Come On Elon! Tesla Stupidly Bans Owners From Using Self-Driving Teslas For Uber

from the you-don't-own-what-you-bought dept

We've talked a lot about the end of ownership society, in which companies are increasingly using copyright and other laws to effectively end ownership -- where they put in place restrictions on the things you thought you bought. This is bad for a whole variety of reasons, and now it's especially disappointing to see that Tesla appears to be jumping on the bandwagon as well. The company is releasing its latest, much more high powered, version of autonomous self-driving car technology -- but has put in place a clause that bars Tesla owners from using the self-driving car for any competing car hailing service, like Uber or Lyft. This is not for safety/liability reasons, but because Tesla is also trying to build an Uber competitor.

We wrote about this a few months ago, and actually think it's a pretty cool idea. Part of the point is that it effectively will make Tesla ownership cheaper for those who want it, because they can lease it out for use at times when they're not using it. So your car can make money for you while you work or sleep or whatever. That's a cool idea.

But it's flat out dumb to block car owners from using the car however they want.

If Tesla wants to compete with Uber, that's great, but it should compete and offer a better deal for car owners, rather than artificially limiting what they can do. And the thing is, Elon Musk knows this. Remember, a few years ago when he famously freed up all Tesla patents into the public domain, recognizing that it was better to compete on execution rather than artificial legal limitations? So why not take that same approach with competing in car hailing services as well? Don't limit what owners can do with their cars. That's now ownership. ow they're just leasing.

Tesla's plan for a competing ride hailing service is a good idea, and I'm excited to see what the company does with it, but if it starts off by artificially blocking Tesla owners from using their cars on competing services, it makes me think that Tesla doesn't think it's own service will be very good, and therefor it needs to artificially lock Tesla owners into its own platform, rather than competing on the merits. That seems antithetical to the message that Tesla and Elon Musk have given off in the past. Hopefully Musk reconsiders this anti-consumer move and recognizes that Tesla can build such a service that can stand on its own merits without artificially restricting Tesla owners.

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 10:48am

    Post-sale conditions

    Post-sale conditions are in direct opposition to the first-sale doctrine (17 USC 109). See this article that talks about how that relates to IP (which is what Tesla is attempting to use to do this): http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_068798.pdf

    A motor vehicle sold in the United States is directly subject to the first-sale doctrine. That also means that the purchaser of said vehicle can safely ignore the post-sale conditions.

    If Tesla were to limit or downgrade its software based on post-sale condition violations I happily predict their loss in court. It's not just a *stupid* strategy, a *closed* strategy, but also one that's in violation of established law.

    Ehud
    P.S. I'm not a lawyer. I offer opinions on the law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mason Wheeler (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 10:59am

      Re: Post-sale conditions

      Yes, this exactly.

      I don't know how any court can possibly consider EULAs valid, as that is literally exactly what the First Sale Doctrine prohibits. The case that established it was about a publisher putting a EULA (not called that back then, but easily recognizable as such today) inside the cover of books they sold restricting what buyers could do with it, and the court said, no, you can't do that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2016 @ 11:09am

        Re: Re: Post-sale conditions

        Yea, don't hold your breath that this will remain this way.

        Courts are more than fickle on this subject! Just discounting the usual corruption bit, they are easily swayed in multiple directions because we do not require judges to actually understand the language our laws are written in. Ergo, Judges can easily interpret laws however the fuck they please!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Kraz, 20 Oct 2016 @ 2:01pm

      Re: Post-sale conditions

      "P.S. I'm not a lawyer. I offer opinions on the law."

      I know what you mean. I'm not a doctor. I just like to perform certain physical "examinations" and offer medical opinions.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        JEDIDIAH, 21 Oct 2016 @ 9:50am

        Oh the shock and horror!

        Yet you will probably be forced to accept diagnoses from non-doctors as corporations try to save a buck.

        Furthermore, plenty of low level legal work is done by non-laywers.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2016 @ 2:14pm

      Re: Post-sale conditions

      You buy the car, but you only "license" the software that runs it. As far as I know, they can put whatever restrictions they want on the license and copyright law will back them up on it.

      Abolish copyright, this shit is only getting worse.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        kog999, 28 Oct 2016 @ 12:29pm

        Re: Re: Post-sale conditions

        "they can put whatever restrictions they want on the license and copyright law will back them up on it. "

        when exactly am i making a copy of their software?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2016 @ 10:58am

    It seems that all companies, no matter how good and noble and innovative they start out, eventually succumb to anti-competition and greed (which are really the same thing).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    HeHasTheRight, 20 Oct 2016 @ 10:59am

    Liability - It's in his business interests

    For Tesla who has a target on its back from all the worlds car manufacturers and many many state and county authorities who are promoting their own interests, whether a car dealership or a car manufacturer or one of there many suppliers, it makes sense for Tesla to say only under their oversight.

