Canon legal response
Posted Jan 11, 2013 23:32 UTC (Fri) by man_ls
In reply to: Canon legal response
Parent article: Testing Magic Lantern 2.3
Is a disguise necessary?
I imagine that owners of the $6k EOS-1D X will not be happy about having to pay $12k for what is essentially a firmware upgrade (which are usually given for free even for cheap cameras). So yes, a disguise would be necessary to avoid angry customers.
Price discrimination by disabling features in software for the low-end customers (thereby making product available to them that otherwise could not be) is a well-worn business strategy, and that seems to be what is described in the cited article.
You are right. What is novel is the approach that Canon customers cannot legally buy a lowly model and modify it to upgrade to the more costly model. Or perhaps that they cannot share the means to do so -- a bit of software. (Given the amounts of money involved the terms "lowly" and "more costly" are relative.) I suppose there is no infringing code here, so I don't see any legal basis at all -- just intimidation. But you are the lawyer IIRC.
Imagine that you purchase a low-end video recorder and discover that pulling it apart and removing a resistance you get the same features as the high-end model. Can it be made illegal? Now imagine you share how in a forum. Is that illegal? Furthermore, suppose that a company starts selling a special tool to remove the resistance. Is this commercial activity illegal?
The original article speaks about voiding the warranty, which can be reasonable; not about "bringing the might of Canon's legal team" which is outrageous.
to post comments)