MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

knc1 · 12-05-2014, 04:34 PM

The core of the issue, as I see it:

"Who owns the behavior of the device?" (Of any embedded system, consumer, device.)

1) The original vendor?
2) The owner of the device?

I.E: Did the sale that transferred hardware ownership also transfer controlling ownership of the device's behavior?

NOTE: IANAL - just an experienced layman in the field.

In the USA - -
If someone, anyone, causes loss or change of computerized information on a computer system, they are guilty of a crime.

In this case:
If Amazon remotely changed or deleted an electronic document you placed on the device, a document that you clearly own (or have other rights to) ...
Then the above legal situation would apply.

That situation has been through the courts (multiple times).

If Amazon remotely changed, prevented use or deleted an application that you had added, one that you clearly own (or have other rights to) to the system that provides you with a previously unavailable feature ...

Does that change in behavior belong to you (and the above interference with it a crime) or does the behavior of the device belong to the original vendor (and the above interference is none of your concern).

As far as I know or can find out, this question has never (yet) been addressed by the courts (in the USA).

Does the ownership of the device's behavior belong to you or the original vendor?

Amazon clearly behaves as if they believe they have ownership control of the device's behavior.

I (and other members here) feel that the ownership of the control of the device's behavior changed hands when the ownership of the device did.

I.E: In brief terms: "Our war with Amazon."

- - - - -

For myself, at my age, am I just sounding off, maybe cheerleading a bit?
Probably.

But back when I was 1/2 my current age, I was one member of a group that forced the concept of "Monopoly telecommunications providers" into the courts, and won.

(Which forced AT&T to divest themselves of the Bell System companies - among other changes.)

So this "war" is not a waste of time, it **could** be changed (or at least legally recognized).

12-05-2014, 04:34 PM	#19
knc1 Going Viral Posts: 17,212 Karma: 18210809 Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Central Texas Device: No K1, PW2, KV, KOA	The core of the issue, as I see it: "Who owns the behavior of the device?" (Of any embedded system, consumer, device.) 1) The original vendor? 2) The owner of the device? I.E: Did the sale that transferred hardware ownership also transfer controlling ownership of the device's behavior? NOTE: IANAL - just an experienced layman in the field. In the USA - - If someone, anyone, causes loss or change of computerized information on a computer system, they are guilty of a crime. In this case: If Amazon remotely changed or deleted an electronic document you placed on the device, a document that you clearly own (or have other rights to) ... Then the above legal situation would apply. That situation has been through the courts (multiple times). If Amazon remotely changed, prevented use or deleted an application that you had added, one that you clearly own (or have other rights to) to the system that provides you with a previously unavailable feature ... Does that change in behavior belong to you (and the above interference with it a crime) or does the behavior of the device belong to the original vendor (and the above interference is none of your concern). As far as I know or can find out, this question has never (yet) been addressed by the courts (in the USA). Does the ownership of the device's behavior belong to you or the original vendor? Amazon clearly behaves as if they believe they have ownership control of the device's behavior. I (and other members here) feel that the ownership of the control of the device's behavior changed hands when the ownership of the device did. I.E: In brief terms: "Our war with Amazon." - - - - - For myself, at my age, am I just sounding off, maybe cheerleading a bit? Probably. But back when I was 1/2 my current age, I was one member of a group that forced the concept of "Monopoly telecommunications providers" into the courts, and won. (Which forced AT&T to divest themselves of the Bell System companies - among other changes.) So this "war" is not a waste of time, it could be changed (or at least legally recognized).