3 ms·

Absent a winning court case on some very novel arguments, this is pretty obviously illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikiped

by ajross 3y ago

Absent 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 ago
Can 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 ago
  Agree. 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    Which 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
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > That would be consideration. For device you already own? I don’t think so
    - tzs 3y ago
      I don't see how that would be relevant to the question of whether or not there is consideration. They are giving you something valuable in exchange for a promise. That what makes it valuable to you is that you can use it with a device you already own does not change that. Contract law generally just cares that it is valuable, not the particulars of what makes it valuable.
charcircuit 3y ago
I can see how trademarks could allow for them to restrict the selling of such phones. This is to fight against people who buy Motorola phones, unlock them, install a new operating system on them including malware, and then sell them to consumers as a Motorola phone. Normal consumers think they are getting a Motorola phone, but in actuality they aren't and they are buying a device that is compromised. The attackers are using Motorola's trademark to trick people.
- axoltl 3y ago
  Agreed, though that certainly _feels_ orthogonal to unlocking the bootloader? If I modify the hardware some other way (a la a modchip) and achieve the same thing, it'd be illegal for the same reasons.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >Agreed, though that certainly _feels_ orthogonal to unlocking the bootloader? Unlocking the bootloader is what makes it possible. The security model protects against hackers installing malware on the device otherwise. >If I modify the hardware some other way (a la a modchip) and achieve the same thing Good luck opening up the SoC and trying to modify it that way. This is not a concern as the security is good enough where this isn't a big concern.
    - axoltl 3y ago
      I’ve been an embedded security engineer for the past two decades, have worked on a dozen secure silicon projects, have broken several secure boot chains (albeit only one publicly, in 2014: https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2014/hubcap-chromecast-root-pt1/ https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2014/hubcap-chromecast-root-pt...). I’ve also worked on some of the early Wii modchips when I was with Team Twiizers. These days I spend time (though not as much as I’d like) in cleanrooms playing with SEMs, plasma etchers and other fun toys. I can fairly safely say your assumptions are incorrect.
      - charcircuit 3y ago
tzs 3y ago
First sale just says that if you sell a copy you legally own of a copyrighted work that does not infringe the copyright owner's distribution right. That just means that if the copyright owner wants to stop the sale they will not be able to turn to copyright law to do so. It does not mean that they can't turn to some other method to stop the sale. In this case they would turn to contract law. You defense to that would not involve first sale. It would involve trying to argue that a contract was not formed.
- axoltl 3y ago
  This is what I understood the first-sale doctrine to be as well. Turns out there's a whole separate section for trademark law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Overview_of_trademark_law_application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Overview_o... Does that prevent you re-selling a device with an unlocked bootloader if you clearly indicate that it is unlocked? Probably not, but it's more complicated than I thought at first glance.

by ajross 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tofof 3y ago

Can 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 ago
Agree. 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 ago
If 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 ago
  Which 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
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > That would be consideration. For device you already own? I don’t think so
  - tzs 3y ago
    I don't see how that would be relevant to the question of whether or not there is consideration. They are giving you something valuable in exchange for a promise. That what makes it valuable to you is that you can use it with a device you already own does not change that. Contract law generally just cares that it is valuable, not the particulars of what makes it valuable.

charcircuit 3y ago

I can see how trademarks could allow for them to restrict the selling of such phones. This is to fight against people who buy Motorola phones, unlock them, install a new operating system on them including malware, and then sell them to consumers as a Motorola phone. Normal consumers think they are getting a Motorola phone, but in actuality they aren't and they are buying a device that is compromised. The attackers are using Motorola's trademark to trick people.

axoltl 3y ago
Agreed, though that certainly _feels_ orthogonal to unlocking the bootloader? If I modify the hardware some other way (a la a modchip) and achieve the same thing, it'd be illegal for the same reasons.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >Agreed, though that certainly _feels_ orthogonal to unlocking the bootloader? Unlocking the bootloader is what makes it possible. The security model protects against hackers installing malware on the device otherwise. >If I modify the hardware some other way (a la a modchip) and achieve the same thing Good luck opening up the SoC and trying to modify it that way. This is not a concern as the security is good enough where this isn't a big concern.
  - axoltl 3y ago
    I’ve been an embedded security engineer for the past two decades, have worked on a dozen secure silicon projects, have broken several secure boot chains (albeit only one publicly, in 2014: https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2014/hubcap-chromecast-root-pt1/ https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2014/hubcap-chromecast-root-pt...). I’ve also worked on some of the early Wii modchips when I was with Team Twiizers. These days I spend time (though not as much as I’d like) in cleanrooms playing with SEMs, plasma etchers and other fun toys. I can fairly safely say your assumptions are incorrect.
    - charcircuit 3y ago

tzs 3y ago

First sale just says that if you sell a copy you legally own of a copyrighted work that does not infringe the copyright owner's distribution right. That just means that if the copyright owner wants to stop the sale they will not be able to turn to copyright law to do so. It does not mean that they can't turn to some other method to stop the sale. In this case they would turn to contract law. You defense to that would not involve first sale. It would involve trying to argue that a contract was not formed.

axoltl 3y ago
This is what I understood the first-sale doctrine to be as well. Turns out there's a whole separate section for trademark law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Overview_of_trademark_law_application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Overview_o... Does that prevent you re-selling a device with an unlocked bootloader if you clearly indicate that it is unlocked? Probably not, but it's more complicated than I thought at first glance.