Grey market phones aren't stolen. Samsung sells phones cheaper in some regions, so arbitrageurs buy them cheap in one region and resell them at a higher price in Mexico. Samsung wouldn't sell region-unlocked phones at the cheaper price because they want to make money.
It's not stealing, but courts over and over, have validated that trademark owners, brandowners, have some control over regional sales channels.
Here's a case starting back in the 90s, over Levis jeans, and imports from a lower cost region. This is somewhat parallel to phone imports from a lower cost region:
Of course, this was about weakening brand perception, as consumer sale price was deemed part of the brand, aka the mark of their trade, trademark.
Thus, it was about the price being lower. In the case discussed in thread, consumers aren't saving on phone cost, retailers are.
But the hook is in, with repect to brand control as a viable limiter on imports and sale, so they could argue grey market phones might hurt the brand, as they've been modified or some such, prior to sale.
Ah, that makes sense and I stand corrected. There should be anti-e-waste legislation that bans or penalizes for this practice.
I'm not sure if region-activation-locking as a concept is unethical. I definitely think that for-profit arbitrage on region-activation-locked devices sold in improper regions should be banned though.
It is e-waste if there is no eventual end user. These devices are transient e-waste while they are stored in countries that they cannot be activated within.
They should be possible to activate anywhere is rather the point. But what does it matter where they are now if they can be activated somewhere, and consequently have value?
All phones are e-waste in the long run. What matters is whether any of their useful life is still in the future or if it's all in the past.
"In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. "
"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."
How is "If I buy a good, I should not be able to sell it when/where I see fit? " implied by either of those things?
The idea of the free market in this context comes from Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, in which he says that a market is free if buyers and sellers can pursue their own self-interest. It's in the interest of the seller to sell the phone at a price higher than they paid for it, and it's in the interest of the buyer to purchase the phone from the seller at a price lower than would otherwise be available.
> he says that a market is free if buyers and sellers can pursue their own self-interest
probably we are agreeing, but just to bring a little more clarity what is meant by "free market" in the adam smith context:
> For classical economists such as Adam Smith, the term free market refers to a market free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.[2] They say this implies that economic rents, which they describe as profits generated from a lack of perfect competition, must be reduced or eliminated as much as possible through free competition.
so i'd say sellers trying to create an artificial regional monopoly/oligopoly of sales and high prices is the exact opposite of what adam smith would have preferred...
The idea the supply and demand are manipulated/controlled by the creator of the product, not the market of buyers and sellers. So that negates the private ownership part as well as supply and demand being controlled by buyers and sellers.