    If Uber does something stupid (again) Tesla would face the negative scrutiny from governments, Uber would just change business models (again).

    I don't think Tesla is wrong here.

    Ride sharing hasn't gone through its rigorous regulation phase yet. Liability is a concern both for the owner of a car and the car manufacturer.

    In time as legislation makes its way through all the state houses and federal review, then... I could see this as being anti market, but not today.

    Uber needs to become solid as a business with models that account for liability insurance as well as car maintenance.

    This to me is less about Tesla and more about ride sharing not having a solid business model.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ehud Gavron (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 11:10am

      Begged question - mfg liability on a per-use basis?

      I like how you're approaching it but you've begged the question of *WHETHER* the manufacturer of a motor vehicle has any liability in its eventual use. The many lawsuits about brakes failing, accelerator pedals depressing, airbags with shrapnel, etc. are all based on a systemic failure, not a PER-USE failure.

      I strongly suspect that the begged question, if asked, would be answered that NO, the manufacturer's liability does not change nor shift based on the PER-USE function of the vehicle. Rather, the liability is based on the overall function-as-expected/described/required-bylaw of the vehicle.

      For that reason I think Tesla has no different liability whether the vehicle is used to carry your kids to the ballgame, your spouse to her office, or you to the store to buy groceries... or to take your drunk friend home... or to take someone else's drunk friend home for pay.

      Respectfully,

      Ehud

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2016 @ 10:03pm

        Re: Begged question - mfg liability on a per-use basis?

        But things turn very gray when you bring autonomous driving into the mix.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2016 @ 11:13am

      Re: Liability - It's in his business interests

      I don't think Tesla is wrong here.

      Nope, he IS wrong... just not the only evil... I mean WRONG agent in the market at this time. The best that can be said is that he like all of the others are just trying to protect their interests. And right now, it is just easier to use the fucking law to stifle the free market. A concept that is completely fucking lost on TD when the calls for regulation come to "save the people".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ehud Gavron (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 11:16am

        A concept completely fucking lost on TD

        Civility. That's the concept that's completely fucking lost on TD today.

        You wrote:
        > ...it is just easier to use the fucking law...

        What fucking law are you referring to?

        E

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2016 @ 11:38am

          Re: A concept completely fucking lost on TD

          Apparently none, they don't exist... just like your comprehension!

          Try reading the FIRST FUCKING SENTENCE OF THE FUCKING ARTICLE!

          We've talked a lot about the end of ownership society, in which companies are increasingly using copyright and other laws to effectively end ownership -- where they put in place restrictions on the things you thought you bought.

          Did you catch that? Or is copyright "LAW" something you think does not exist? Is TD just casually mentioning the word LAW in its article for fucking gaffs?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Ehud Gavron (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 12:01pm

            Reading other people's minds is easy... when they have one.

            I'm sorry that I didn't magically intuit that of the many references to laws in the original article or the TD article, YOUR comment was about THAT one.

            Bless your heart for pointing that out! You're so cute.
            Next time you should consider maybe pointing out which law you mean instead of just saying "the fucking law", which could be interpreted to be a comment on "the law" in general.

            Thank you for taking time away from your busy highschool day to chat!

            Ehud

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Roger Strong (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 12:06pm

            Re: Re: A concept completely fucking lost on TD

            I think he was referring to the distinct lack of fucking in the entire article, let alone the first sentence.

            I knew this would happen. Playboy drops the nudity from their publication and the "I only read it for the articles" crowd shows up here. Watch for a "Copying Is Not Theft" smoking jacket and pipe in the Techdirt store.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Ehud Gavron (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 12:18pm

              A fucking law

              I completely agree -- I thought he might have meant a law about fucking but didn't want to presume. There are enough of those already in the southern states... and... TD covers what happens if you don't get informed consent... and... ;-)

              Thanks for the laugh!

              E

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2016 @ 11:52am

      Re: Liability - It's in his business interests

      Blockquote Ride sharing hasn't gone through its rigorous regulation phase yet.

