Hacker News Reader

Comment by ocdtrekkie | Hacker News Reader

Would this apply to say, a third-party bought Cisco device? For those who don't know, Cisco devices have software that is non-transferable, despite being required to use the hardware, which can be freely sold. So technically if you sell a Cisco device to someone else, it can no longer be legally used because the software on it is pirated.

Wouldn't this exemption arguably guarantee your ability to use the hardware you own in accordance with its original specifications, provided you can acquire the software somewhere?

View on HN

Interesting. It seems like Cisco's attempt to make their firmware non-transferable is not enforceable because it's in conflict with first sale doctrine, which is part of the copyright act of 1976:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

I read it as an attempt at a workaround for first sale. That they can't stop you from selling the hardware, but can prevent you from selling the license. IANAL, if it's invalid, great.

AFAIK Cisco doesn't actually "enforce" this, so much as uses it to withhold providing updates. You need a support contract to download updates yourself, and while you can request an update be sent to you if there's a vulnerability you need to patch while not under a support contract, that is only applicable if your license is legitimate (i.e., that you are the original owner).

In practice, most old third party hardware just gets used for homelab purposes, since it's not "legitimate". Which, as a side perk, actually keeps the resale prices of old Cisco hardware super low, which is nice for people who want enterprise class hardware at home.

IMHO (not a lawyer), this is one of those things the companies put in a EULA that won't stand up in an actual court of law. It's basically bullying their own consumers. If pressed on it they would probably fold, but not before making you spend a ton of money on lawyers.

If I were the judge, I'd rule that if the software is required to make the hardware fit for its advertised purpose, the license to the software is attached to the device rather than the consumer. Claims of non-transferability or not, possession of the device is de facto license to possess and use the firmware.

I believe this is the EU's approach to on-device firmware.

I think this ruling would apply to anyone who wanted to bypass controls Cisco might have in place to prevent other software from running, e.g. a custom non-Cisco OS. I don't think it would give you the right to run Cisco's software.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com