> And now a word from our lawyers. Finally, in order to unlock your device, you need to agree to important legal terms[1], which can be found on the next page. Agreeing creates a binding legal agreement, so be sure to read them carefully.
From linked terms:
> Devices that have been unlocked are for your personal use only. Once you unlock the device, you can only use it for our personal use, and may not sell or otherwise transfer the device.
Inquisitive question: is there such a thing as a unfair contract? There's this saying 'the price is always right'. Likewise, isn't the contract always fair?
It kind of makes sense. If you unlock it, install software and then try to sell it, it is a Motorola branded device, but it no longer functions as Motorola designed or intended. I can see where the lawyers are trying to prevent the consequences of actions by the end-user from falling back on them.
Seems like an area of the law that's a bit unclear.
Sure, if you sell a phone with unofficial modifications, without disclosing that it's been been modified, I could see that being a problem. But not a blanket ban.
I don't think you understand that Louis Rossmann's job and attitude used to be the norm. Owning and repairing things are core to industrial living, but modern economic forces want to make you think that its about licensing and disposability.
Ownership and agency are part of liberty, renting and dependence is not.
I do not own Motorola's devices but would still like to send them big warm FUCK YOU. As for me personally now it is guaranteed that I will never buy any of your crap.
Can downvoters explain why they are doing so? I agree with both of these points (first sale doctrine and that a license is not a contract) and would like to hear explanation of why they are mistaken here.
In particular, there is no consideration offered by either party, and so this cannot be contractual on its face.
Agree. Contracts can't override legal obligations. You can't sign away your rights and companies can't write contracts that absolve them of their legal obligations. It doesn't matter if both parties involved "agree" to it.
If I've understood the Motorola page correctly, they do not give you the unlock code for your device if you do not agree to the terms. That would be consideration.
Which as mentioned would be a pretty novel argument. In all other circumstances in the industry, it's just an EULA you have to click through to download software. Those have repeatedly been found unenforceable any time someone tries to do something tricky or weird with one. Clicking away your right to sell your own property is awfully weird.
Contracts that do complicated things involve negotiation and signatures, generally. The more you rely on caveat emptor and the assumption that the License Clicker read through all the fine print, the more likely you are to get your contract tossed.
I don't see how that would be relevant to the question of whether or not there is consideration. They are giving you something valuable in exchange for a promise. That what makes it valuable to you is that you can use it with a device you already own does not change that. Contract law generally just cares that it is valuable, not the particulars of what makes it valuable.
I can see how trademarks could allow for them to restrict the selling of such phones. This is to fight against people who buy Motorola phones, unlock them, install a new operating system on them including malware, and then sell them to consumers as a Motorola phone. Normal consumers think they are getting a Motorola phone, but in actuality they aren't and they are buying a device that is compromised. The attackers are using Motorola's trademark to trick people.
Agreed, though that certainly _feels_ orthogonal to unlocking the bootloader? If I modify the hardware some other way (a la a modchip) and achieve the same thing, it'd be illegal for the same reasons.
I’ve been an embedded security engineer for the past two decades, have worked on a dozen secure silicon projects, have broken several secure boot chains (albeit only one publicly, in 2014: https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2014/hubcap-chromecast-root-pt...). I’ve also worked on some of the early Wii modchips when I was with Team Twiizers. These days I spend time (though not as much as I’d like) in cleanrooms playing with SEMs, plasma etchers and other fun toys.
I can fairly safely say your assumptions are incorrect.
>I can fairly safely say your assumptions are incorrect.
Tell me what assumption is wrong so I can learn (unless your point was that software (and hardware :)) can have security bugs which I'm already aware of), else I will continue to repeat this.
Apologies, I should have been more nuanced in my reply.
Your assumptions are correct, for a given threat model. I think I'm simply arguing from a different threat model that includes hardware modifications like the modchips used in the Nintendo Switch, that glitch the power rail to modify the behaviour of the SoC.
> The attackers are using Motorola's trademark to trick people.
I am sorry, this is absurd.
Firstly my right of ownership over my device is greater that Motorolas twice-removed claim over trademark, which is only a small part of its value.
