This reminds me of your comment about the printer cartridge box (”Licensed for single use only”) at one of the MSU roundtables a few years ago.

And if everyone doesn’t mind a little self-promotion, it also reminds me of an article I have coming out in volume 4 of I/S: The Journal of the Information Society (Ohio State and Carnegie-Mellon) any day now entitled “Ubiquitous Computing, Virtual Worlds, and the Displacement of Property Rights.” The main premise is that the rise of ubiquitous computing (pervasive computing, RFID, smart homes, internet of things, etc.) will allow for producers of personal property to displace traditional property rights (use, alienation) with different, more restrictive rights either through the use of the combination of contract and tech or through the use of tech alone. It could be loosely characterized as DRM for for personal property.

On software, I agree with your take — the notion of a servitude in software is importantly distinguishable from the notion of a servitude in a chattel. Software is IP, not P.

I haven’t read much about this recently (I will get around to it before long) but at the risk of saying something that has already been said, I would guess that the practical reason that you don’t see servitudes in chattel property is that, like adverse possession of chattel property, the lower values and the lack of a solid title recording system would make the administration cost of a chattel servitude scheme prohibitive. That seems to apply well to these boxes.

It’s all well and good for the PO to say that their ability to prohibit illicit uses of their boxes results in lower rates for consumers, but if you hand any business a newly coined property right they could make a similar claim that they’ll pass on the benefits of their entitlement to the public. Made by a private party, the argument simply presumes the right they’re seeking to acquire, and is therefore unconvincing.

Made by a state entity, or a heavily regulated quasi-state actor, on the other hand, this kind of move is pretty familiar and, I think, somewhat defensible in some cases. State regulation of permissible and impermissible uses of chattels is a large part of what law is about. (Come to think of it, IP regulation is largely about ways that the public should not modify certain chattel property.)