Google Is Forbidding Users From Reselling, Loaning Glass Eyewear

[green73]

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2013/04/0417_glassauctionhed_1000-660x319.jpg


Google is barring anyone deemed worthy of a pair of its $1,500 Google Glass computer eyewear from selling or even loaning out the highly coveted gadget.

The company’s terms of service on the limited-edition wearable computer specifically states, “you may not resell, loan, transfer, or give your device to any other person. If you resell, loan, transfer, or give your device to any other person without Google’s authorization, Google reserves the right to deactivate the device, and neither you nor the unauthorized person using the device will be entitled to any refund, product support, or product warranty.”

Welcome to the New World, one in which companies are retaining control of their products even after consumers purchase them.

It was bound to happen. Strange as it may sound, you don’t actually own much of the software you buy today. You essentially rent it under strict end-user agreements that have withstood judicial scrutiny. Google appears to be among the first to apply such draconian rules to consumer electronics.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/04/google-glass-resales/

[Petar]

Well, if you submit to the contract, then you are legally bound to the terms.

With that said, I really hope that someone figures out how to "jailbreak" these things very soon, so that people can break this stupid contract with impunity.

Ha.

[bunklocoempire]

Every time I hear 'google glass' I think of Navin.

http://s6.postimg.org/lfl2a1lgx/the_jerk.jpg

[CPUd]

They are trying to prevent price-gouging on the street, and at the same time, since this is more of a trial offer, if their set of trial users continually changes, it affects their test data.

The license will be less restrictive when they are released in mass-production (if they decide to).

Microsoft and Sony have similar rules with their game consoles. They will brick the system if you try to use their online services with a modded console. The new generation of consoles are designed to be used almost exclusively online.

[LibForestPaul]

Maybe they can lock the glass to specific retina image id.

[Michigan11]

Every time I hear 'google glass' I think of Navin.

http://s6.postimg.org/lfl2a1lgx/the_jerk.jpg

You just grab the arch

[nobody's_hero]

I know nothing about these eyeglasses but I suspect they have something to do with Google's takeover of the world.

Right? Am I right? Of course I am. Fuck google goggles.

[Anti Federalist]

You just grab the arch

Stay away from the cans! He hates the cans!

[nobody's_hero]

Because the only correspondence Ed has had with Google is the initial tweet about his acceptance into the program, he had no idea he wasn’t allowed to sell his Google Glass, which he had been authorized to purchase for $1,500 in the coming weeks. Instead, he found out via the Glass Explorers Google+ group.

He also discovered that some were upset that he had the audacity to sell his Google Glass headset.

“People were acting like I had did something sacrilegious,” he said.

Once Ed learned of the terms of service, he ended the auction — which began at $5,000 and ballooned to more than $90,000. No one from Google or eBay had contacted him about the auction, he said. He still wants his Google Glass Explorer headset and hopes that Google doesn’t hold it against him for trying to sell the device.


Godgle gave you the opportunity to pay for these glasses, and you want to sell them? Shame! Burn the heretic! Shame! Blasphemer!

[jclay2]

Every time I hear 'google glass' I think of Navin.

http://s6.postimg.org/lfl2a1lgx/the_jerk.jpg

lol. Mass class action lawsuit claiming google class causes one to become cockeyed.

[CPUd]

If someone did this with the glass, guaranteed viral video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7pYyexsuMk

[TheGrinch]

Na, it probably just makes it tougher to figure out who they're tracking.

Dont' worry Google, I will not be buying or borrowing a data-goldmine headset any time soon.... You knew this was coming after smartphones ("These cameras would be great if they didn't just broadcast us the inside of their pockets and the floor".

[The Free Hornet]

Well, if you submit to the contract, then you are legally bound to the terms.

Many contracts, if not most, have elements that are unenforceable (not legally binding). This leads to an interesting quandary for those who believe in contracts and freedom of association. Do you abide to an illegal clause for moral reasons? Or - knowing that the clause was illegal when you signed it - do you rightly disregard it?

You can be bound without being legally bound. More so - given almost any international corporation - you can be legally bound without being bound. Fuck 'em!

[jkr]

...and i am for forbidding me from buying it...

[TheGrinch]

Many contracts, if not most, have elements that are unenforceable (not legally binding). This leads to an interesting quandary for those who believe in contracts and freedom of association. Do you abide to an illegal clause for moral reasons? Or - knowing that the clause was illegal when you signed it - do you rightly disregard it?

You can be bound without being legally bound. More so - given almost any international corporation - you can be legally bound without being bound. Fuck 'em!

You may disagree with IP, but limited use contracts and copyrights are most certainly not illegal. Do you also think that non-disclosure agreements should not be allowed, because that's essentially what this is.

Anyways, I'm definitely not getting into another argument about IP itself though, so don't bother going that far.

[Anti Federalist]

What, exactly, is the purpose of this horrid looking little device?

What, precisely, does it do?

