Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Setting aside the humor, do they have a point? (Score 1) 1018

by erik_norgaard (#20571043) Attached to: Retailer Refuses Hardware Repair Due To Linux
"They are also liable for for damage caused by poor design, using known sub-standard components, and bad packaging that leads to damage under normal handling conditions."

Poor design is rather vague. I recall some complaining about the power connector on labtops was mounted directly on the motherboard meaning accidental pull in the power cord could break the motherboard, a much more expensive repair than simple change of connector. But, although everyone can agree that this is suboptimal - or poor - design, almost all models do this to save space and pieces. So the manufacturer was not liable. "Poor design" may be a feature.

"known sub-standard components" - what does this term mean? How do you evaluate a component to sub-standard? Manufacturers may choose to use a sub-standard component to offer a cheaper product, and you as a consumer decide whether to buy sub-standard products. I think there is a quite large margin before such claims can be made successfully.

And bad packaging I think is part of the assembly. And normal handling conditions? Yes, but they do disclaim liability for wear and tear due or excessive use.

I am not saying that you cannot claim the warranty in these cases, only that it is vaguely defined and they have more money for lawyers.

+ - Court:: breaking copy protection permissible

Submitted by
Erik Norgaard
Erik Norgaard writes "ArsTechnica reports that the district court of Helsinki, Finland, has ruled that CSS is not an effective copy protection mechanism. The EU copyright directive prohibits the creation and distribution of code that can circumvent effective copyright protection schemes. The court have found that CSS is ineffective. No other court have previously tried to interpret the term "effective technological protection"."

The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan