Comment by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC

> I think we are done here. That's not how society works. You don't just get to do whatever you want to do and expect the manufacturer to still cover the warranty.

Well, yes, actually, I do. And not only do I expect it, it's actually the law over here.

> If you tamper, see a dictionary, with the device then it is not their responsibility to cover it.

Well, OK, let me quote a dictionary:

| a :to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse —used with with

| b :to try foolish or dangerous experiments —used with with

| c :to render something harmful or dangerous by altering its structure or composition

(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tamper)

So, according to the dictionary definition, competently repairing or modifying the phone certainly would not fall under tampering, do you agree?

> That's actually pretty much how the law already is.

Actually, I doubt that it is, assuming that you are talking about the US.

> Your house example is kinda silly. It's a house, not an electronic device.

I agree that a house is not an electronic device. Why do you think that different rules should apply in the case of electronic devices?

> I'd love to agree with you but reality suggests otherwise.

Why?

> If you overclock your CPU, as a rough example, they aren't gonna let you RMA it.

Whether they "let me" anything really is not the question. The question is what their legal responsibilities are, i.e., what I can enforce via the judicial system if they do not voluntarily "let me".

> I don't blame them.

I think I got your standpoint. What's still missing is the justification.

> Swapping out user serviceable parts, as a reasonable person might do, is an obvious exception. You might want to try looking at it as a reasonable person (the legal concept) would.

You do understand that that is not a meaningful use of the legal term "reasonable person", right? That is about figuring out the intent of a contract if things are not spelled out.

> You really seem to have a bit emotionally invested in this so I'm going to respectfully bow out now.

Unfortunately, that is not really a justification for your standpoint either.

See, now you're just being dishonest. I'm not even sure why?

I really, really shouldn't engage you further, but I'll try one more time.

No, the law isn't that 'over there.' The law isn't that anywhere. Nowhere on the planet can you modify your electronic devices 'however you want' and have it covered by warranty. To give a really simplistic example, you can not just start swapping out resistors and replacing them with alternatives and be covered under any legal system on the planet. Go ahead, run 440 volts into your phone and tell 'em you expect it to be covered by warranty. I'll wait for your court case. Provide documentation.

Yes, tampering. I'm now even more certain of my use of the word. The very first definition works just wonderfully. Yes, when you crack open that phone case and think you're a master at reflow with your toaster oven, you're making it worse.

I'm really, really trying to be charitable. At this point, you've been openly dishonest and made outlandish claims. No, no your legal system doesn't allow that. Go ahead, snap a few resistors off, pump 12v AC into your phone, and try for a warranty claim. I'll wait.

Seriously, that's not even a moral arguement to be made. You can't just do 'whatever you want' and expect warranty coverage - anywhere on the planet. Not in my country, not in your country. If you think you can do it in your country, consult a qualified legal professional.

Whatever you want includes things like smashing it open with a hammer and hooking it up to your car's alternator in a crazed PCP frenzy. That ain't legal anywhere.

> No, the law isn't that 'over there.' The law isn't that anywhere. Nowhere on the planet can you modify your electronic devices 'however you want' and have it covered by warranty.

Well, great that you believe that ... but that does not really change the reality of it.

> To give a really simplistic example, you can not just start swapping out resistors and replacing them with alternatives and be covered under any legal system on the planet.

Well ... except, yes, you can.

> Go ahead, run 440 volts into your phone and tell 'em you expect it to be covered by warranty. I'll wait for your court case. Provide documentation.

Why the heck would I want to do that? Why would I possibly want to apply 440 volts to my phone, in the process most likely damaging it irreparably, before requesting repair of a pre-existing defect under warranty, the repair of which is extremely unlikely to make the phone work again?! I mean, apart from the fact that applying 440 volts to a phone PCB would probably make it impossible to prove that the claimed defect existed beforehand, at least if it's a defect in the electronics. And even in the first six months, when the seller has to prove that the defect wasn't there on delivery to escape liability, the damage from that most likely would be sufficient to shift the burden of proof to me.

But, well, yes, legally I could sort-of enforce that here, if I somehow did manage to prove that the defect existed on delivery. Though chances are it would be completely futile because the court would probably find that the actual damage that I suffered in that situation is non-existent (because the phone is worthless whether they do/pay for the repair or not), so while I would formally win the case, I wouldn't really get anything out of it.

> Yes, tampering. I'm now even more certain of my use of the word. The very first definition works just wonderfully. Yes, when you crack open that phone case and think you're a master at reflow with your toaster oven, you're making it worse.

Speaking of dishonesty: How is it honest to pick a scenario that you consider to be an incompetent repair or modification as an example of a competent repair or modification?

> I'm really, really trying to be charitable. At this point, you've been openly dishonest and made outlandish claims. No, no your legal system doesn't allow that. Go ahead, snap a few resistors off, pump 12v AC into your phone, and try for a warranty claim. I'll wait.

Well see above. But to maybe show a case where that would work out just fine: Let's say I do all that to my new phone, and then I discover that the SIM socket is missing. Then I absolutely could successfully sue for receiving the missing SIM socket. Probably not for getting it soldered in, though, unless I could show that that actually increases the value of the phone.

But why are you constantly going for such intentionally massively destructive scenarios?! Obviously, that's likely to make any claims on pre-existing defects moot, if the destructive action would have destroyed the previously defective component anyway, so there is no legal damage anymore.

> Whatever you want includes things like smashing it open with a hammer and hooking it up to your car's alternator in a crazed PCP frenzy. That ain't legal anywhere.

Well, yes, it actually is, that is what the concept of "property" means. As long as it's not harming you, you don't get any say in what I do with my property, and that includes if you are the manufacturer of what is now my property. And not getting any say in it includes that you cannot disclaim responsibility to deliver a non-defective product unless I do with my property what you want me to do with my property.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com