I acknowledged it'sa wild specualation! Either way, it becomes a problem for the manufacturer...
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Andrew S. Baker <asbz...@gmail.com> wrote: > *>>**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 > ~ 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
