[pyre]

I think the difference is knowledge and intent. He knew that they were using the User Agent string to differentiate iOS devices, and he used that knowledge to get a cheaper price. It would be different if he were randomly browsing the web with that User Agent for kicks, and didn't realize that he had gotten a deal.

[amirmc]

I think that's a weak argument in this case.

It's not like the author 'cracked his way in'. He got a cheaper price because he learned something from a friend and tried an experiment, which worked. Using something you've learned to get a better price seems fine with me. Especially, if it's 'ok' for someone stumbling around with the wrong user-agent.

To me, it just feels like a form of arbitrage.

[tptacek]

In most states, the to make a fraud case, you need some combination of:

(a) a representation made of some fact

(b) the materiality of that fact (the fact has to matter)

(c) the representation has to be false

(d) the person making the representation has to know it's false

(e) and they have to lie with an intent that someone else act on it

(f) and someone else has to actually be be fooled

(g) and rely on the lie

(h) and the lie has to be about something they had a right to ask (ie, not about marital status in a job interview)

(i) and thus incur damage.

You weaken a fraud case by saying the dispute is over an opinion and not a fact (a), or that the person who got something for nothing didn't realize they were lying (b), or they lied, but without intent (maybe they always lie about this question) (e).

But if all the elements fit, as they do in this case, you do not in fact have a weak case. You can, oh yes, you can, have "paid=true" in your URL and count on fraud statutes to have your back.

A lot of legal stuff becomes clearer when you realize that the court do not buy --- not even a little bit --- the nerdly tenet that "there is no way to prove intent because you can't really know what someone was thinking and maybe they weren't intending to do anything wrong". The courts have 2 centuries of case history of judging intent.

[pyre]

Doesn't help when you post your intent in a public forum too.

[tptacek]

It wouldn't matter, because you can't convince a reasonable judge or a reasonable jury that tampering with a computer system that puts (for instance) a credit card form in front of you for service in order to not pay for service doesn't constitute "intent".

[pyre]

  > Especially, if it's 'ok' for someone
  > stumbling around with the wrong user-agent.

Huh? So there's no difference between me purposely selling you a bad stock, and accidentally doing so?