My question is related to the one here: Is it legal for manufacturers to lock bootloaders on Android phones?
However, while that question and the answers focus on the GPL and its implications, I'm more curious if there's a case to be made from an implied warranty of fitness, or an overreach against personal property. I am not(hing close to) a lawyer, so my terminology may be wrong. But I feel like an argument can be made that:
- A locked bootloader is not something an average consumer would think to ask about, but that an average consumer could arguably need. As an analogy, imagine a seller trying to sell a coffee table that will crack if more than 6 ounces is put on it. I feel like the courts will consider that a breach because a consumer has a right to assume that the product can meet certain reasonable criteria for use. Being able to install new software on a device falls within that category (could a PC manufacturer block Linux installs on a device for instance?)
- I'm also curious what responsibilities a manufacturer has in terms of transferring ownership. As an analogy, I imagine that a safe manufacturer selling safes but never providing the end user with the combination would be ruled illegal. When the consumer purchases the product, I would think they would be (implicitly) purchasing any information necessary to use the product, providing that information will not negatively affect the seller.
I'm guessing that I'm not the first person to think of these arguments. What decisions and case law would apply to me trying to bring suit for this against Samsung in my local small claims court? I realize that I'm within my rights to sue for anything, but will the judge have flexibility to consider ruling in my favor or have higher courts determined that cases like this must be decided in a particular way?