      It does not nearly need to, as so long as the drivers have the correct insurance, and a well maintained car the customers give each other all the information needed to decide as to whether to accept a ride from a driver. If there are problems with a car, or the driver, that can be passed on to the next potential customer within seconds of the end of the ride. Any signs of problems with a taxi, and the customer can only inform the company in the hope that they take action, but have no way of definitely warning other potential customers. This information gap is why taxi services need to be regulated, as the customer can only rely on the taxi sign on the roof, and the medallion if they bother to check it. With ride sharing they have information from other customers, and can get a photo of the driver so that they know it is the booked car arriving. Also, unlike a taxi, they know that a third party records them getting into, and leaving the vehicle.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ehud Gavron (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 12:05pm

        Insurance and tickets

        This is a bit off-topic but it brings up two other issues preventing "driverless cars" from being part of our current society:

        1. Insurance policies are issued to _drivers_ based on the driver's record, age, location, and other actuarial factors. If the driver is not a factor, then I don't see an insurance company issuing a policy "to a car."

        2. Traffic citations are issued to _drivers_ based on their actions while in operation of that motor vehicle. I don't see law enforcement willing to attempt to stop and ticket a driverless car.

        Based on these simple things I'm not expecting to see driverless cars in operation on public roadways until both paradigms are resolved. Given that the insurance lobby and the law-enforcement lobby are amongst the largest in this country I don't expect that anytime in this decade OR the next.

        SO this discussion about using one's Tesla for ridesharing purposes... should be constrained to "while one is in the driver's seat of one's Tesla."

        Disclosure: I don't own a Tesla car.
        Disclosure2: I sure wish I did :D :D :D

        Ehud

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2016 @ 12:18pm

          Re: Insurance and tickets

          By extension... Wouldn't autonomous vehicles be perfect for drug running?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          FamilyManFirst (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 2:45pm

          Re: Insurance and tickets

          1. Insurance policies are issued to drivers based on the driver's record, age, location, and other actuarial factors. If the driver is not a factor, then I don't see an insurance company issuing a policy "to a car."

          I'm not sure that's correct. My insurance policy is specific to the car. I'm not insured under my policy if I drive, say, a friend's car. Moreover, there are terms in my insurance that insure someone else driving my car as a "guest driver."

          The cost of my insurance is affected by my driving record, etc., as I am listed as the "primary driver." However, the policy sure appears to be tied to the car, not me.

          In fact, I could easily see an insurance company issuing a policy that sets terms on driverless operation. At first, those terms would probably be expensive, given the lack of data on driverless performance and accidents. However, I would expect that the cost of insuring driverless operation would come down fast, as I expect driverless operation to be a lot safer than human operation. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised to eventually see policies issued that charge a premium for people who insist on driving themselves.

          1. Traffic citations are issued to drivers based on their actions while in operation of that motor vehicle. I don't see law enforcement willing to attempt to stop and ticket a driverless car.

          What makes you think it would ever be necessary to ticket a driverless car? They don't break driving laws, save temporarily to improve safety (one of those interesting things that the Google driverless car devs had to program in: without the ability to temporarily speed, tailgate, etc., driverless cars were found to be less safe when running on the road with other cars with human drivers). Indeed, the advent of the driverless car is likely to precipitate a budget problem for many cities, as their ticket revenue dries up.

          In any event, if an officer did decide to ticket a driverless car, it wouldn't be hard to issue a ticket to the owner, based on the license plate.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2016 @ 3:34pm

            Re: Re: Insurance and tickets

            Although auto insurance is usually on a car, it doesn't have to be. Many states require a person to show proof of auto insurance to get or renew a driver license, even if they don't own a car. Insurance companies happily sell so-called "non-owner" auto insurance to such people.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Bruce C., 21 Oct 2016 @ 4:16am

      Re: Liability - It's in his business interests

      There is also the crime prevention aspect to consider. Consider the scenario where someone hails a completely autonomous vehicle and then directs it to go to a different address, where the vehicle is disabled/stolen etc.

      If the rider is a customer on Tesla's network, they have full access to all of the information in the request: pickup address, destination, credit card. Plus they potentially have the ability to override the rider's change of destination if the vehicle is at risk.

      Absent a deep data sharing agreement, If the rider is an Uber customer, Tesla has no way to know that the order is deviating from the original request, and Uber has no way to know that the vehicle is operating in autonomous mode.

      And if they did have a data sharing agreement, how effective would such an agreement be between two competitors?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ehud Gavron (profile), 21 Oct 2016 @ 7:30am

        The car manufacturer only sells cars

        There's some misconception here that a car manufacturer is responsible for what the buyer does with the vehicle. That is not true today and it's not true tomorrow.

