Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932872AbWL0BUM (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:20:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932878AbWL0BUM (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:20:12 -0500 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.189]:21147 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932872AbWL0BUK (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:20:10 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=i7MR49W8eKjzH2uw4BtRjpms6Itr9uGeLbg8xlDlAd1MMUu1ZGphCmMceAXzBH24dC7i8cfpZoH+9T3skRkPYTpUvWLKGOJBesJF2H86iys3cxFyf+GvN5XIbWIHAT5n8EpB1tlCUzLgu24k/dMuLavRwaAdd7XTyVl9b75XxrI= Message-ID: <7b69d1470612261720g69571fa6gb9756a432a6b0f7f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:20:07 -0600 From: "Scott Preece" To: davids@webmaster.com Subject: Re: Binary Drivers Cc: vonbrand@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <7b69d1470612261120n6218500ctbfc64bf5627892d@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2226 Lines: 45 On 12/26/06, David Schwartz wrote: > > You buy a phone for $200. The manufacturer only represents that it works > with CarrierCo. ... > > You have the right to do what you like with the phone, of course. It's a > great doorstop and a reasonable paper weight. The manufacturer didn't > promise the phone's configuration wouldn't become obsolete or that you would > be able to change the configuration. Lack of documentation is not an > imposition on your rights, and you had no specific promise of documentation > from the seller. > > I have to say, it honestly astonishes me that would people would make > arguments like these. Are we so used to these kinds of one-sided > arrangements that we've lost our common sense? --- If the manufacturer knew about the forthcoming configuration change, you might have a fraud claim. Otherwise it's just bad luck, which happens sometimes. I'm not familiar with any situations where the manufacturer locks the phone. Locks are usually applied by the carrier in return for a subsidy. Once any contract restrictions are over, you would have the right to attempt to unlock the phone or to find someone who could do so. For most phones in the market today, I understand that to be a relatively easy thing to find. In the US, the Copyright office recently ruled that there should be an exception to the DMCA so that circumventing the lock would not be a DMCA violation. I don't know why you think of this as a particularly unfair situation. There's at least a chance that the phone might be reconfigurable. The phone might as easily have been physically unable to work with the new configuration. If you bought, for instance, an Iridium phone (which worked only on the Iridium satellite network and had no other useful function), it became a paperweight when the network ceased operation. You could sell the device on ebay or attempt to salvage parts of it for other purposes, but otherwise you're just out of luck. scott - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/