If Google see these devices selling on eBay, how will they now what device to deactivate?
Buyers of Google Glass have been warned they cannot sell their pricey new techno-spectacles on eBay or anywhere else. In terms of sale posted on its website, the advertising giant said a Google Glass was for life, unless you wanted to give it away for nothing. Anyone who failed to follow the rules will have their devices …
If Google see these devices selling on eBay, how will they now what device to deactivate?
If Google see these devices selling on eBay, how will they now what device to deactivate?
They will see the change in habits, websites viewed - basically, the whole chain of events associated with one ID will look nothing like someone else's, and I cannot imaging Google selling you kit without it having an embedded ID of its own. For a company that scams its way into acquiring every shred of intelligence it gets from its users, that will really not be the hard bit.
However, would YOU want to touch a device that dictates post sale what you can do with it? Isn't that illegal? If not it should be, I can only see that valid for restricted items such as guns.
Didn't they say you need a Google Wallet account linked to the glasses ? In which case it's trivial - simply have a complicated procedure for changing accounts, where you verify it's a gift.
Presumably the glasses won't work if they can't access a valid Wallet account.
Google are hoping the wearer will wear it whilst the item is posted on ebay where by they will despatch the nearest Google car to disable the glasses and the wearer in one go.
But you are allowed to give them away for nothing. So transferring ownership is possible. How can they tell if money changed hands?
Does the change of ownership have a pop up with "How much did you pay for these glasses" box?
None of this noughtys change in purchasing habits nonsense, that's old hat and Google's cutting edge. On first run they scan your brainwaves and then later electrocute the wearer if the brainwaves don't match.
Google files court order for Ebay to give them the seller's name and address. Then they cross reference that with a user that setup the required Wallet account and deactivates the associated unit.
Google probably has court orders printed in bulk for this.
"Google files court order for Ebay to give them the seller's name and address"
Give the thing to your mate to sell through his account. Google will have no idea where the glass came from, as the address won't match any records. They also won't know which device to disable remotely.
So you can get away with selling it despite agreeing not to... and? You can copy DRM-protected files too. All it means is you are agreeing not to re-sell, not that you can't do it.
THEY WILL BE WATCHING YOU FOOL.
However, would YOU want to touch a device that dictates post sale what you can do with it?
You mean like a mobile phone? A PS3? A movie? A book? Music? Apps? Cable TV? This website?
Anymore this is pretty much just how we roll...
"Google files court order for Ebay to give them the seller's name and address. Then they cross reference that with a user that setup the required Wallet account and deactivates the associated unit."
1. You cannot get a court order unless a crime is shown to have been committed. Maybe in the US, never in EU.
2. This is all likely illegal in EU under restraint of trade etc.
There is actually an Israeli technology company that can ID you by monitoring cardiac activity. Needs 2 points on the body to monitor and both of them on the head may not work, but it's an interesting possibility.
Google would have no standing to make such a request unless.....is the agreement the "buyer" signs actually a lease rather than a sale? That would give Google a lot more control over what happens to the product.
"1. You cannot get a court order unless a crime is shown to have been committed. Maybe in the US, never in EU."
This is nonsense. Stick to your knitting.
is this not covered under 1st sale doctrine in the usa? adsolute twats.
Given that it's apparently legal to sell devices that require a special device to control or configure them & refuse to support second-hand owners unless they buy said device & a new licence...
It looks like it's intended to prevent scalpers from buying a dozen & selling them off at huge markups to the fetishists.
You can give it away for free. A change in habits or accounts isn't enough to prove anything.
From the DNA samples that it collects from your skin cross checked with the photos it takes of you in the bathroom cross checked with the android phone that you have that has been gathering data about every single freaking thing you have ever done since you bought your first android phone.
A change in habits or accounts isn't enough to prove anything.
As it's Google they probably already know your bank account details too.. And you better make sure you don't collect cash for it within reach of the camera..
Even for Apple....................
...to tell us what what we can and cannot do with a product we have purchased and own outright?
Getting real sick of big business telling us that it may be ours, but we have to do what they say.
It's a contract between you and Google. If you don't like the terms, don't enter the contract. Sale with strings attached is not some new thing Google invented, it's pretty common.
Someone will come along and tell us a fancy legal term for this no doubt.
Does this stand up to legal scrutiny though if you buy them outside the US?
It doesn't stand up to legal scrutiny INSIDE the US. There's a substantial body of law and precedent dating back to before the US was even founded (US common law is descended from English common law with very little modification and much of it is unchanged since the 1700s) establishing that a company or person has no right to contractually prevent a second party from reselling goods or items they have purchased.
The contract is void and unenforceable in law. If they try and enforce it they're acting illegally.
I rather suspect that the point is that the contract relates to the Google services that Google Glass needs to connect to in order to function correctly.
Whilst they can't legally stop you reselling the item, they can prevent the purchaser from accessing the required Google services because the contract for supply of those services isn't transferred with the ownership of the device.
