Jump to content

Pirate ICC??


MiG

Recommended Posts

Hi guys. I really don't know what to think. I'm getting no support from ICC themselves. All I wanna do is make use of the Advanced Power Manager with Sonoffs or the home automation section of ICC or GPIO or whatever to control the pool and geyser. 

This morning I wake up to this email now.. 

 

FP_2019-10-24-5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Centurionsolar said:

Hi Mig,

This is a contentious subject at the moment, there is a court case on about this where the one partner refuses to further support the other partner or its clients as a means to destroy their reputation in the market, etc, and then goes around spreading messages like the one you posted.  It's all just defamation of character, thank you for bringing this to our attention.  It will be dealt with accordingly.   I apologize that you as customer ended up on the short end as a result of this.

Regards

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate that. Sherbet how do I remove now my previous post? Seems we posted about the same time.. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Centurionsolar said:

My pleasure ;).  Click on option and you will find "detele"

I haven't seen that option in a while... I thought it got lost with a forum software upgrade or was somehow disabled.

It's always been my view that where a legitimate product was sold via a partner channel, the product does not become illegitimate because the partnership broke down. Even if there has been a breach of contract, this is a matter between the partners and should not affect the customer. And finally, any action that might be taken to disable such a product -- even if it is a fake product -- is technically illegal.

See for example the massive market outcry when around 2014 FTDI made a windows driver that bricked fake usb-serial chips. While many were sympathetic towards FTDI for their chips being pirated, they felt it was underhanded to take it out on the customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes indeed it is from ICC and according to other members I'm not the only one going through this..

I got my ICC Pi from CS 

Plonkster you're 100% right. The product should not be affected by their issues.. 

I only wanted to delete my post cos I had put a pic of the CS box up (treasure chest) and thought they might have issue with that especially if they say there's a court case. Somehow those pics aren't showing up, I think my browser didn't upload them properly.. 

Anyway, does anyone on here know how to add relays or Sonoffs control to the Pi based on the info it captures from the Axperts and pylontechs? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MiG said:

Plonkster you're 100% right. The product should not be affected by their issues.. 

There are some nuances of course. To import some examples.

If I buy a computer from a retailer, and that computer has a copy of Windows on it, and it later turns out to be an unlicensed copy... well Microsoft is going to charge me a new license fee. There is in this case no legal relationship between me and M$, but there is one (through the sales transaction) between me and the retailer. In this case, the retailer has to refund me or somehow restore the breach that has taken place.

But consider for example the case of Huawei and Google. Google has revoked their right to ship certain software on their mobile devices. That didn't mean that existing Huawei customers suddenly found themselves without access to the google play store. All existing agreements remain in place for the benefit of the customers.

To apply that to this situation you sort of have to understand what is really being sold. As I understood it -- and I am open to correction -- upgrades and bugfixes is part and parcel of the product, and at the time of the sale this was either implicitly or explicitly included in the deal. Then retroactively, because of an alleged breach that is technically not between the customer and the retailer, upgrades were removed from that portion of the product. To me that seems wrong... but I don't have all the facts.

It reminds me of a fight a friend of mine had with his landlord some years ago. After parking on the premises for months, he was suddenly told that onsite parking wasn't in his contract and he had to park on the street. The housing tribunal felt differently... they felt that implicit consent was in place since he had parked on the premises for months already. The story ended rather funnilly with the landlord refusing to swear on the Bible (cause he was an atheist) and generally acting belligerently as he lost the case... and then my friend also moved immediately anyway (but he got his deposit back!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 9 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...