Hacker News Reader

Comment by Shadonototro | Hacker News Reader

i'm pretty sure they did this to prevent a class-action lawsuit

limiting a product after a purchase, i'm pretty sure this is illegal

I have my cheque from Sony for OtherOS class action sitting on my desk. The cheque is dated 09/16/2019 [nine years after OtherOS was disabled via firmware], and it's for three dollars and two cents.

Still makes me mad. I bought a device that plays PS3 games and runs Linux and then Sony said I have to choose.

> limiting a product after a purchase, i'm pretty sure this is illegal

NVIDIA announced this limit prior to public availability and it made widespread news, meaning everyone who bought a 3060 could reasonably be expected to know about the restriction. No chance for a class action.

Plus Nvidia can offer a full refund of the MSRP, fully knowing that even used cards go for more.

I'm quite surprised if there isn't a binding arbitration clause somewhere, which blocks class actions

> could reasonably be expected to know

I’d wager I know about 1% or less of how restricted 99% of what I buy is.

There’s probably some term or condition on my water bill saying I can’t export it to Cuba or use it to moderate nuclear fission.

It's a GPU. It does GPU stuff, about as well as can be expected.

If you had very specific numbers in mind, you must have been looking at benchmarks, and all the benchmarks were equally locked and mining benchmarks certainly would have mentioned it.

There is not. Right of first sale. Once it's sold it's done. That's why places are so eager to add microprocessors to everything. With the right cryptography, you can lock the user out of tampering with anything.

source?

A month ago on HN, for example (a couple dupes were merged into that iirc): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26180260

I’m curious how this is different from shutting down a paid service or removing software features. Seems like there’s a large grey area.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com