And you still haven't answered the fundamental question: what's the ethical difference between a software switch and a hardware switch, when there's no copying of copyrighted content involved in flipping the software switch?
This isn't the question that I personally care about. I don't see any difference. There, I said it. And you can make a case that by law, you are doing nothing wrong, since Rigol didn't make you agree to a EULA or anything like that.
Look, I'm not arguing against copyright law itself. I'm arguing against unilaterally imposed contracts.
This is the part that I personally care about. The fact you think it's wrong that they try, at all (and in the case of Rigol, apparently not very hard.) You are free to haggle with a manufacturer if you have a novel use for their product. If you are a big enough purchaser, you can negotiate your own terms. You can have features added or removed. If you are a single end user, you can choose other devices?
It seems like a lot of the other people who are arguing along a somewhat similar vein don't seem to have any problem with Agilent locking features (both software and hardware) on their scopes. I am not sure why it makes a difference. It's like in one breath I am hearing:
"It's wrong that manufacturers artificially limit my device. I refuse to pay for upgraded features that are "artificial," because the boards/electronics in both devices are identical!" It doesn't matter if the software engineers were asked to make different versions of the software. Or that they don't do this for free. It doesn't matter that different versions were specifically made to appeal to different customers at different price brackets. If the hardware is the same, I should own it all (for the cost of the most basic model plus a couple bucks, because let's face it, software is FREE after the very minimal initial work; the HARDWARE design is MUCH more difficult!; and the manufacturer will make MORE profit by selling MORE scopes, obviously, duh!)
Again, let's go back to hardware vs software switch. I see no difference. Similarly, I see no real difference between two devices that are differentiated by hardware and two devices that are differentiated by firmware. In either case, you are paying for the NRE that went into the product. Whether that's hardware or firmware, it doesn't matter to me, personally. I do not see any problem with having two different products with the same hardware.
And in the other ear "But if they took the time to use unique EEPROM and a serial code database and paid service reps to take my order and look up a unique secure code and passed all that cost onto the consumers, (i.e., I can't google a hack and do it in 10 minutes), I wouldn't mind. Because they're obviously trying harder." Despite the same thing, just a better lock. I promise if a hack for Siglent or Agilent was posted, the argument would now shift. Agilent/Siglent would use a better lock if they TRULY didn't want us to hack their scopes!
*I also have not yet been convinced that there were not significant engineering hurdles in reaching beyond the 50MHz limit to the 100MHz limit. Whether hardware or software. It's not like "now there's a faster ADC available, so we just plop it in and we have a faster scope!" The fact that IN THE END, it costs the same to produce either model doesn't mean there is malicious/greedy intent to (try) to charge more for the higher model. In fact, I find it somewhat unlikely that the firmware engineers were paid to figure out how to actively attenuate/degrade the displayed signal based on frequency, just so, in order to emulate a lower bandwidth scope through firmware.