Is this legal? - Razer Mouse

[reiszrie]

Background: Recently, my 3 years old Razer Naga Epic Chroma suffered the infamous "bloating-battery of Razer" syndrome and I had no choice but to remove the battery as its literally pushing the mouse's shell apart. I had thought that since the mouse can be used with the USB connected, I should be fine without the battery but surprisingly, thats not the case and its not due to the mouse being faulty but rather that Razer's firmware intentionally disables the mouse when no battery is connected. It'd be one thing if the battery is essential to the operation of the mouse but it certainly isn't (its essential for wireless operation but not the mouse). Razer also doesn't sell replacement batteries for the Naga Epic Chroma either. 

How do I know that the mouse is still working?: The mouse when connected without a battery would function for around 10 seconds before starting to "blink" and cease working, after which around 20 secs later, the mouse would stop blinking and functionality would resume for 10 secs before the whole cycle repeats. 

So my question is: Is it legal for Razer to deliberately disable a mouse when a non-essential component has failed? I understand the concept of planned obsolescence but in this case its an intentional act to prevent the usage of an otherwise functional mouse when a non-essential component fails which they also does not sell any replacement parts for. In short, they're bricking a mouse just to force the customers to purchase a new one. 

I'm no legal expert but even as a layman, I find this highly unethical and probably even illegal 

Are there any legal experts of those with knowledge to share if such methods of doing business is legal and is this the norm? 

[vanished]

I doubt it's illegal, and even if it is, what are you going to do about it?  I don't mean to take the enemy side at all, but the sad fact of the matter is that unless you have a couple hundred thousand dollars just burning a hole in your pocket, you shouldn't expect to take them to court over this, much less win.  Best to just leave a bad review and buy a different product.

[reiszrie]

6 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I doubt it's illegal, and even if it is, what are you going to do about it?  I don't mean to take the enemy side at all, but the sad fact of the matter is that unless you have a couple hundred thousand dollars just burning a hole in your pocket, you shouldn't expect to take them to court over this, much less win.  Best to just leave a bad review and buy a different product.

I do have legal resources that I can mobilize but that is irrelevant here. 

I've already purchased a replacement mouse so its not about saving a few bucks that I'm asking this question here but rather, I'm interested in what is right and whether companies are ripping off consumers, exploiting their sense of helplessness to commit unethical practices.  

I wish to also find out what other consumers feel about this.

[SuperCloneRanger]

of course its not illegal, the battery is an integral part of a device that is not user serviceable and should not be opened by the consumer. and i highly doubt its about sticking it to the little guy and making you buy a new one. the device likely detects there's a problem with the battery and shuts down for safety or if its not that smart the battery my me integral to the internal circuity, removing it may disconnect the usb power from its microcontroller. 

[vanished]

8 minutes ago, reiszrie said:

I do have legal resources that I can mobilize but that is irrelevant here. 

I've already purchased a replacement mouse so its not about saving a few bucks that I'm asking this question here but rather, I'm interested in what is right and whether companies are ripping off consumers, exploiting their sense of helplessness to commit unethical practices.  

I wish to also find out what other consumers feel about this.

Ah, I see.  Well, in that case, my opinion is still going to be that actually, while maybe a bit silly, this is ethically and legally fine.  Consider the perspective of someone who has not just seen it fail - the design choice to not allow you to use it without a battery is kind of stupid, but not unethical in anyway.  It's only when the battery fails that it becomes a question of "did they do this to intentionally limit the lifespan of the mouse?".  I think to answer that, we would need to know how thoroughly they tested the batteries.  If they were aware that they fail a lot, then I can see where you're coming from, but if this was unintentional, then it's just a bad product, not an evil one.

 

2 minutes ago, James Evens said:

What they do is common. If the system detects a false it shutdown the system or enters a safe mode to prevent future damage which can be a important function to maintain product safety.

Since you can disassemble the mouse just buy a new battery.

If the mouse really is usable without the battery though, they could easily have designed it to "shut down" into a mode that allows normal wired use rather than locking it down completely.

[reiszrie]

13 minutes ago, SuperCloneRanger said:

of course its not illegal, the battery is an integral part of a device that is not user serviceable and should not be opened by the consumer. and i highly doubt its about sticking it to the little guy and making you buy a new one. the device likely detects there's a problem with the battery and shuts down for safety or if its not that smart the battery my me integral to the internal circuity, removing it may disconnect the usb power from its microcontroller. 

The battery is an integral part of wireless functionality but not the mouse itself and the mouse clearly still works without the mouse but the firmware prevents it from being used. 

I can see how it might be a safety feature but I'm not convinced as the mouse still functions normally even with a massively bloated battery (no warning etc). It only starts locking down when the battery is detached from the device.

I'd think that a simpler solution would be to not lock down the device when the battery isn't connected as the battery in no way is essential to the function of the mouse in wired mode.

Buying a replacement battery also, is not an option as Razer refuses to sell replacement batteries for the Naga Epic Chroma, instead, they advised me to source for 3rd party options.

[reiszrie]

12 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Ah, I see.  Well, in that case, my opinion is still going to be that actually, while maybe a bit silly, this is ethically and legally fine.  Consider the perspective of someone who has not just seen it fail - the design choice to not allow you to use it without a battery is kind of stupid, but not unethical in anyway.  It's only when the battery fails that it becomes a question of "did they do this to intentionally limit the lifespan of the mouse?".  I think to answer that, we would need to know how thoroughly they tested the batteries.  If they were aware that they fail a lot, then I can see where you're coming from, but if this was unintentional, then it's just a bad product, not an evil one.

 

If the mouse really is usable without the battery though, they could easily have designed it to "shut down" into a mode that allows normal wired use rather than locking it down completely.

I see, putting the issue of Razer's notorious batteries aside, I'm curious as to the purpose of locking down the mouse in wired mode even though it clearly still works (without a battery) 

I'm curious as to whether this act, if having no real purpose other than to prevent users from "fixing" a battery problem coupled with the refusal to sell replacement parts is meant to "quicken" then death of the mouse and to have users replace them sooner. 

If this is legal, is it also an industry norm? does Corsair/ Logitech etc do the same? 

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, reiszrie said:

I see, putting the issue of Razer's notorious batteries aside, I'm curious as to the purpose of locking down the mouse in wired mode even though it clearly still works (without a battery) 

I'm curious as to whether this act, if having no real purpose other than to prevent users from "fixing" a battery problem coupled with the lack of replacement parts is meant to "quicken" then death of the mouse and to have users replace them sooner.

You could certainly make tha argument, and I can see why it would be temping, but I'm reminded of the quote, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".  Clearly, locking the whole mouse down for removing the battery was stupid and unnecessary since it works fine without it, but it's possible this was not done with the purpose of shortening the expected lifespan, but rather just a stupid design decision.  The world is full of them...

Spoiler

 

 

[Froody129]

Illegal? No

Stupid? Yes

 

Hopefully the new mouse isn't a Razer product. They're known for crap like this