[prostoalex]

The use case “Owners are not allowed to update or secure the other operating system themselves“ maps out across a number of industries and products. Car owners do not have access to certain firmware, airlines cannot patch airplane software to their liking.

Most hardware products are sold as is, without implicit guarantees, with market forces (stock market included) being the ultimate arbiter.

With that said, there’s probably a hungry law firm willing to do a headline-grabbing class-action suit based on “neglectful behavior”, “truth in advertising” or other potentially lucrative routes, so I am guessing they’re working on their customer acquisition strategy at the moment.

[gatmne]

Cars and planes (and even radio transmission equipment) pose a high risk on public safety. They aren't restricted because owners don't have the right to control these devices, they are restricted because public safety is at risk otherwise.

Processors don't fall into that class of devices. In fact, I'm willing to argue that not allowing owners to patch their devices is a public hazard (ddos botnets, mass identity theft, etc).

[prostoalex]

Is there a precedent of someone buying a closed-source product, suing for being unable to update it, winning the case in court and being awarded damages?

[gatmne]

Hopefully, this would be it. But rather than damages, the courts would rule that access to one's own device is protected by a fundamental right.

[prostoalex]

If this wasn’t hashed out in a much cheaper lawsuit with a smaller target (e.g., someone suing a remote-controlled toy car manufacturer for inability to update firmware on consumer end), chances of this being fought for precedent sake against Intel ($200+ billion market cap, $17 billion in the bank account alone), which hires lawyers by the dozen, are pretty slim.