Second -precedent. We have laptops, there is unblocked boot loader and this has never been the norm. If a crime occurs, it’s dealt with by the justice system, not by taking away my rights.
First sale just says that if you sell a copy you legally own of a copyrighted work that does not infringe the copyright owner's distribution right. That just means that if the copyright owner wants to stop the sale they will not be able to turn to copyright law to do so.
It does not mean that they can't turn to some other method to stop the sale. In this case they would turn to contract law. You defense to that would not involve first sale. It would involve trying to argue that a contract was not formed.
Does that prevent you re-selling a device with an unlocked bootloader if you clearly indicate that it is unlocked? Probably not, but it's more complicated than I thought at first glance.
Any devs here create these types of things? Or other systems that make it hard to repair devices?
Why do you do it? Do you see this as enshitification? Just need to pay the bills? (can't find a different job?) Think "someone else will do it if I don't?" (and don't think they'll have to pay more for the other person or that the other person will be of lesser quality or people turning down the jobs/not applying puts pressure on them?)
I really am curious. FWIW, you can create an anonymous account if you want to truthfully answer these questions. HN just needs an email address and you can use disposable ones or masks. I really do want honest answers.
Note: I __DO NOT__ want answers form others who are just making assumptions about what people creating these things actually do or think. Point is to actually not understand, not "make an ass out of you and me". But if you worked on some other similar program or something like the Sony Playstation stuff, I am happy to have your comment. I just want to keep the theme relevant and not muddied with emotional conjecture that's such a common response to these questions.
I don't make that stuff, I'm not making any assumptions.
But considering the state of discussion on the internet, I wonder how many takers you might get. Do / say something unpopular and you're just signing up for abuse online, heck even if you don't do anything. HN is better places than most but recently (not on HN) I got down-voted in a discussion where I said I didn't mind the neighbor kids running through my yard, and some folks stopped to e-yell at me how terrible it is ...
I'm more riffing off of a "Can we even have these conversations?" kinda question here, but I am interested if anyone would take you up on your offer if only because of the lay of the internet land.
Well, now I wanna know what you mean by "e-yell." If you say you don't mind and someone replies with dissension saying you should mind, is that not having the conversation?
Not the point at all but I also think you should mind :P
> But considering the state of discussion on the internet,
Yeah it is a tough problem. I specifically gave the advice of how to be anonymous in case someone was worried about that. That way at least they wouldn't be concerned with defacing their profile or other type of image. But I suspect that would bias it towards people who feel morally uncertain or are questioning their own actions.
And I fully agree. We need to stop being reactionary. It doesn't solve problems, it creates them. We all got egos here and to address this I typically go after the ego (including to myself). If we're so smart and rational then we can promote smart and rational discussions right?
I don't think many realize that they are often being used as pawns in a game of informational warfare. That our emotions play into the hands of others. Because they are quite easy to exploit, especially when we believe we are difficult to exploit (there's that ego again :) But I am trying to push for this type of behavior. Given your concern, I'd encourage you to take an active approach in this as well. I downvote any lazy comment I see (even if I agree with it, or even if it makes me laugh) in an effort to actively push up more meaningful comments. I also will try to openly question the interpretation of someone's comment as a means to quench any flames (an example is here[0] but clearly ineffective. Can be hit or miss). On the other hand, I will often upvote comments I disagree with if they are promoting discussions or if the replies to them are valuable. What I often see is a reply be great and highly informative but then because people agree with the reply they downvote the parent but this then pushes down the entire conversation. I'm not sure how to address this mechanism but this feels like the best I can do given the tools at hand.
I do fully believe we need to have these types of questions. Liberal or conservative, enabling these discussions is perfectly in line with your political beliefs, and in fact I would say is critical to it. We shouldn't be afraid of asking questions and we should be able to ask things in good faith (which that part is key). I think you're right about the environment and so this is why I'm trying to be the environment I want to see and try to encourage others to do the same. One thing I personally find hard is that it is easy to react to someone who reacts in bad faith to you. But I try to apologize when I recognize it. I think this is an important habit to build. The other is to be explicit about gratitude because I think part of the issue is that we let things that are good or that we're grateful for go unsaid. It makes sense, but clearly puts a bias on our perception. It also puts bias on incentives for people doing the right thing. Like when a company that has been doing bad things in the past does something good for once you can totally say "This is great! I don't condone x,y,z but I hope they continue to push towards being not evil" or whatever. There needs to be positive reinforcement signals too.
