*>>**What steps have been done to prevent this situation from ocurring, if any? *
We already have this potential problem with the step down functionality of most modern processors. I would expect more malware to UNLOCK processing power in order to send more spam and more effectively perform DDoS attacks without being noticed. *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker> *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Jonathan Link <jonathan.l...@gmail.com>wrote: > I agree with all your points. At the retail level, there is no contractual > agreeement though. We are seeing efforts to push contractual language to > that level, and that's where I have concern. If you willingly enter into a > contract without reading it, it's one thing, you're stipid, or your taking > some risks, take your lumps. For you to be captive to a contract because > you simply purchased something and didn't agree to anything in advance of > that purchase, I have some problems. I have those same issues with software > EULA's. I don't like the EULA, I read it after I purchased the software and > opened the package, but I can't return it because the retailer doesn't take > opened software back, because it can be copied and the manufacturer won't > reimburse them. That's the concept which I don't care for. > > Here's some other wild concerns that I have with this... We're now > unlocking hardware features with software, great. If something can be done > with software, it can be undone with software. Soon we'll see a new crop of > malware locking out performance of computers and holding the computer > performance hostage long after the malware has been eradicated from the > machine. What steps have been done to prevent this situation from ocurring, > if any? Is the unlock code good perpetually, can it be easily retrieved by > the consumer and reused if this type of malware hits a computer? > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Ken Schaefer <k...@adopenstatic.com>wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 September 2010 11:25 PM >> >> *To:* NT System Admin Issues >> *Subject:* Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your >> CPU >> >> >> >> If I buy something, it's generally held that I can do what I want with it. >> >> >> >> When you say “buy”, are you talking about handing over money for something >> in return? If so, then your assertion above is completely incorrect. >> >> >> >> There are many contractual situations where payment is made, where you >> can’t do what you want. Leasing is one huge area that has been around for a >> long time. Licensing is another, that has similarly been around for a long >> time. Do you think you can lease some advertising space, and then do >> whatever you want with it – like destroy the wall that you are to put your >> advert up onto? Absolutely not (well, I suppose you could if your leasing >> agreement allowed that). Nor are you allowed to display your advertisement >> in perpetuity to the exclusion of other advertisers. >> >> >> >> Even with real property (typically physical goods like land) a contract >> can divide rights between parties (e.g. I can sell you some land for a >> reduced price but you only get to keep it for as long as you live) >> >> >> >> If you give me something, that's an entirely different situation. If I >> buy the rights to something for a certain period, you can be darn sure that >> there's an agreement I'm signing. >> >> This specific issue of processors being sold with an unlock code is >> happening at the retail level. Typically at this level, you're buying it >> lock stock and barrel. We're chartering new territory in this specific >> area. >> >> As a consumer product, perhaps we are charting new territory. As far as >> common law goes, I don’t think we’re charting particularly new territory at >> all. >> >> >> >> Do you know that you can get on an airplane, and there’s in-seat >> entertainment. If you buy an expensive fare, the entertainment’s “included”, >> and if you buy a cheap fare, you have to pay for it? The functionality’s all >> there. But effectively the unit is “crippled” until additional payment is >> made. I don’t doubt there are many other, more similar cases, out there. But >> this was the first that popped into my head. >> >> >> >> I'm familiar with the concept that you can give or sell something with >> restricted rights. Those kinds of agreements are usually contractual and >> occur between buyers with resources to spend on the transaction process. We >> are now seeing similar transactions move into the retail space, except we >> have buyers and sellers with vastly different resources, and that is where >> case law needs to be generated, >> >> >> >> Maybe you are thinking of estoppel, or similar doctrines. But generally >> contracts do not care for the resources between parties. Provided there is >> not illegal duress, then contract law does not care. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Ken >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> and is indeed being generated (iPhone jailbreaking). To the average >> consumer (who, I'll admit is generally speaking dumb) they believe that if >> they go into the store to buy something, they own it and can do with it what >> they please, generally they operate the item in a way the manufacturer >> intended, sometimes not, and they (generally) should be free to operate it >> as they wish. >> >> >> >> If, as a coproration you take a risk and ship a product with more >> capabilities that you wish to unlock later, either do a better job of QA in >> locking down said feature, or don't grumble when someone spends their time >> and their effort to unlock it. Are your manufacturing costs lower? Sure. >> But you're still maknig profit, just not at your desired level, so >> therefore, raise it to your desired level. If you find that your product >> doesn't sell at that level, then perhaps the market is right and your price >> is set incorrectly. Again this is at the retail level, if you in a business >> to business transaction signed a contract agreeing to not reverse engineer >> or figure out how to unlock additional features, then I'd side with the >> manufacturer. At the retail level, I'll side with the consumer, because the >> power level of the buyers and sellers are vastly different. Yes, caveat >> emptor and all that, but it's really an empty saying when the market favors >> the seller. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Ken Schaefer <k...@adopenstatic.com> >> wrote: >> >> There’s nothing “new” about this in case law whatsoever (at least from >> English common law – I’m not familiar with continental law) >> >> >> >> Licencing has been around for the better part of 200 years. The ability to >> split the rights of property into distinct parts (e.g. you can give >> possession to one person for the term of their life, and then have it pass >> to someone else) has been around for at least a century. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Ken >> >> >> >> *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 September 2010 9:58 PM >> >> >> *To:* NT System Admin Issues >> *Subject:* Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your >> CPU >> >> >> >> Typically, that involved the single issue of illegal possession of some >> physical item. >> >> >> >> There's a whole area of new law that needs to be made on this area. We're >> now in the situation where I legally own something, have legal physical >> possession, but you're retaining certain rights in relation to that item, >> and we've signed no agreement to that effect. We have 3,400+ years of, if >> it's mine, I can do what I want with it, too. We have case law to that >> effect. Are we now putting EULAs on hardware? >> >> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Raper, Jonathan - Eagle < >> jra...@eaglemds.com> wrote: >> >> Isn't stealing illegal in most countries? IIRC, that concept goes all the >> way back to the days of Moses...about 3,400 years ago, give or take a >> century ;-) >> >> >> Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE >> Technology Coordinator >> Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA >> jra...@eaglemds.com >> >> www.eaglemds.com >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:00 AM >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> >> Subject: Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU >> >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer <k...@adopenstatic.com> >> wrote: >> > You are getting what you paid for. And if you then decide you need >> something better, you can unlock those features without having to replace >> your CPU. >> >> It wouldn't bother me so much except that you're actually getting >> the hardware, and then these companies inevitably try to enforce their >> business model through legislation which makes "unapproved activation" >> illegal. >> >> -- Ben >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