In reasonable countries, the consumer has protection against wilfully unfair terms and conditions in contracts, as it has sensibly been noted that when a consumer enters into an agreement with a business, the business has undue control over the terms specified.
Therefore, this agreement, whereby you give up your rights to dispose of the entity that you are purchasing, would without doubt be invalid in the EU.
If google truly wanted to do this in the EU, they would have to apply a rental model - which is what this in fact is, you pay $1500 in order to rent it for $0/pcm, but as far as Google are concerned, they still own the device.
Those are the terms and conditions for the developer explorer edition, which is massively over subscribed. Pretty sensible to stop the scumbags profiting from it on ebay. Quite clearly it needs to be going to genuine Google Glass developers, not scammers.
Pretty sensible for Google to this this AT THIS STAGE...
NOW it may make sense...
The big print give-ith and the small print take-ith away.
Read the legal document of your toaster oven. Probably says something almost entirely identical to restricted use. Almost all business use the same legal documents to cover all their bases.
You "own" an Apple product? Try again. Those legal documents will make you weep when you read that everything you do on or to an Apple device becomes the property of Apple. Photos of a birthday? Apple owns them but give you "free use" rights to their property.
Music and movie industry also want to use Lease only system so that you have to keep paying them for the right to watch the movie or listen to music.
This is nothing new and it sure isn't anything we haven't already complained about before.
This is the new form of business for companies - LEASE or LICENSE instead of Pay-to-own.
You the consumer GAVE the company the RIGHT to screw yourself over by accepting the legal document you never bothered reading.
If you buy a car and sell it on, usually the services it came with like warranty are not passed on.
The difference here is the product will not work without the service. Though why Google can't just ask for a payment from the new owner to activate the services I don't know.
That's probably because those who signed up for the Glass Explorer edition aren't exactly considered regular consumers. They're just used as lab rats for Google. This probably won't apply when Glass is officially released. and you can do whatever you want with it.
"BWWAHHHHAAA I can't buy a Nexus4 for the RRP, but there are loads of them on ebay for silly money"
"BWWAHHHHAAA Google are preventing me selling Google Glass on ebay for silly money"
See the problem here? Am I the only person here that's not a total idiot?
They can brick consoles, they can brick phones, they can brick glasses. It's unfortunate but not illegal.
You write that as if Google has no lawyers. The company has every right to enforce whatever the contract you agree with them says they can do. There are very few rights that cannot be freely contracted away. Don't like the terms, buy a different product from someone else.
Looking at the terms quoted in the article, Google don't claim it's illegal for to resell the device.
What Google do appear to say is that the buyer is entering into a contract with Google. As part of the buyer's obligations under the contract they agree they are not entitled to sell the device. They may still be legally able to sell the device, but would also be opening themselves up to a claim by Google for breach of contract.
They are also on notice that if they do sell it, Google may deactivate it.
......you pay $1500 in order to rent it for $0/pcm, but as far as Google are concerned, they still own the device.
Holy Zarquon's singing fish, they really are suckers for punishment aren't they?
You'd have thought they'd have had enough of being repeatedly sued for slavishly copying Apple's methods of doing things.
Agree. This is very similar the plan for the net generation of computer game consoles. Much has been mentioned of the attempt to stop users buying and selling games and other software. The solution is to make the console "always on" i.e always connected to the internet. Then ensure that only limited content from the original product is accessible to the secondary and tertiary market, effectively achieving the same thing as actively trying to stop the sale of the product.
This is a trend that is getting worse and worse. Google are just following the trend consumers have allowed by voting with their wallets at every step along the way.
Clearly the answer is no.
Even Steve Jobs never thought of doing that!
And yes, I don´t like it and do vote with my wallet. This sort of thing pisses me off and is why I have pensioned off my Macbook Pro and iPod and now have a Samsung laptop running Ubuntu and a Galaxy S3 phone. And I don´t touch anything form Mcrosoft or Sony either. Now I will have to think about dumping Google as well.
"If google truly wanted to do this in the EU, they would have to apply a rental model - which is what this in fact is, you pay $1500 in order to rent it for $0/pcm, but as far as Google are concerned, they still own the device."
The EU recently ruled on this with reference to software licensing. Any license that is "sold", rather than let, is considered to be a sold tangible good, with all that that implies in the context of first sale doctrine. If you buy a software service license for a single, one-off payment, it is to every intent and purpose yours, and you have the right to sell it on. The company that supports that product must continue to support the new user as they would any other basic customer (i.e. they must not cripple the device, they must provide statutory support etc.).
The long and short of it is, within the EU, you'd have the right to re-sell your Glass for whatever price you can get for it, and google would have to support the device as they would any other.
"The EU recently ruled on this with reference to software licensing. Any license that is "sold", rather than let, is considered to be a sold tangible good, ..."
Absolutely, which is why there is now a brisk trade in WindowsServer2003 licences amongst others, First sale doctorine is being litigated in the US as well IIR. Something about AutoDesk products being resellable. I am not sure how far along it is.