If I've learned anything in my own little domain that I'm an expert in it is that there's rabbit holes everywhere and nuances rule the domain. So I try to keep that in mind when thinking about other domains. I don't always succeed, but my process is set up to have multiple chances to correct course (but I'm still an idiot emotional human lol)
And of course, I'm open for suggestions about how to better cultivate an environment where we can have better discussions. If you have any advice I'd love to hear it.
I don't care for companies dictating what can and cannot be done with MY property. I may not agree with certain decisions the OEM made on how things operate, and I should be able to change them to fit my needs. If I physically destroy the device by whatever I do to it, then I don't expect warrantee service (but this should not be possible by changing the software alone, or it's a design flaw the OEM should be held accountable for). Otherwise, I should be able to customize my device to my needs and desires without losing coverage for a faulty device, just like we've been able to do to PCs for decades. Never mind the environmental concerns of being forced to trash a device because the OEM won't provide what's necessary to resuscitate it should something go wrong. Providing basic information and software necessary to do so is simply the right thing to do.
I appreciate your passion, but I'm trying to understand the other side. Given your passion I hope you do too. Because I think we need to understand the other side if we want to argue our side. So let's wait for some responses and make sure we don't attack anyone that responds or discourage them. We need to understand why people make certain decisions if we're going to change things, not force people into our positions, especially by means of shame.
No, I see this as needing to make a trade off where the result ends up with one party gaining something and consumers losing something.
>Just need to pay the bills?
No, money is not a motivating factor.
>can't find a different job?
I have no reason to switch job, but finding a different job wouldn't be an issue.
>Think "someone else will do it if I don't?"
These companies are not masochists trying to exclusively hurt consumers. There are a lot of trade offs that happen between multiple different parties. A company is not going to be able to make the best possible product if in every single tradeoff they give priority to the consumers (you also can't make every single subgroup of consumers all happy with some things). Sure someone could execute on the tradeoff being made, but I don't need any kind of justification for me to stay at my job. I want to see all the relevant parties benefit from the existence of the product. If I disagree with a tradeoff being made I can raise that. What tradeoff to make is a hard decision that people don't always get right, sometimes they were missing available information and some information they may only be able to speculate on. In the future these tradeoffs can be reevaluated.
Do you think these trade-offs are actually meaningful? I can see how they might be useful in the short term, but at least to me they seem clearly poor strategy long term. It is unclear to me what exactly is gained by such actions. It is mentioned that preventing users from destroying their devices is a motivation, but I think this is such a limited set of users and I'm not sure letting more technical users bricking their devices is going to result in reduced sales. It does also result in others fixing your code for you if they can debug and inspect them. (So many times I just want to fix shit code but it's closed) It seems hackers and motivated actors are always able to get in anyways so I'm not sure what the real cost is. I think you might see things differently.
>Do you think these trade-offs are actually meaningful?
Yes, and it can be frustrating when your person want as a user may be different than what will be best for the most people. I do think there are a couple issues. The first is that reevaluating something, making a different tradeoff, and changing the product can be very expensive. Even if it's not be expensive alone, the opportunity cost may be higher and engineers could be working on something more impactful. The second issue is that the product will often target the needs of the majority of needs which means that the needs of power users may not be listened to very well. The solution to these issues are competition and extensibility. The work of making a version of the product for niche users can be done by a niche company and that can work out.
I think these are reasonable points. But are they necessary?
I'm a researcher, so not your typical programmer. But I'm wondering if there are some aspects that might overlap. I do program a bit differently from my colleagues.