[sailingaway]

given the cyber bills and Obama's executive orders I view each pair as a mobile, unwanted, additional traffic cam. I consider them antisocial.

[CPUd]

What, exactly, is the purpose of this horrid looking little device?

What, precisely, does it do?

It's like a smartphone, except instead of looking down at it, you are looking through it.

There are contact lenses being developed that perform a similar function.

[sailingaway]

It is like a spy device where the people you are talking to, biking by or standing next to have no say on whether you are livestreaming their every move to the web.

[The Free Hornet]

You may disagree with IP, but limited use contracts and copyrights are most certainly not illegal. Do you also think that non-disclosure agreements should not be allowed, because that's essentially what this is.

Anyways, I'm definitely not getting into another argument about IP itself though, so don't bother going that far.

I didn't bring up IP.

I didn't bring up IP.

To repeat,

I did not fucking bring up IP.

Lots of things unrelated to IP can be questionable in contract law. Take shrinkwrap agreements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract), for example. Do you consider yourself bound because you read the agreement? Or do you figure it is OK to disregard unenforced and/or unenforceable terms? I know what the salesperson getting a commission would say. As do you.

But since you brought up IP, consider the case of the first-to-invent not first-to-file inventor. Ought he bind himself to get his hands on something he invented??? Government IP weakens the case for obeying any tech-related contract.


You may disagree with IP, but limited use contracts and copyrights are most certainly not illegal. Do you also think that non-disclosure agreements should not be allowed, because that's essentially what this is.

The devil is in the details. I couldn't say other than my general disagreement with the knee-jerk notion to abide by contracts with corporations in today's legal context.


Anyways, I'm definitely not getting into another argument about IP itself though, so don't bother going that far.

Why did you even bring it up?

[Anti Federalist]

It is like a spy device where the people you are talking to, biking by or standing next to have no say on whether you are livestreaming their every move to the web.

Oh joy...and because this is somehow "private", I guess I'm supposed to love it.

Fudge...

[Anti Federalist]

///

[sailingaway]

Oh joy...and because this is somehow "private", I guess I'm supposed to love it.

Fudge...

I think it's incredibly rude.

[Anti Federalist]

I think it's incredibly rude.

I happen to agree...

[Natural Citizen]

It is like a spy device where the people you are talking to, biking by or standing next to have no say on whether you are livestreaming their every move to the web.

How many soldiers abroad do we think will place the technology into use. Could sync up to just about anything and the fools back here would be watering at the chops.

[sailingaway]

How many soldiers abroad do we think will place the technology into use. Could sync up to just about anything and the fools back here would be watering at the chops.

Their officers would never let them. The journalists aren't allowed to film anything that isn't pre approved as I understand it, much less a common soldier. Now sending it back on a closed stream to their base, I'm sure they already do.

[DamianTV]

So whats next? Lazy Boy Furniture is gonig to require a EULA that prohibits me from being able to resell any used Lazy Boy Furniture that I own? Google does NOT have the right to claim ownership of a product once that product has been purchased. Resale is made at the discression of the owner. Fuck Google.

Yeah, what ever happend to DO NO EVIL?

[Natural Citizen]

So whats next? Lazy Boy Furniture is gonig to require a EULA that prohibits me from being able to resell any used Lazy Boy Furniture that I own? Google does NOT have the right to claim ownership of a product once that product has been purchased. Resale is made at the discression of the owner. Fuck Google.

Yeah, what ever happend to DO NO EVIL?


The relevant fact of the matter is that one cannot patent science itself. Science belongs to everyone. Is why so many are chicken dik of discussing IP.

This is wireless. It requires space to work. The universe, so to speak. Google doesn't own that the last time I checked. Nope. They will lose. :)

To make the product the nuts and bolt of the gripe is the wrong thing to do. Is a loaded argument. Now the science of it on the other hand? That's a different glass of water.

[CPUd]

So whats next? Lazy Boy Furniture is gonig to require a EULA that prohibits me from being able to resell any used Lazy Boy Furniture that I own? Google does NOT have the right to claim ownership of a product once that product has been purchased. Resale is made at the discression of the owner. Fuck Google.

Yeah, what ever happend to DO NO EVIL?

They don't force you to send back the device if you break their terms. You could resell it. It just wouldn't be worth more than the $50 or so you could get for the parts.



The furniture comment made me think of:
http://i.imgur.com/nnSSxM0.jpg

[bunklocoempire]

I think it's incredibly rude.

Yep.

[RickyJ]

I hope their stupid glasses are a total flop. Google is a CIA/Mossad asset, I would stay away from any of their products.

[amy31416]

I think I'll just go back to writing letters and watching Matlock.

[Lindsey]

Seriously, why would someone want this product? How are they justifying the price point? Is it just because it's a Google product that people want it? I just don't understand the demand for it. We all already have camera's that can instantly upload video on our cell phones.

