

Developer releases app to remove region lock of Galaxy Note 3 - pearjuice
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2470551

======
csense
> backporting it to devices sold in the past (aren't there laws against this?)

This could also describe Sony's behavior with the Playstation 3. Early-model
PS3's contained a feature called OtherOS which allowed you to run Linux on the
console in a way officially supported by Sony.

Sony later decided to remove OtherOS support from the console in a firmware
update. While technically optional, the firmware update was required to play
online games on the console, or play subsequently produced game discs.

IMHO it's fine if a hardware manufacturer chooses to remove features from
newer models. OTOH reaching out through the cloud to remove features and
cripple models that people have already bought _should_ constitute deliberate
fraud against the consumer. You bought something which was advertised to do X,
Y, and Z, the manufacturer deliberately removes the capability to do X after
you've purchased it -- it seems like it should be totally illegal for them to
do that.

If a car dealership owner decides to sell only cars without radios, that's
their business decision, and it's not illegal for them to do business that
way. If a car dealership owner decides to drive around town, breaking into
cars people have already bought from him and removing their radios, he's going
to jail and rightfully so.

Why should PS3's be any different?

Apparently, they are -- AFAIK Sony has suffered no legal consequences for its
policy whatsoever.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otheros](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otheros)

~~~
madeofpalk
> it seems like it should be totally illegal for them to do that.

In Australia, at least, it is.

It breaks one of the consumer guarantee[1] we're given by law (fit for
purpose, as an advertised feature was removed), so you're entitled to a
repair, replacement or refund. After some back-and-forth with my department
store (who, understandably, didn't really understand what was going on) and
Sony, I got mine refunded.

[1]: [http://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-
guarantees](http://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees)

------
DanBC
What's the legal status of this?

I can't fathom why vendor locks are covered by the DMCA, but they are. (At
least, that's what the Library of Congress says) so maybe this is covered too.
Or not.

Maybe a bunch of customers could get together and launch a class action
lawsuit?

([http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57572492-94/what-the-
dmca-c...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57572492-94/what-the-dmca-cell-
phone-unlock-ban-means-to-you-faq/))

> _Unfortunately, this would be very difficult for several reasons including
> the fact that wireless subscribers are no longer allowed to sue their
> carriers as part of a class lawsuit._

> _The problem is the U.S. Supreme Court 's 2011 decision in Concepcion v.
> AT&T Mobility, in which the Court upheld the validity of class action
> waivers and arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, according to Michael
> Ashenbrener of Aschenbrener Law, a consumer advocacy law firm based in
> Chicago._

> _" As a result of the Concepcion case, it is essentially impossible to sue a
> U.S. cell phone carrier in a class action," Aschenbrener explained in an
> e-mail. "Consequently, there is no effective check on the power of U.S.
> wireless companies."_

Mobile phone companies suck, eh?

~~~
DannyBee
"As a result of the Concepcion case, it is essentially impossible to sue a
U.S. cell phone carrier in a class action," Aschenbrener explained in an
e-mail. "Consequently, there is no effective check on the power of U.S.
wireless companies.""

So, this is a pretty inaccurate statement. It is more accurate to say "it is
essentially impossible to sue them over _contract disputes_ in class action
lawsuits".

Additionally, you'd probably be better off filing 10000 arbitration actions
than a class action lawsuit:

1\. You can all do it in your spare time

2\. You are not required to be lawyers to interact with the arbitrators.

3\. AT&T is in no way set up to handle large scale arbitration

Heck, you could set up a firm to do nothing but manage arbitration claims
against AT&T. Because it requires no licensing, you could let the moral
equivalent of paralegals handle _all_ of the work.

Class action lawsuits were meant to be about efficiency, not a tool for social
change.

If AT&T doesn't want that efficiency, you should show them what the result is.

~~~
comex
Except that it's probably prohibitively difficult to convince 10,000 people
individually to go to the hassle of filing an arbitration action just to get a
small amount of money. I could be wrong, but I don't see this being a
realistic method of going after companies for contract violations at all.

~~~
tptacek
You don't think you could get 10,000 people to sign up to a web app that
offers them free money and demands only that they sign the equivalent of
petitions?

~~~
makomk
Don't forget that filing an arbitration case almost always requires paying a
fee of some kind.

------
i386
Why do companies keep doing this crap? Is there some logical reason why they
would do this?

~~~
kefka
And I say, "Don't buy from Samsung."

My own personal recommendation is to buy a Chinese phone. They're a lot more
affordable, and work nearly just as well.

I wrote a bit about my phone, a Samsung Mega look-alike that I paid $200 for.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6494895](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6494895)

~~~
gcb1
you are dead wrong.

a chinese tablet nowadays works better than a samsung one. the trick to buy
anything chinese is to avoid the copy cats. do not buy anything that looks
like a traditional brand knock off. buy something that has its own brand and
your good.

also, my work provided newly released tab3 runs slower then my years old
hacked hp touchpad btw. way slower!

~~~
kefka
Whic is interestingly what I indeed said further down in that link I posted
about my experience with my new phablet.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6495854](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6495854)

Of course, you pay for quality. Things in China are cheaper, but they are also
"cheaper". Caveat Emptor most certainly applies.

------
tlogan
I'm little perplexed on why Samsung is doing this. What is business reasoning
behind this? They say it is because to stop resellers from buying handsets
from one country or region where devices are cheaper and then selling them to
consumers in another country, but Apple has the same problem too.

~~~
joefarish
Probably because somebody somewhere within Samsung can quantify the money
Samsung has "lost" by people buying through resellers but can't quantify the
costs of implementing this short-sighted policy.