I know I'm going to change my code a lot and have to try a lot of different things so when I go into writing I prioritize flexibility. I know whichever direction I'm starting in is wrong and I'm gonna learn a lot on the way. It's a bit slower to start but ends up faster in the long run and ends up letting me parallelize a lot more (because I can get to a state where I submit jobs to run over different parameters and can rely on it running for days). It did definitely take a bit to get into this style, but I feel much better about my code now.
Do you think these lessons I learned are relatable to the area you work in? To me the key difference is between short term and long term goals. Short term I am very hacky but it's just that that isn't sustainable so I imagine this is analogous to actual products. But it seems that it is addressing a similar problem of flexibility and changing directions.
I also have the habit of documenting while I code because I forget what I did in a few weeks (side benefit, others can onboard very easily). And whenever I get handed code I find myself being more productive rewriting routines rather than using what was handed to me that has zero documentation and is typically made for a very specific use case. Do you have a different experience? Because I've been working in a group building a product and this has been my life for the last 6 months...
I guess what I'm after is I have a predisposition to think more openness is more beneficial in the long run but closed is better in the short run.
I also think the not listening to power users plays into this. I'm reminded of this post[0] where other users are mentioning similar experiences. I can attest that in my experience most bugs I've seen are system independent but have experienced being quickly dismissed with "unsupported OS" and closed. Including just using a different flavor of the supported distro. (or to read the docs despite referencing the docs in my issue)
To your first point flexibility is not free. You have to choose when to be flexible and when to make assumptions to make things simple. Flexibility can only reduce the cost of making changes, but not eliminate it entitely.
>whenever I get handed code I find myself being more productive rewriting routines rather than using what was handed to me that has zero documentation and is typically made for a very specific use case.
Their is a cost to rewriting code. Code can have all sorts of information and knowledge for handling things correctly baked into which makes rewriting hard to do at scale without having a strong understanding of the problem. I personally don't think code level documentation really matters that much in the grand scheme of things. The version history, being able to see why code is the way it is, is orders of magnitude more important and is where the real savings come from.
>I also think the not listening to power users plays into this.
There is a difference between not listening to power users and what I was saying about not designing software for power users when the goal is to sell to the mass market. Yes, power users likely know the biggest pain points and have insight on how to make the product better. Even if they are right in finding something that makes the product better for them, it is possible that such a change would make the product worse for the millions of normal users.
But if this is the cost of rewriting isn't that the argument for having documentation? I mean I'm not running into well written code and I'm just told to add my thing to it. But to do that I need to interact with... well... a house of cards. Because the person before me wrote fast, not well. I do hear a lot of people say that they write their code so well it doesn't need documentation but I've only run into code that is clear pretty rarely. Though every time that happens, they also have documentation available.
Thanks for the clarification with power users. As one, I have no issues with this response. I know we always want more but I get the tradeoff for usability. Only thing I'd say is that, depending on what's being programmed, exposing API can often be all I need and typically doesn't do anything for the average user. But that's often not reasonable so I totally get this one.
The no sale requirements in the "contract" is interesting. However, is the following actually legal in the US?
> You have only yourself to blame. Once you get the unlock code, your device is no longer covered by the Motorola warranty; in other words, please don't blame us if things go wrong, even if they appear unrelated to unlocking the bootloader.
In Australia they can revoke the "Motorola warranty" all they want. However, everything sold comes with a warranty that can't be revoked which entitles you to repair or replacement for a reasonable time frame (yes it's intentionally open ended). You have to be using the item as intended, but if the company lets you unlock the device, then that's an intended use case. Even if you do "unlock a device" against a company's wishes, you're able to make warranty claims against the individual parts which are being used as intended. The company would have to demonstrate your tampering was responsible for the damage.
I'm aware the US does not have these same consumer rights, but can a company revoke a warranty?
Not generally - they can refuse a warranty service if it seems like the custom modification you made is causing whatever issue you're trying to use the warranty for, but they can't deny it if it unrelated. So if you have a warranty on your car, and you put a custom engine in it, and then it turns out you received defective seatbelts, the warranty is still active. But if your drive train is trashed from the extra power of the new engine, then the warranty will not be honored.
