[jcromartie]

Are there grounds for a lawsuit when a manufacturer pushes out an update to a product that intentionally degrades its feature set like this? This is no longer the same product that these users bought, it's effectively damaged by the update.

[tomlongson]

A more direct way of hitting their sales is to write a review.

Philips Hue Hub (4.5/5 stars currently): http://www.amazon.com/Philips-426353-Personal-Wireless-Light...

[maaaats]

When Playstation 3(?) Removed the ability to install a custom OS, I know of people that were able to return it here in Norway.

[mcv]

Yeah, but I'd expected something bigger. People everywhere getting their money back, for example.

[DannyBee]

Generally, the agreements you agreed to allow them to do this. Those agreements tend to be held valid (despite what folks want to happen ;p)

If someone you bought it from made implied warranties around this, you may be able to sue them (They often cannot disclaim implied warranties in consumer transactions)

[reitanqild]

Earlier I used to read those carefully.

Today I don't have time and I think it might one day be a good thing to be able to say: "you seriously thought anyone read and agreed to that thing? bwa bwa bwa hahahaha".

I think this part of law is ripe for some serious updates; some updates that will hurt a few established law firms but help everybody else, users, companies and lawyers currently boring them selves almost to death over standard contracts.

I'd hope in the future we'll have baseline contracts (around here this is already partially implemented in a few areas) protecting both users and producer, but seeing UK trying to implement restrictions on photography I'm not to optimistic.

[bitwize]

No, technically the third-party manufacturers were in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a federal offense with penalties up to five years in prison. From Philips' perspective, refusing to cooperate with those criminally infringing their IP is a feature, not a bug.

[bjt]

This is wrong on a couple levels.

1. The protocol is open. It's not Philips' IP.

2. Even if the protocol were closed, and Philips put some DRM on it to lock out 3rd parties from reverse engineering the protocol to make compatible bulbs, the third parties still wouldn't be in violation of the DMCA, even if they had to include small copy/pasted bits of the Philips code that are necessary for interoperability. This was the holding in the Lexmark case back in 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v....

[DannyBee]

Lexmark is only good law in the sixth circuit ;-)

[jhall1468]

I call BS. This is using the Zigbee standard which Phillips doesn't own. They added a proprietary layer after the fact, which blocked non-Phillips products.

Unless you care to share evidence of a DMCA violation, this sounds like you are just making this up as you go.

[detaro]

Given that the protocol is a standard by the Zigbee Alliance (Light Link), I doubt that implementing it causes a DMCA violation. Unless you are claiming all companies making compliant products stole Philips code to do so?

[chc]

That's an interesting accusation. What part of the DMCA were they violating?