Oh wonderful. So that means John Deere can drop all the lawsuits against farmers who try to repair their own tractors since farmers didn't break any law. Right?
Perhaps you've heard of Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc.?
Or SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp.?
https://web.archive.org/web/20150811052336/https://blogs.ora...
All in all, I thought it was a balanced and well written post - much better than the usual corporate effluent ( "We are thrilled to announce that we delight our customers in achieving their dreams of democratising toothbrushing")
"...that limitation includes the fact that you aren’t allowed to de-compile, dis-assemble, de-obfuscate..."
I genuinely don't care if a company wants to trapdoor their support contract with something like that. But it would make more sense for them to properly structure things so that they'd be able to look forward to nuisance tickets, instead of being driven to trying to convince the infosec world that they should just trust you - and feel bad for not doing so in the first place. In any case, the thrust of the argument she is making isn't about support contracts - it is framed much more broadly, which is why this post made so much noise at the time.