Warranties are just normal contracts. If both parties agree to modify a contract, they are pretty much always allowed to do so. In this case, Motorola is offering a second contract, which modifies an earlier agreement (the warranty) in exchange for the key to unlocking one's phone.
> Warranties are just normal contracts. If both parties agree to modify a contract, they are pretty much always allowed to do so. In this case, Motorola is offering a second contract, which modifies an earlier agreement (the warranty) in exchange for the key to unlocking one's phone.
That's just not true. Most countries have regulations, or concrete laws, around what manufacturers and retailers are required to offer as warranty, as well as when they're allowed to refuse honoring the warranty.
It's not just a "contract". The same way you can't just sign away your labor rights in Germany, for example. Doesn't matter if it's a contract. Laws determine what contracts are actually allowed to do.
Warranties in the US are not normal contracts. They are heavily regulated by the Federal Trade Commission, including those implicit in offering a product for sale, which cannot be unilaterally terminated post facto by a manufacturer: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/businesspers...
Normally I would agree.
But there are also very heavy regulations around selling telecoms devices with hard requirements for things like interacting with emergency services, regs that do not apply to general electronics.
Similar also applies to medical devices.
Its the product in its entirety that gets certified as suitable for sale and warrentied against, for example, repeatedly dialing 911 in a fault condition and getting you shot by a swot team.
>Warranties are just normal contracts. If both parties agree to modify a contract, they are pretty much always allowed to do so. In this case, Motorola is offering a second contract, which modifies an earlier agreement (the warranty) in exchange for the key to unlocking one's phone.
You're completely glossing over the part where an illegal contract is invalid whether both parties agree to it or not. If I write up a contract that says you agree to let me murder you, and you sign it, I can't just murder you without repercussions.
> In January 2004, Meiwes was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to eight years and six months in prison. In a retrial in May 2006, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Nope, definitely illegal in Germany too. Trying to abuse assisted professional suicide laws generally doesn’t end well.
Does the warranty in Australia deal with the manufacturer, or is it related to the reseller/point of sale?
There are similar laws in the EU in various implementations, but most of them make the party that sold it the one to warrant the product, and the manufacturer isn't really involved (unless the manufacturer is the one that sold it).
Point of sale. Although, if I'm getting into the weeds, I should probably use the terminology "consumer rights and guarantees" rather than warranty, since I believe that's how we make the distinction locally.
What's actually really interesting is the same guarantees apply even if the item is a gift[1].
> In Australia they can revoke the "Motorola warranty" all they want. However, everything sold comes with a warranty that can't be revoked which entitles you to repair, replacement or refund for a reasonable time frame (yes it's intentionally open ended).
Can you sell your warranty rights? For example let's say I've sold you something and later I offer you 150 AU$ to buy back your warranty rights. You decide that is worth way more than the warranty is worth to you and accept. Does this work?
What you are referring to is not a warranty, they are statutory rights. [1][2]
* Consumer guarantees are automatic and can't be negotiated away.
* Warranties are voluntary and are additional to consumer guarantees.
Here is the required text in Australia for goods:
# Mandatory text for goods and services supplied after 9 June 2019
The mandatory text for the supply of goods and services after 9 June 2019 is:
Our goods and services come with guarantees that cannot be excluded under the Australian Consumer Law. For major failures with the service, you are entitled:
to cancel your service contract with us; and
to a refund for the unused portion, or to compensation for its reduced value.
You are also entitled to choose a refund or replacement for major failures with goods.
If a failure with the goods or a service does not amount to a major failure, you are entitled to have the failure rectified in a reasonable time. If this is not done you are entitled to a refund for the goods and to cancel the contract for the service and obtain a refund of any unused portion.
You are also entitled to be compensated for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage from a failure in the goods or service.
Canada is the same. In fact, some provinces in Canada require the retailer to honor the warranty if the manufacturer refuses and the warranty was advertised.
Thanks. reading the rest of the document I think I see what the point is here.
This basically adds an extra layer of legal protection for motorola against people unlocking the bootloader, installing bad things on it, then selling it on.