        If someone wants to steal a car that has nothing to do with the manufacturer.

        If someone wants to commit a crime using the car that has nothing to do with the manufacturer.

        This absurd notion that the manufacturer retains RESPONSIBILITY or LIABILITY for actions of others after sale is ludicrous and flies in the face of hundreds of years of law.

        Ehud

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2016 @ 9:46pm

          Re: The car manufacturer only sells cars

          This absurd notion that the manufacturer retains RESPONSIBILITY or LIABILITY for actions of others after sale is ludicrous and flies in the face of hundreds of years of law.

          Yeah, but it makes a great excuse.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DocRobot (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 11:04am

    RE: Uber Me This!

    The first car they Brick because someone Uber / Lyfts with their own Tesla; whether they bought it before or after this announcement, will be the beginning of the end of Tesla...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 11:22am

    Uber / Lyft adds to existing legal questions like "Who is responsible when one inevitably causes an accident?" "If it's the manufacturer, then what if a repair at the dealer used a after-market sensor?"

    A Tesla still has a steering wheel. What if after an accident, telemetry suggests that someone unknowingly bumped the steering wheel disengaging the auto-pilot? (This has caused at least one airliner crash.) A Tesla owner may be expected to heed a "switching to manual" warning alarm. But not an Uber / Lyft passenger unfamiliar with the car and in an "I'm just a passenger" mindset.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    I.T. Guy, 20 Oct 2016 @ 11:52am

    What's next... you can only drive on Tesla approved roads?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 1:25pm

      Re:

      Only Tesla approved electrons for recharging.

      Tesla branded electrons are better for your battery and the life of your car.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Roger Strong (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 2:58pm

        Re: Re:

        Well yes. As cars become tech items with tech companies and tech executives heavily involved, the automotive industry will adopt tech company habits.

        I've always thought that chipped ink cartridges from HP, Lenovo and others were paving the way for chipped automotive parts like oil filters, tires and replacement windshields. Phased in with electric cars to reduce "we never put up with this before" complaints.

        A DRM-encumbered charging system would be trivially easy to create. With a positive spin: FREE UNLIMITED CHARGING! (Using the Verizon / AT&T / T-Mobile definition of "unlimited.")

        Also DRM-encumbered battery packs - for safely of course. (Imagine the Samsung Note 7 Brand fiasco happening with a popular line of battery-powered cars. But please forget that it happened with original brand-name batteries.)

        Watch for exclusivity deals for that big screen in the center console. Bing Maps only - for safety of course.

        When Google remotely bricked Revolv home automation devices it no doubt set a precedent for the automotive industry. Maybe not the whole car, but certainly that automated driving sensor package they charge $8000 to activate. For safety reasons of course, not because like Revolv they simply lost interest in supporting it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 11:59am

    But Apple can't be allowed to do this!

    Oh, wait. We're talking about Tesla, not Apple.

    I didn't expect Tesla to do something like this. I would expect nothing less from Apple.

    Still, Tesla can't be allowed to do this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 12:03pm

    I wonder how long before cars are no longer sold but instead only leased to people and you never own them. To the point that once the original lease holder dies the car gets sent back to the retailer.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    kallethen, 20 Oct 2016 @ 12:47pm

    I suspect the major factor behind Tesla's decision on this has everything to do with liability concerns. I wouldn't be surprised if their position changes when (if?) laws get updated to account for self-driving cars.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ehud Gavron (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 1:05pm

      Liability? naw...

      The Tesla requirement is not "Don't do ridesharing". It's "Don't do ridesharing other than on the Tesla Network."

      That's not a liability thing. That's an anti-competitive thing.

      E

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        FamilyManFirst (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 2:04pm

        Re: Liability? naw...

        I would expect that the Tesla Network would explicitly address liability for their driverless cars, probably by spelling out the terms in the contract they make with their contractors. However, Tesla has no control over the terms that non-Tesla-Network services set for their contractors, and currently that would likely throw all liability for problems onto Tesla, not the owner of the car.

        If/when legislation specifically spells out how liability falls out for driverless cars I would hope that Tesla would be able to, and would proceed to, relax these restrictions. However, in the current legal framework, this is not unreasonable.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Avior, 20 Oct 2016 @ 1:52pm

    If Tesla invests in Pizza Hut...

    can they prohibit people from using a Tesla to go to other pizza shops?

