And even if you stand on your head, this guy surely has seen a TFlop/s much earlier than you. And he probably gave the TFlop/s and the Petaflop/s its name - as his program is the tool to actually figure if a computer is able to put out a TFlop/s or a PFlop/s.
You are not required to build something, thus this example is not valid.
You are not required to create garbage, thus this example is not valid.
Sorry, but if you do something that influences other people (and all three, driving, building and creating garbage do so massively), you are required to follow rules negotiated by the people (maY it be by elections, petitions and writing your member of congress, or via written or unwritten contracts) you are influencing.
If you want to drive around, build something or litter as you want without any restrictions, go, find some place where you are disturbing no one else, and do it there.
There is now one less scumbag alive making the entire world a better place.
Making the world a better place should be punished by dead?
It runs like this: For two years, the vendor (not the manufacturer) has to warrant that the sold object keeps running except for normal tear and wear and the usual refills. The problem is that within the two years, the buyer can misuse the object in a way which causes the object to break preliminary. Thus there arises the necessity to determine who is responsible if the sold object breaks. The law states, that within the first six month, it's assumed that the fault causing the preliminary break was already present at the time of the sale, except proved otherwise (thus the vendor has to prove that the buyer mistreated the object). Within the remaining 18 month, it is assumed that the buyer mistreated the object, thus the buyer has to prove that the object was faulty at the time of the sale.
If the responsibility of the preliminary defect is put to the vendor (either by default within the first six month, or by proof of the buyer), the sale can be reversed, thus either the vendor hands back the money, or replaces the defective object with another one. The vendor still can ask for a repair attempt, but it's up to the buyer to agree.
Apple did offer a warranty that covers some of the above mentioned cases for additional money. This is not illegal. It was illegal not to tell the customer about the rights he had anyway and to make the impression that only with the extended warranty, the customer was entitled to those rights. This was considered a "culpa in contrahendo".