Hacker News Reader

> why should the manufacturer provide any support or be compelled to do so

I don't think anyone is asking for that.

The ask is 'don't disable existing paid-for features on the car, thanks'.

The legal reductionist version of this situation is buying a house and finding that 2 rooms got demolished because the builder had a lease agreement on those with the previous owner.

View on HN

Once that car is yours, the software on the car is yours, too.

It boggles my mind how the manufacturer modifying a car they don't own isn't computer trespass and/or straight theft as they deprive you of the rights of ownership.

They'll make some assertion along the lines of granting a license to specific configurations of the control software of the car.

This is part and parcel of why I think IP on software is increasingly rearing it's head as an anti-pattern. Right of First Sale goes right out the window with the "marriage" model of smart appliance ownership we seem to be converging on via contract law.

It's also bizarre that people, especially on here, in this thread, think it's ok for a business to retroactively take away a feature that was already paid for. That price you paid on the used car has those features priced in. This is some weird crabs-in-a-bucket behavior but driven towards protecting a corporation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com