That's a very popular take, but if it's laid out clearly in the contract that heated seats (or whatever feature) are not part of what you're buying up front, then technically they're in the right. The fact that buying big solid things like cars has typically, thus far, in our society, meant owning every physical piece of that thing, doesn't and shouldn't override what it says in the contract.
Maybe an argument can be made that the contract is deceptive, or so long and detailed that it amounts to a DoS on the potential buyer. I think those are important topics that deserve a lot more scrutiny and weight in the courtroom than they get. But that's a different topic.
I think there a link that can be drawn between the type of contract you describe, and feudal-era serfdom. Serfs at the time were effectively prevented from owning property - land. In this case, people are being prevented from owning property - cars. In both cases the exclusion was enabled by the laws at the time. In the case of feudalism, the land reform laws brought an end to the state of affairs. And, they were responsible for a very large increase in common prosperity.
What you say is correct - the laws as they stand do allow for this behavior by BMW, and the company is correct when they say that (buyers? renters?) don't own the gadget in question.
It's also true that a discussion around preventing this sort of behavior with new laws is probably warranted.
Yes, absolutely, and that's a great observation about medieval serfdom. People seem reluctant to engage with the problem in its full generality, which is essentially: What kinds of restrictions (if any) should we as a society place on contracts between parties who would otherwise agree?
Laissez-faire capitalism's answer is "None at all", which is appealingly simple and works well whenever the parties involved have similar levels of bargaining power. But in practice a huge number of negotiations occur between parties with vastly different levels of bargaining power -- and in that case, having few or no restrictions can lead to emergent behaviour (especially positive feedback of wealth and poverty over time) that many feel to be unfair.
It's difficult because the alternative -- adding restrictions -- seems almost impossible to do without "playing favourites", which leads to claims of unfairness that are hard to argue against because they are so plain: They're right there in writing. It's harder for many people to see how the absence of restrictions is also a kind of "playing favourites".
I keep bringing up this example - it's like buying a house with a room that's walled off and you need to pay the developer extra money to have it opened up for use. The houses are made from prefabs so it's easier to just make every house the same but just wall off rooms you didn't pay for. The contract could stipulate this clearly - you are not paying for the room that's walled off.
Obviously, that's completely insane and I'm sure anyone can see this. Why treat cars differently?
Add one variable to your example: imagine that having variations increases cost such as increased development cost (you need to develop each component, test and certify possible combinations, incur increased logistical complexity, etc..)
This additional cost however is less than just adding the higher trim to every configuration, e.g. the additional room, so it doesn't make economic sense to do so.
But let's assume you now get the ability to sell and unlock a higher trim after the initial purchase. Let's say that 20% of your customers would be willing to purchase such an unlock at a later point in time, resulting in increased revenue.
If that revenue plus the reduced lifecycle expense exceeds the cost of adding the higher trim as baseline you would have a business case, which wouldn't be the case if you just add the room for everybody (where you'd have to raise the base price and lose buyers on the lower end).
I understand all of that. If it isn't economical for BMW to produce cars with and without heated seats as two separate models then I guess all of their cars should have heated seats as standard. Having them but locking them behind a software unlock is profiteering, even if technically making a model without the seats would have been more expensive.
> The fact that buying big solid things like cars has typically, thus far, in our society, meant owning every physical piece of that thing, doesn't and shouldn't override what it says in the contract.
I think I'm not alone in saying that yes it SHOULD override what it says in the contract. You can write whatever you like in contracts, but that does not make it reasonable behavior.
More generally, what restrictions should the law place on contracts, in your opinion? That is, can you describe a general rule that would rule out BMW's heated car seats from being a valid contact clause (but, presumably, not rule out every possible contract)?
You can't charge a subscription for something someone already physically owns.
That ought to stop this sort of nonsense while still allowing most all SaaS stuff to keep going. Heck you could still charge a service contract for the seat heaters. You just can't go "No we won't enable this thing that's already fully wired up and ready to go and fully owned by you"
Though honestly the "correct" way to fix this sort of nonsense is to rework or possibly repeal DMCA entirely. It's absurd a manufacturer can put a lock on my stuff and have it be illegal for me to remove the lock.
Thanks for responding, and sorry for the slow reply.
>You can't charge a subscription for something someone already physically owns.
I suspect the contract is worded so that the buyer of "the car" actually does not own the seats, or perhaps the heaters in the seats. If that's the case, do you feel that such a contract clause should be illegal? If so, you're claiming that there are circumstances in which it should be illegal to "separate out" some things that are usually "bundled together" (here, car seat heaters and the rest of the car) -- what general rule would you propose to decide what things are unacceptable to separate out like this? (In case you're thinking of proposing "things that are physically connected can't be sold separately", you will run into problems: Lots of raw materials, e.g., steel, need to be cut up to be sold in the quantities customers need.)
But let's suppose the contract does not in fact leave ownership of any physical part of the car with the seller. If you buy a router from an ISP, are they not entitled to also charge you a monthly subscription to use it to access the internet?
Then suddenly you buy a car that has several kg of equipment that are not yours, but theirs, just so you could activate it with a subscription at a later point in time. Great! But now I'm the one paying gas/electricity to carry that extra load around that does not belong to me.
How is it possible that they can get away with it without any lawsuits? I'd want to be compensated for carrying other people's crap around town.
If a feature requires constant development (like self-driving) then it makes more sense. But even that has been subverted these days with SaaS companies that charge a subscription but only offer new features as upgrades so your version doesn't really improve that much unless you pony up.
>Then suddenly you buy a car that has several kg of equipment that are not yours
Well, you could read the contract, see that clause, and choose not to buy that particular car, couldn't you?
It's likely that there are other cars available to buy that don't have clauses like that in their contracts. But even if there aren't (either because this car manufacturer has a monopoly on cars where you live, or there's a cartel operating in which all car manufacturers secretly agree to adopt this type of clause): Do you feel you have a right to buy a car without a clause like that in the contract?
If your answer to that is "Yes, I have that right": Suppose for the sake of argument that this car company is a monopoly. What happens if it goes out of business, or decides to stop making cars altogether? Should they be prevented from doing so by law, in order that your right to buy such a car remains undisturbed?
If you live on a remote island, do you likewise have a right to buy a car with no such clause in the contract?
I'm interested in understanding what rights you feel people should be entitled to when it comes by buying things, and how you would have the government deal with the downstream implications of legally guaranteeing those rights.
The argument "it was in the contract" doesn't connect with most people when the contract specifies something that is so strongly against common sense. The Libertarian desire of having almost arbitrary contract clauses, that is, anything goes as long as consenting adults are agreeing to it, resonates with me personally but I fully understand it's utopian. Most people simply don't think, and won't ever think, like that - and this is why BMW failed badly here.
Dystopian, more like. It's fine when the parties to the contract are of similar size, but the vast majority of contracts are between relatively powerful entities who write the contract and relatively powerless entities who like it or lump it. That needs a thumb on the scales to stop the more powerful entity taking unreasonable advantage.
“What’s subsidized” is completely detached from the vehicle owner already. Cost to design, prototype, manufacture, pass standards, finish, sell in a dealership, and provide warranty for are all basically trade secrets.
There’s no way for a car owner to know whether their $120k car cost $300k to make or $20k, so how can we have a genuine discussion about the cost of anything else?
Maybe an argument can be made that the contract is deceptive, or so long and detailed that it amounts to a DoS on the potential buyer. I think those are important topics that deserve a lot more scrutiny and weight in the courtroom than they get. But that's a different topic.