Ask HN: Why haven't processor manufacturers been sued yet?
Why haven't Intel, AMD, and other processor manufacturers been sued for preventing processor owners from securing the processors they own?
These processors are effectively running two complex operating systems of which only one can be updated and secured by the processor's owner. Owners are not allowed to update or secure the other operating system themselves leaving them vulnerable and susceptible to malicious software and actors. Unless the manufacturer is incentivised to prevent this by releasing an update, owners will be stuck with a defective device that they can not fix.
Why haven't the EFF and similar groups taken action yet?
Why are processor manufacturer even allowed to do this? The use case “Owners are not allowed to update or secure the other operating system themselves“ maps out across a number of industries and products. Car owners do not have access to certain firmware, airlines cannot patch airplane software to their liking. Most hardware products are sold as is, without implicit guarantees, with market forces (stock market included) being the ultimate arbiter. With that said, there’s probably a hungry law firm willing to do a headline-grabbing class-action suit based on “neglectful behavior”, “truth in advertising” or other potentially lucrative routes, so I am guessing they’re working on their customer acquisition strategy at the moment. Cars and planes (and even radio transmission equipment) pose a high risk on public safety. They aren't restricted because owners don't have the right to control these devices, they are restricted because public safety is at risk otherwise. Processors don't fall into that class of devices. In fact, I'm willing to argue that not allowing owners to patch their devices is a public hazard (ddos botnets, mass identity theft, etc). Is there a precedent of someone buying a closed-source product, suing for being unable to update it, winning the case in court and being awarded damages? Hopefully, this would be it. But rather than damages, the courts would rule that access to one's own device is protected by a fundamental right. If this wasn’t hashed out in a much cheaper lawsuit with a smaller target (e.g., someone suing a remote-controlled toy car manufacturer for inability to update firmware on consumer end), chances of this being fought for precedent sake against Intel ($200+ billion market cap, $17 billion in the bank account alone), which hires lawyers by the dozen, are pretty slim. For one thing, to sue for damages, you have to show actual, quantifiable damages. What about suing for full control over a product you own? What about buying a product implies that the manufacturer is legally required to allow consumers full control over it? The fact that they are required to allow owners access is what I hope the lawsuit would address.