[CPUd]

Seriously, why would someone want this product? How are they justifying the price point? Is it just because it's a Google product that people want it? I just don't understand the demand for it. We all already have camera's that can instantly upload video on our cell phones.

People are jumping at it right now because they are only selling a limited number for market testing purposes. If it goes full-scale retail, I don't think it's going to be at that price. In contrast, they are testing their 850MB fiber service in K.C. and I think now, Austin, at a price comparable or even less than broadband cable.

[torchbearer]

I think I'll just go back to writing letters and watching Matlock.
simpler times.

[tttppp]

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2013/04/0417_glassauctionhed_1000-660x319.jpg



http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/04/google-glass-resales/

What ever happened to don't be evil?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

You don't submit to any fucking contract.
Sorry, but in small text in some obscure location in the product manual, "By using this product you agree to...." Does not constitute as a fucking contract.
It's like the message on the VERY bottom of some websites that say, "By using this site, you agree to be tracked with cookies." THAT'S NOT how contracts work.

[brushfire]

Sign here...

http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimages/ww_009.jpg


Watch out for this guy...

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma7thgjYfc1r2piwc.png

[angelatc]

Well, if you submit to the contract, then you are legally bound to the terms.

With that said, I really hope that someone figures out how to "jailbreak" these things very soon, so that people can break this stupid contract with impunity.

Ha.

Yep. "You don't own the software."

Whatever.

[angelatc]

What, exactly, is the purpose of this horrid looking little device?

What, precisely, does it do?

Makes Google richer?

[LibertyRevolution]

What ever happened to first sale doctrine...

[Tod]

http://www.zdnet.com/google-glass-let-the-evil-commence-7000014733/

Google Glass: Let the evil commence
Summary: Glass has now been 'jailbroken' with a well-documented exploit. So what can you (or others) do with a hacked headset? Apparently, a whole lot.

[PaulConventionWV]

That's a laugh. Since when does any company think it has the right to forbid its customers from reselling its products so it can make more money? Sure, every company would like it if they could do that, but that's so far from reality it's not even in this universe.

[QuickZ06]

That's a laugh. Since when does any company think it has the right to forbid its customers from reselling its products so it can make more money? Sure, every company would like it if they could do that, but that's so far from reality it's not even in this universe.

Since companies got in bed with the government, they are pretty much allowed to do what ever the freak they want.

[PaulConventionWV]

It's like a smartphone, except instead of looking down at it, you are looking through it.

There are contact lenses being developed that perform a similar function.

A good way to fry your eyes. Every electrical device emits electromagnetic radiation, and putting something like that so close to your eyes does not do them any good.

[PaulConventionWV]

I think it's incredibly rude.

Ban them. They will cease to exist.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

A good way to fry your eyes. Every electrical device emits electromagnetic radiation, and putting something like that so close to your eyes does not do them any good.

I would worry more about what if the device fries INSIDE your eye than radiation.

[Danan]

A good way to fry your eyes. Every electrical device emits electromagnetic radiation, and putting something like that so close to your eyes does not do them any good.

You mean like the electromagnetic radiation called "visible light"?

[Danan]

Many contracts, if not most, have elements that are unenforceable (not legally binding). This leads to an interesting quandary for those who believe in contracts and freedom of association. Do you abide to an illegal clause for moral reasons? Or - knowing that the clause was illegal when you signed it - do you rightly disregard it?

You can be bound without being legally bound. More so - given almost any international corporation - you can be legally bound without being bound. Fuck 'em!

Unenforceable elements are still valid and binding, imho. There might be a law against it atm, but that doesn't mean that there should be.

Nobody says you can't breach a contract. But if you do, you will face the consequences. In the case of unenforceable elements, there are no consequences. So if you want to you can breach it, go ahead. Depends on whether or not you agree with those elements. For instance, "You might not ever think badly of the other party!" Why shouldn't that be a valid term? If you can proof that the this person did indeed think badly of you, you should be able to sue. Of course in reality no judge would probably even accept such a case, but that's not the point.

I don't believe any contract terms should be "illegal" as long as you don't infringe on the rights of third parties in that contract. That being said, the amount of clarity and mutual understanding has to be the greater, the more severe the consequences are. You can't put 40 years of servitude in the small print of a normal sales agreement. That doesn't mean that you should under no circumstances be able to agree to "voluntary slavery" under any circumstance. Why would we ban that option? If it's not beneficial to anyone, nobody would agree to it anyways.

[Danan]

That being said, I see no problem with this contract from a legal point of view. People should be able to agree to it and face the consequences mentioned in the contract if they violate it.

On the other hand I believe that to be as ridiculous and stupid as the product itself, so the simple solution is: Don't buy that crap.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I thought this isn't even out yet? So isn't this like a beta of some sorts?

[LibertyRevolution]

I see how they are getting around first sale doctrine..
They kill the service to it, so technically you can sell it, but they will not give the new owner service on the device...
Expect to see this on all cell phones soon...