|
|
|
|
|
by CaliforniaKarl
3308 days ago
|
|
This case was covered on HN recently, in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14446261 I think this editorial is making this case out to be more than it is. There are many ways that a company can work to restrict a person's ability to modify a product that they have purchased. Patent infringement is one way, and that argument's effectiveness has been reduced. But there are other ways that a person's ability can be restricted, such as licensing and proprietary parts. This case says nothing about that. So please, author, don't make like I was going to be sued if I tried to replace my iPhone's battery. |
|
I've seen a number of people make this particular leap though, that people will cite this as a precedent for either reversing or defending lawsuits against post sale use.
[1] https://xkcd.com/1283/