Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure that you know more about these things than I do, but it seems to me that if you buy a Kindle, and accept those terms of service, you are agreeing (via that first part of the agreement that I quoted) not to reverse engineer or modify it. You're right, that's not against the law as such, but contracts can certainly "trump" things that would otherwise have been legal. Eg, it's not illegal to do more than 5000 miles a year in a car, but if you lease a car, and part of your lease agreement is that you won't exceed 5000 miles a year, you can most assuredly be required to make additional payment as a consequence, and taken to court if you refuse to do so.
|
The ability of a contractual obligation to "trump" the law is not universal, Harry. I know for sure that, if an employment contract is
signed and accepted by involved parties to contradict the labour law of the land, the
portions of that contract that are in collision with the law are deemed nil and void in the court of law, but the rest of agreement stands.
Well, "know for sure'... that was a quote of what corporate lawyer said in my presence.
Now, back to the Kindle example. I believe that it is futile for Amazon to use that contract to go after Duokan project. Being a total replacement for Kindle firmware, the attempt would amount to logical equivalent (and this is gross simplification) of preventing a Kindle owner from using the device as ... a wedge to keep the door open. Hard to argue that Amazon's interests are hurt by the alternate use of their product.
Should one, however, use reverse engineering to ease the access to Kindle internals (rooting) the things change dramatically, as Amazon has a ground to argue that breach of contract has hurt them, directly or indirectly. What would be an outcome, I can not say, I am also not a lawyer.