicist 3y agoWarranties are just normal contracts. If both parties agree to modify a contract, they are pretty much always allowed to do so. In this case, Motorola is offering a second contract, which modifies an earlier agreement (the warranty) in exchange for the key to unlocking one's phone.
- CyberEldrich 3y ago“Once you unlock the device, you can only use it for your personal use, and may not sell or otherwise transfer the device.” https://en-us.support.motorola.com/ci/fattach/get/741421/1385047216/redirect/1/filename/Boot_revised.pdf https://en-us.support.motorola.com/ci/fattach/get/741421/138...
- DarkmSparks 3y agoThanks. reading the rest of the document I think I see what the point is here. This basically adds an extra layer of legal protection for motorola against people unlocking the bootloader, installing bad things on it, then selling it on. The whole t&cs are basically "use this software and it will be considered legally as intentionally breaking the device". It doesnt stop anyone selling the device - but it does shift any warranty or damage claims directly onto whoever broke it. selling a "broken" mobile as working has wider implications because of the SOS call laws. IMHO.
- CyberEldrich 3y ago> .. It doesnt stop anyone selling the device .. I'm sorry but the text says otherwise .. “Once you unlock the device, you can only use it for your personal use, and may not sell or otherwise transfer the device.”
- saxonww 3y agoThis feels like they don't want to be liable if someone roots a phone, installs malware or something, sells it to another person, and then proceeds to exploit the compromised phone they just sold. Which would be entirely understandable. IDK if that's what this is, or if this is the best way to do that. edit: in a way, once you do this it's not "a motorola phone" anymore. They are selling you a device and software configuration together branded as the motorola whatever. If you modify that, it's not what they sold you, but they have no way to note to the secondary market that the device is not what they intended it to be. It's not a visible change. Again, no idea if this is the right way to stop that (I'm guessing not), but I can also see where they would be upset about this. edit 2: Setting aside the "we don't want to be liable" idea. It could also be a "we don't want to support this device anymore" idea. We do this sort of thing all the time - you did what with our code? Sorry dude you're on your own. Again, why do it this way. But maybe.
- Zak 3y agoI'm wondering how many used Windows PCs have been sold with malware on them, and whether anyone has ever attempted to hold the OEM legally responsible for it.
- saxonww 3y agoLet me be clear: I think it would be ridiculous to do that. But a lot of what I read about that's "our lawyers said to do this" comes off as ridiculous to me. And some court decisions I read about, and the reasoning, seem ridiculous to me. So I don't trust that anything legal-ish that seems ridiculous to me is not legitimate.
- ysofunny 3y agoI wonder how many USB storage devices have had their firmware infected without anybody ever even knowing about it like SD cards and other sorts of storage devices with embedded microcomputers; why storage? for a huge binary payload for the host system! all it takes is one super secret 64-bit instruction that makes the cpu drop its pants and bend over, or one super secret exploit
- deleted 3y ago
- SuperNinKenDo 3y agoGiven they took thentime to out this together, I'm guessing they won't actually go after anybody for this, they're just putting it there to distance themselves from any consequences that arise from somebody selling unlocked devices. But agreeing to terms on the belief that they won't actually be enforced is a risky game to play. Bot sure what the consequences could possibly be though.
- fuomag9 3y agoIn Europe that’s absolutely void, I’m glad to have consumer rights
- axoltl 3y agoTo be fair, it's void in the US as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine edit: Going to leave this up, but the first-sale doctrine gets a little iffy around "materially different" devices. IANAL so it's pure speculation on my part.
- bigpaw 3y agoA junk phone maker anyway. A friend got a g54 power because the online reviews praised the battery life, guess what, he needs to charge it twice a day, older phone with 1000mah less battery had better stamina. Screen is horrible, camera is junk. Earphone has massive sound distortion. He hates this brand now.
- cubefox 3y agoAnother data point: A while ago I bought a Motorola Edge 30 Ultra. It works pretty well. For the price the specs were even better than on Xiaomi phones.
- rwaksmunski 3y agoMy Moto G42 has great AMOLED display, decent stereo speakers, and 13 days of battery with very light use when running LineageOS. $60 used without a scratch on it. Can't beat the value. 2 SIM cards, SD slot and a headphone jack are a bonus at this point. Stock OS and camera are junk tho.
- duckman1 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]