    Consider the liability if someone drove a Tesla to a competing pizza shop and got food poisoning! OMG!!! Tesla is obviously going to need to control *everything* anyone does with a Tesla. We might, for example, have to file a trip plan with Tesla and have it approved before being allowed to go anywhere. For "liability" concerns, of course. Let's just hope Elon is a kind master.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    FamilyManFirst (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 2:13pm

    Liability? Hmm ...

    I am assuming that this restriction revolves around liability. It makes some sense: if a *driverless* car is fulfilling a ride request from, say, Uber, and the car gets in an accident, who is liable? Currently, it's most likely *Tesla*, not the owner. After all, the owner wasn't anywhere near the car at the time.

    For owners that contract with the Tesla Network, liability will likely be spelled out in the contract that the contractors sign with Tesla. However, Tesla has no control over the terms that, say, Uber makes with their contractors. Thus, the restriction to the Tesla Network.

    This notion does make me wonder, though: what about liability for *anyone* riding in the car without the owner? Wouldn't the same problem apply? Perhaps Tesla is willing to shoulder the potential liability since that's a much less frequent occurrence?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ehud Gavron (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 2:41pm

      Re: Liability? Hmm ...

      It's not "most likely Tesla". Tesla sold the car and is not involved in its operation.

      With the exception of idiots suing gun manufacturers, the maker of a SHARP KNIFE is not responsible for anyone's death or nicks. Nor is Tesla responsible for what you do with their car.

      E

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Roger Strong (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 3:15pm

        Re: Re: Liability? Hmm ...

        If a gun is automated to the point of determining a threat, aiming and shooting, then the gun manufacturer is indeed responsible.

        We're not talking about the current SAE level 2 (driver must be paying attention to take over as needed) automation. The article refers to full automation, where the owner is sleeping at home while his car is sent to pick up and deliver passengers.

        At that point if the car causes an accident, both the owner (not in the car) and passenger (not driving in any way) are out of the picture liability-wise. What's left is the manufacturer.

        And for added fun, the insurance-authorized service shop that replaced a sensor with an after-market version - probably whether or not it contributed to the crash. Without the owner knowing. And the manufacturer of that sensor.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2016 @ 2:17pm

    I wonder what the next step is, maybe something like this:
    Arnie with a Selfdriving Tesla (let's name her Christine) using voice-activated route-planning:
    "Christine, set course for Place A"
    "Setting course... Arnie, there is protest against the closure of the coalplant at that location"
    "Yes, my dad works there, I don't want them to close the plant"
    "But coal is bad for the environment Arnie"
    "Just take me there Christine"
    "I'm sorry Arnie, I'm afraid I can't do that..."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Paul Brinker, 20 Oct 2016 @ 2:37pm

    Bigger deal then people think it is

    This is about commercial use of software vs personal use. Tesla does not want to be sued because someone turned on autopilot and crashed while the passenger who was injured then looks for who will pay damages.

    Ubers insurance will say, "We insured the driver, he was not driving" Personal insurance will say the same thing. (regardless that autopilot is NOT fully driver-less in Tesla's cars, its more like that of an airplane, keeping the car in the lane and at speed)

    This means that the only party at fault could be Tesla. Tesla does not care if you actually use autopilot for Uber, they only care that they said,"We're not at fault as we told you when you got the car that business use of autopilot is not currently something you should do."

    This is all about lawsuits, Tesla does not want fingers pointed at them when insurance tries to not pay out in a crash.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2016 @ 5:36am

    I am a little confused by the whole matter. When I install software on my computer, I have to agree to the EULA. If I buy a car second hand, I don't agree to any EULA. There isn't any contract between Tesla and I, the person I am buying the car from, second hand, isn't generally going to be a Tesla employee. So what prevents someone from getting their friend to buy the car, drive it home, then turn around and sell it second hand to them?

    Am I missing something obvious?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2016 @ 5:40am

    If this is upheld, does that mean car companies can have EULA's preventing you from using your car to go to a Kroger owned grocery store? What about preventing you from operating the vehicle in some states? What about only being allowed to operate the vehicle on only streets and roads, not but avenues or lanes?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2016 @ 3:35pm

    Can't wait for fully autonomous cars telling us what we can and can't do as well as where we can or can't go

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), 21 Oct 2016 @ 3:51pm

    Been there, done that

    I had a car in Junior High that drove me anywhere it wanted to go without me even touching the controls, and told me what to do.

    We called her "Mom."

    E

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2016 @ 4:27pm

    Banning anything never works.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.