Keurig is free to do what they want, just as a consumer is free to choose whichever coffee maker they want.
Maybe this will blow up in their face, or perhaps given their market share it will all work out.
Maybe this will blow up in their face, or perhaps given their market share it will all work out.
I don't know if that's how the law actually is, but it sounds like it might be.
The issue isn't whether Keurig should be free to add DRM to their product or not. The issue is whether they should be able to use the law to prevent competitors from circumventing that DRM. Printer manufacturers tried a similar stunt with adding DRM to printer cartridges and suing the makers of after-market cartridges for DMCA violations.
Designs that deliberately hinder their performance and perhaps artificially shorten their lifespan, may be viewed as against the public good -- especially if and as this becomes standard practice across a range of products.
Society may indeed decide that they are not "free to do as they please", in this respect. Just like your car is required to have adequate passenger restraint systems, and many other conditions that are "imposed".
The ethical and legal question is whether there's a good reason why Keurig should be allowed to forbid anyone else from manufacturing compatible refills (if they want to) or forbid customers from buying these refills (if they want to). As far as US law is concerned, do you think that prohibiting the manufacture of these compatible refills will "promote the progress of science and useful arts"? Because that is what Keurig is (effectively) claiming by relying on copyright law in this way.