Part of the problem here is the issue of where the inability to re-sell the hardware is disclosed. A free market requires the ability of both buyer and seller to understand all aspects of a transaction prior to completion of the sale. This is one of the problems with shrinkwrap and EULA's, full disclosure is often not made before the transaction is complete. As others have pointed out, this also violates the long-standing doctrine of first sale in which that which you purchase is considered your property to be used and disposed of as you see fit (that's a pretty free-market capitalist doctrine). What this example and other examples, pointed out in some of GripeLine's other articles, do is abrogate that right of first sale doctrine (often, as in this case, not disclosed until after the transaction) and leave the buyer with a piece of hardware and/or software that prevents them from enjoying the full use and disposal of that property. That is just plain wrong and even more wrong from the standpoint of a free-market capitalist. This kind of behavior actually harms the free market because it erodes the underpinnings of trust between buyer and seller.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]