For openers, let's make sure everyone understands this is an academic discussion, I paid for my extended memory and have not asked for my money back. I think it's great that the subject is interesting enough to get you two fellows attention. Obviously, (I hope) I'm having fun playing devils advocate.
Murry;
Your eloquent arguments are largely based in ethics and what is generally agreed upon as acceptable behavior in civilized societies. It's near impossible to refute positions like this without looking like an anarchist, so I won't try. I presented the issue in a strictly legal prospective because that's the way differences of opinion and entitlement to property are resolved today. While imperfect and somewhat deft to the very valid points you bring up it's better than mob rule or dominance by the strongest. One of the reasons we have laws and delegate great powers to government is because some people don't like to live by the golden rule
I did not consider the fact that our hacker might take his new found knowledge and try to enrich himself by offering the service to other Haas owners. While I feel, and you seem to agree somewhat, that I would be within my rights to gain access to my extended memory even if I had not purchased it, I do not think I could give or sell the technique to others without being subject to theft of intellectual property laws.
Defining "civilized behavior" and "acceptable theft" is very situation dependent. In New Orleans after Katrina most folks felt it was fine for people to liberate essential food stuffs for those who could not simply walk out. Not many said the same about sofa's and TV sets. I have my doubts that the imperatives of one's livelihood would be legal justification to break the law in most jurisdictions.
Thanks for your comments, I'm enjoying the discussion and didn't see any soap boxes.
Vern