nanog mailing list archives
Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..')
From: Dan Hollis <goemon () anime net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Dave Stewart wrote:
At 04:14 PM 7/25/2001, Dan Hollis wrote:Microsoft is advertising "high security padlocks", but is instead selling locks that dont work at all.I actually talked to an intellectual property attorney about this today... just in passing, but his remark was "Microsoft is not responsible for someone else committing criminal acts. If you leave your house unlocked, that doesn't mean it is NOT breaking and entering if someone comes in and steals things."
So what point *does* microsoft become negligently liable? Never? Ask your attorney friend if he can think of *ANY* situation where m$ could be found negligent. Microsoft is giving a *great* sales pitch about reliability, stability, security, etc. but simply not delivering what they are advertising. This game of deceit is costing consumers billions. How long in the real world before the FTC would come down like a ton of bricks for false/fraudulent advertising on non-software company doing the same thing? -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
Current thread:
- Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') LBolton (Jul 25)
- Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Dan Hollis (Jul 25)
- Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Dave Stewart (Jul 25)
- RE: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Matt Levine (Jul 25)
- Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Dan Hollis (Jul 25)
- Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Adam McKenna (Jul 25)
- Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Joseph T. Klein (Jul 25)
- Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Gary E. Miller (Jul 25)
- RE: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Chance Whaley (Jul 25)
- RE: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Dan Hollis (Jul 25)
- RE: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Chance Whaley (Jul 25)
- RE: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Gary E. Miller (Jul 25)
- Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Dave Stewart (Jul 25)
- RE: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Gary E. Miller (Jul 25)
- Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Owen DeLong (Jul 25)
- Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Dan Hollis (Jul 25)
- Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..') Henry Yen (Jul 25)