That's a crappy argument.
and enforce the clause in the contract - if unauthorized sales occur - there will be financial compensation for company A.
they do, but that is the law of the land in US, and every nation have their own rules/regs.
I hope so...
Based on what law?
Doesn't matter what their rationale was. They shouldn't have done it.
deprivation of value or something along those lines. GM cannot randomly shut your car off via onstar if you are all squared away with the bank... you cannot randomly deprive a person of the value of something they purchased... even if the location has geographical limitations in regards to sales, all they can do is void your warranty.
www.sol-ark.com
Well, it's a mentality, in China there is not much concept of human rights or consumer protection.
That is assuming that EG4 has all of the documentation and source code. And I would bet they don't have full hardware/programming level documentation and that they also do not have source code. If that is the case then they would have to reverse engineer it and probably make a flowchart of what the code does. I have done that before as a hobby for a GM car computer and just sorting out one or 2 sections of the disassembly code I needed to find the setting I wanted to change took many man-weeks of work. And that was a ancient simple Motorola 68hc11 variant that pretty much matched a standard sold variant that I could find in a data book and was custom designed for GM and so had everything needed built-into the variant. It is doable but it takes people who have a good understanding of assembly and programming microprocessor registers and would take a long time so while it is simple it is simply like building a pyramid (nothing complicated with the right people just a massive amount of work).
I think Deye believe this is the way to stop their distributer from claiming compensation via the terms of whatever exclusive distribution contract was signed and it's terms allow for.
If Sol-Ark, Sunsync and other Deye rebrands don't speak out against this, it shows that ethically they are no better than Deye.
I suppose you could sue them (don't know who "they" are yet) for "deprivation of value" but I don't know of any law or statute that applies.
Would Have thought a response from Sol-Ark would have been made public by now concerning their "name" being displayed on the the Deye inverters as a who to contact, for those that were shut down.
Either a confirmation, denial/rebuttal, or some sort of explanation, but the silence is deafening.
ps. Especially with the CTO/CEO being a winner of the year in 2023
EY Announces Tom Brennan, CEO and CTO of Sol-Ark, as an Entrepreneur Of The Year® 2023 Southwest Award Winner
Sol-Ark CEO Tom Brennan wins EY Entrepreneur Of The Year® 2023 Southwest Award, recognizing his leadership in transforming energy storage solutions globally.
that's pure extortion, using customers as hostages.
We can do it in the US as long as it's not a monopoly. The US only gets involved if there is collusion. This isn't the case here. A US company made a deal with a Chinese company for exclusive rights to a product in a dedicated region. Nothing about this deal prevents all other brands from competing. In fact, this deal is very generous, in that many companies contract with China and have exclusive rights to the product. Sol-Ark is allowing Deye to sell the product elsewhere.Because the EU actually cares about monopoli's and anti trust laws..
Let's call it a highly educated opinion
I'm not an attorney (mandatory disclaimer), but found this on the webs:
A "plaintiff's interest" does not include interest that is not granted to the plaintiff pursuant to the ELUA or TOU. So, if the ELUA or TOU says the Deye inverter cannot be used in Pakistan, UK, or USA, then there is no "interest" of the plaintiff that is being infringed upon.
I was reffering to disabling equipment
It probably says in the EULA that no one reads, that the Deye unit can't be used in the USA.
Prey much where I am at.