In the EU, the pseudo-legal bullshit "licencing" that MS (and others) have been threatening with forever, has finally been punctured - and about time too!!! Soon the US, and then the EULA licensing bullshit will go away foreever, as it should.
Sensible it may be, but it's still illegal. The only way they could legitimately implement such a thing would be to retain ownership of the glasses themselves. Since they aren't - apparently - doing that, then they are on a hiding to nothing with this.
I may be wrong as I'm not a lawyer, but don't these license agreements a. have to abide by and not take away constitutional rights and b. have to be understood (and therefore reasonably understandable) by those who accept them in order to actually hold up in the court of law? Has any big company actually try to enforce the concept you present that "Apple owns them but give [sic] you 'free use' rights to their property" Jason 5?
Not true. At least not in all countries. Here in NZ, manufacturer's warranty is transferable upon resale as long as you have the original sale receipt to establish the date of purchase . But then, we have one of the strongest consumer protection regimes that I am aware of, with goods and services held against far higher standards than is the norm.
For example, goods must last for a reasonable time. That is over and above any warranty - manufacturer or 3rd party (most retailers won't even bother pestering you about taking out 3rd party insurance because of this, which is another benefit!).
A colleague of mine had a 3 year old Dell 30" LCD monitor (2 yr warranty) replaced when it's power supply blew up. Power supplies reasonably should last more than 3 years (there are some general guidelines for "reasonableness" in relation to certain products, but ultimately it is taken on a case by case basis and considers things like how an appliance or device has been cared for etc). Dell, to their credit, not only replaced the unit without quibble and free of charge (they are entitled to charge to cover reasonable costs if they wish), but also arranged next-day courier delivery and collection of the expired monitor, also at their own expense !
I myself had a Logitech Harmony remote (1 yr warranty) replaced after 2 years when the recharging contacts on the docking station failed (due to a flaw in the design/implementation of spring mechanism intended to sustain the contact with the remote). Again, entirely free of charge.
In my case, unfortunately, the design flaw remains in the replacement unit and after 2 years this one has now started exhibiting the same fault. This time around for the sake of $100 I can't be bothered and don't want another unit which is going to do the same thing in another 2 years, so it's time to get a new remote entirely.
You write as if Google's lawyers aren't entirely aware that their customers won't - in the main - be able or willing to afford to hire a lawyer to ascertain the validity of the non-negotiable contract they put in front of them.
Those Google lawyers will also almost certainly have included a severability clause in the contract. Why ? Because they will also know that some of the other clauses in that contract are not actually enforceable (such as trying to constrain the rights of an individual w.r.t their own private property) and without a severability clause such clauses would render the entire contract void, at Google's fault. Severability ensures that where a clause is deemed invalid or unenforceable, the remaining contract survives.
Nope, you are an idiot too
(only joking - upvoted, but couldn't resist)
"You "own" an Apple product? Try again. Those legal documents will make you weep when you read that everything you do on or to an Apple device becomes the property of Apple. Photos of a birthday? Apple owns them but give you "free use" rights to their property."
Absolute and total fantasist nonsense. Please quote a single Apple agreement that backs up what you have said.
For the record, this is in fact what Apple's agreement says for iCloud and no other agreement I've seen, contradicts it (and you won't find this in a Google agreement):
"Except for material we may license to you, Apple does not claim ownership of the materials and/or Content you submit or make available on the Service. However, by submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public or other users with whom you consent to share such Content, you grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available, without any compensation or obligation to you. "
The second part of that clause after the however is purely necessary protection for them from people who make things public but then want to later claim it was Apple's fault. But, having ensured they have this protection, Apple even ensure their use will be limited to the intended purpose. So if you share photo's on Photostream, they couldn't then use them for e.g. Advertising. Yes I am one of the few who actually read the agreements I click. And I can tell you it's one of the very good reasons I am for Apple and avoid Google. Try finding a similar assurance in a Google agreement. As of 2010 you wouldn't for sure, and I have little reason to think they will have changed if late. After all, when you use Google, YOU are the product.
The EULA _inside_ the sealed box said - (and i'm paraphrasing here for the sake of my sanity), 'by breaking the seal on this box you agree to (amongst other things) not re-sell it.' - so you had agreed to the eula before having the chance to read it, which is, I guess, the basis for the legal challenge. (cos we all read eulas carefully, and have a lawyer give it the once over before checking that box on the bottom of the dialog, don't we?)
It's a bit moot in practical terms as they have shifted to a subscription model with annual updates and guaranteed non forward compatibility, so you need to have a moderately recent version (less than 3 years old) to work in the market without looking like a muppet, and the original licence to run the new software.
I can kind of see their point. unlike most vendors they produced a package that pretty much worked straight out of the box (okay, it was actually rev 17!) - and then had to keep piling extra crap and bloat on with each rev, and vast numbers of drawing offices said 'fuck that, we'll stick with the one that works, and we already know how to use' - not good from Autodesk's point of view.
The upside is, for the casual user or student is that their licensing software is a joke. :-D