Hacker News Reader

Comment by rvense | Hacker News Reader

Imagine if IKEA sent someone to your house to smash your plates if you used cutlery they didn't like.

The CEO and board who are supervising this ought to be barred from ever running a company again.

A more apt analogy would be that you entered a contract in which IKEA rented you a house at a great discount and in exchange you can only furnish the house with IKEA furniture and then they caught you buying stuff somewhere else and kicked you out.

The "smash your plates" part is not adequate because the 3rd party ink cartridges are not being destroyed. If you promise to keep buying IKEA furniture they'll let you return to the house.

If you don't like the terms of this contract (I don't) then don't sign it. Easy!

>If you don't like the terms of this contract (I don't) then don't sign it. Easy!

it is disingenuous to frame a consumer purchase as the entry into a contract, even if that is the case much of the time.

but I do agree with the idea of boycott through avoidance.

The problem is that none of this is obvious to an unaware consumer who thinks they're just buying a printer. The marketing practices surrounding this are deliberate and have a side effect of producing a huge amount of preventable waste.

That's not a more apt analogy at all, that's the stupid explanation they might give to tell themselves they're not being bastards, which they objectively are. It's not about laws or contracts, why are you twisting yourself to defend this?

People bought a printer to print, they were able to print, now they're not due to HP's vandalism. It's so obviously not OK. If HP can't make a printer to sell for $80 then should just not sell printers for $80.

> you entered a contract in which IKEA rented you a house

I love how any interaction with a company means we enter into a one-sided contract with them and own nothing, despite spending money. Don't like it? Just go live in a cave!

If you are making a purely legal argument, then you are on shaky ground, and there are limits to what is considered a valid contract (especially in the EU), and what terms it may contain, but you might persuade a judge.

If you are making a moral argument, it is indefensible.

You signed the contract. You agreed to it, it doesn’t matter how one sided it was. You could sign a contract to eat shit for a dollar. You’re correct in that some countries restrict consent between individuals.

Of course it matters how one-sided it is, and of course it matters whether or not this was obvious at the time of purchase. There's absolutely no way this is legal in Europe, but unfortunately it's sometimes hard to make these big American companies follow the law.

That's utter nonsense. You can't consent to stuff that is against the law, esp. when the "power balance" when signing the contract is extremely lopsided. Such contract clauses are routinely ruled invalid and unenforceable.

Whether I consent to something has little to do with the law. I would hope that the law upholds consent, but as we see in the EU, it doesn’t.

The company consented to have its contracts limited by continuing to do business in the EU.

As did the gays consent to not marrying, or does “you consent if we voted for it” only apply when you like the vote?

It applies always. But I don't see contractual consent as the highest moral virtue.

> You agreed to it, it doesn’t matter how one sided it was.

The libertarian philosophy in a nutshell. It doesn't matter if society turns into a corporate fiefdom, as long as contracts and property rights are upheld.

Do your part and say no. Unlike the EU, we won’t make that illegal.

> Do your part and say no.

I'll do my part and vote to make it illegal, and not reduce myself to a mere consumer. Just like companies don't, and lobby for restrictive patent laws. What happens when one side limits itself to just (individual) consumer choices, while the other uses all political and organizational means available to gain an advantage? In other words, if two players play a game, and one of them limits themselves to only a small subset of moves, while the other uses all, which player will win?

> make that illegal.

Oh no, that's just consent between individuals. People collectively place terms you agree to by continuing to conduct business in that country. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere - they can run their countries how they like. You're not saying organizing into companies is legitimate, but organizing into countries isn't, are you?

Yeah we’ve already established that you want to place restrictions on consent. I also don’t support patents, see what a bit of consistency does for you?

I am precisely saying countries are less legitimate than individuals. Governments hold and use their monopoly on force, they do not follow the rules they impose on those they govern. SpaceX can’t claim Mars and beat down anyone that challenges them, and yet that is exactly how most state borders came to be today. But again, if you’re willing to be consistent, then socialists should feel free to move to Cuba, else they consent to living under capitalism.

this is.. not how contracts work at all. contracts in bad-faith or that impose unreasonable stipulations are not exactly binding regardless of a signature.

the question of course becomes whether or not it is worth it to litigate but that is another conversation.

I described the ideal. Ideally, you wouldn’t be able to sign a contract whose contents were made transparent to you, then sue so that only the part of the contract benefitting you is upheld. Yet here we are.

It's not an apt comparison at all because renting a house and buy an appliance are two completely different things. In particular when you buy a printer you don't sign any contract so HP cannot say "you accepted our terms when you bought it". No I didn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com