- Joined
- Oct 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 747
- Age
- 71
The Apple case shows why this isn't 'against the law' or a slam dunk for the lawyer sitting next to you at the theatre. The touch sensor is part of a complex crypto system and only Apple has the supply chain to replace the device without compromising security. Yep, it's a bit of a **** move on Apple's part - they could have sold the tool chain to every tiny little repair shop on the planet - but that's not how Apple rolls. And laws don't stop companies from pulling **** moves.
Should somebody try to sue DJI for stopping third party batteries - and at least in the US you can generally initiate a suit on almost any pretext - all they have to say is that the company wants to ensure that the communication between battery and the rest of the UAV is critical for safety. Now it's a reasonable safety issue. You might win, you probably won't. As a small, likely fly by night operator, do you want to after a company running a billion dollars of inventory per year?
IANL, but I am unaware of any law in the US that requires you to let third party parts work with your device.
Should somebody try to sue DJI for stopping third party batteries - and at least in the US you can generally initiate a suit on almost any pretext - all they have to say is that the company wants to ensure that the communication between battery and the rest of the UAV is critical for safety. Now it's a reasonable safety issue. You might win, you probably won't. As a small, likely fly by night operator, do you want to after a company running a billion dollars of inventory per year?
IANL, but I am unaware of any law in the US that requires you to let third party parts work with your device.