this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
658 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59243 readers
3422 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Am I the only one who thinks it's crazy that the only grounds they have are that HP didn't disclose that their All-In-Ones won't let you scan or fax without ink and not, you know, the fact that they do that in the first place? It should be illegal to disable critical functions of a device simply because an unrelated function is temporarily unavailable. There's no technical reason HP is doing this other than, "fuck you, buy more ink."
Unfortunately this is the difference between illegal and unethical, and I don't gather that HP cares much about ethics. Hopefully right-to-repair laws will cover these cases in the future too.
Well, no.
The argument of this case is exactly that what they did is not legal because they didn't inform people upfront before the sale
It seemingly (IANAL, but that's my understanding from what I've read so far) is absolutelly legal to sell a device which can be disabled by the manufacturer under certain conditions if the prospective buyer is informed upfront of that "feature" (and depending on the Legal jurisdiction "informed upfront" might mean large bold lettering in all promotional material).
It's also legal if something stops working because it requires some kind of input it doesn't have power (i.e. it's legal if the ICE car you bought won't work if you don't put the right kind of fuel in it).
However selling something as having certain characteristics and then it turns out it hasn't can be considered a Bait & Switch, which is illegal (a form of Fraud) in most places. (Note that this is the direction the plaintiff is comming from: not that it's illegal for the AiO to work like that but that it's illegal for it to be sold without notifying potential buyers upfront of that restriction).
With the legal complexity that comes from the devices working as a one and that scanner not being disabled, just not working when other parts of the device are missing a required input, you need that a judge actually looks into into (rather than issuing a summary judgment) to determine if it falls within the boundaries of legality or not.
It's anti-consumer, but I guess that just falls under unethical for now
I recently had a printer to configure (IT) that was HP, and it needed an internet connection and registration to print over USB (well, at all); guess what? Dead ethernet port. Now (even with a working USB) the printer is just landfill food waiting to reach our bloodstream in a few years time. I ~~fucking hate~~ love HP!
Guess who the laws are actually designed to protect
The last and only printer that I bought from HP worked well and didn’t pull any shenanigans, it was a Laserjet 5L.
Since then, feedback from colleagues and what I’ve seen from reviews and tech communities put me off buying HP again. Between their cloud printing, their inkjet cartridge verification and the USB ports covered in stickers and now this…
Yeah HP is a disaster.
They used to make good calculators too, including a financial model so good that I bought an Android emulator.
I still have a LaserJet 4000N in service (circa 1997 - same era as the 5L) and it's a workhorse that never dies. Once upon a time, HP did take pride in their products. Even then, though, their toner cartridges were abusively overpriced - they just hadn't yet figured out how to prevent 3rd party competition.
I mean, you can sell a shitty product, that's not a crime, the crime is the false advertising or if it is a danger to people
Imagine in the future, your car just stopped working entirely and lock you out because your heated-seats subscription expired.
Canon did this to me years ago. Maybe 15. I haven't given one cent to Canon since, and I was a big fan at the time with their cameras and such.
Fucking greedy assholes