That's what happened here. Refusing to scan without ink is sabotage.
> If it was from a private individual plantiff, then they have a right to privacy you can’t just ignore.
And the public has a right to transparency in the legal system. The rights are in conflict, and given the obvious risks of a black-box legal system, the right to transparency should prevail.
>> Sabotaging people’s private property is a criminal act.
> That's what happened here. Refusing to scan without ink is sabotage.
Breaking into someone’s office and physically damaging their property as in your example is different than a machine that disables itself. The machine can’t commit criminal acts. If you’re arguing that the CEO of HP commited a criminal act, that’s a stretch, as I have no idea what criminal law you’d say he broke. On top of which criminal cases have a much higher burden of proof, so civil litigation is likely to provide a better outcome.
And anyway, again, the proper venue for this, is to create better consumer protection laws in the first place. The judicial system isn’t going to magically police companies. We as the people have to hold them accountable and that means voting, lobbying etc, just as is being done with right to repair bills. The judicial system can compensate for harm, which hopefully will happen here, but it’s only part of the solution.
I hear what you are saying, but a contract is only private while both parties agree that the other is not in breach. The minute you want to enforce a contract its contents are made fully public.
TBH, I don't think anyone who got a life-changing amount of money from a settlement would want to jeopardise that by breaching the NDA and forcing the other party to sue, making the contract open to public inspection.