The whole t&cs are basically "use this software and it will be considered legally as intentionally breaking the device".
It doesnt stop anyone selling the device - but it does shift any warranty or damage claims directly onto whoever broke it.
selling a "broken" mobile as working has wider implications because of the SOS call laws.
This feels like they don't want to be liable if someone roots a phone, installs malware or something, sells it to another person, and then proceeds to exploit the compromised phone they just sold.
Which would be entirely understandable. IDK if that's what this is, or if this is the best way to do that.
edit: in a way, once you do this it's not "a motorola phone" anymore. They are selling you a device and software configuration together branded as the motorola whatever. If you modify that, it's not what they sold you, but they have no way to note to the secondary market that the device is not what they intended it to be. It's not a visible change. Again, no idea if this is the right way to stop that (I'm guessing not), but I can also see where they would be upset about this.
I'm wondering how many used Windows PCs have been sold with malware on them, and whether anyone has ever attempted to hold the OEM legally responsible for it.
Let me be clear: I think it would be ridiculous to do that. But a lot of what I read about that's "our lawyers said to do this" comes off as ridiculous to me. And some court decisions I read about, and the reasoning, seem ridiculous to me.
So I don't trust that anything legal-ish that seems ridiculous to me is not legitimate.
That doesn't really make sense either though. If you buy a brand new Ford, and punch a hole in the brake lines on purpose, then sell the car - Ford isn't getting sued by the buyer when something horrible happens. They have 0 liability, and are under no obligation to put in measures to prevent you from damaging the brake lines.
Someone jailbreaking a phone, then installing malware sounds like a great way for the seller to face criminal and civil crimes, but I don't see why Motorola is under ANY responsibility for the state of the device after initial sale unless it's refurbished by Motorola.
I agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety. This happens, right? Someone is harmed and they assert it's because the manufacturer of the thing didn't take adequate care to prevent a situation?
Like I said in another comment, I think it's ridiculous. I'm just open to the idea that they are doing it to protect themselves rather than trying to give (I assume) a very very small minority of their users the finger.
>I agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety. This happens, right? Someone is harmed and they assert it's because the manufacturer of the thing didn't take adequate care to prevent a situation?
I'm not aware of any example of a company getting sued for consumer safety due to a consumer buying a good, modifying it in a way to cause intentional harm, then reselling it to another party. I would be absolutely fascinated to read if someone has an example of it.
There's a lot of things our legal system gets wrong, but that would be absolute insanity. No business would be able to function with what is essentially unlimited liability.
If you buy it second hand, I don't see why you'd have a warranty regardless. The manufacturer has a contract with the original buyer; they never made an agreement with the secondary buyer
Given they took thentime to out this together, I'm guessing they won't actually go after anybody for this, they're just putting it there to distance themselves from any consequences that arise from somebody selling unlocked devices. But agreeing to terms on the belief that they won't actually be enforced is a risky game to play. Bot sure what the consequences could possibly be though.
edit: Going to leave this up, but the first-sale doctrine gets a little iffy around "materially different" devices. IANAL so it's pure speculation on my part.
A junk phone maker anyway.
A friend got a g54 power because the online reviews praised the battery life, guess what, he needs to charge it twice a day, older phone with 1000mah less battery had better stamina. Screen is horrible, camera is junk. Earphone has massive sound distortion. He hates this brand now.
Another data point: A while ago I bought a Motorola Edge 30 Ultra. It works pretty well. For the price the specs were even better than on Xiaomi phones.
My Moto G42 has great AMOLED display, decent stereo speakers, and 13 days of battery with very light use when running LineageOS. $60 used without a scratch on it. Can't beat the value. 2 SIM cards, SD slot and a headphone jack are a bonus at this point. Stock OS and camera are junk tho.
From linked terms:
> Devices that have been unlocked are for your personal use only. Once you unlock the device, you can only use it for our personal use, and may not sell or otherwise transfer the device.
[1] https://en-us.support.motorola.com/ci/fattach/get/741421/138...
edit: Thank you to Louis Rossmann for bringing this to our attention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2k9D81fbpA
reply