product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..')

Dan Hollis goemon at
Wed Jul 25 20:59:38 UTC 2001

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?


[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

More information about the NANOG mailing list