4 ms·
If Tesla isn't confident enough in their self-driving service to accept the liability then I doubt it's good enough to be approved for road-use anyway. It sound
by tinalumfoil 10y ago
If Tesla isn't confident enough in their self-driving service to accept the liability then I doubt it's good enough to be approved for road-use anyway. It sounds like they're trying to set a precedent to kill competition before it starts. Hopefully other self-driving car manufacturers force their hand or kill their business.
- ChuckMcM 10y agoPerhaps, but it is not uncommon for example for chip manufacturers to specifically say their parts cannot be used in safety systems without their express written authorization. They are certainly confident their chips work, and they sell them by the bucket full, but if someone dies as a result of using their product that their chips are in, they don't want to be liable. They use those disclaimers to shift liability to the person who designed it in.
- misja111 10y agoThere is a funny example of such a disclaimer in the Java license agreement, it says: "You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility"
- Tharkun 10y agoI wonder whether that's some kind of odd safety clause, or an even odder anti-proliferation clause?
- wodenokoto 10y agoSimilar restraint is on iTunes.
- skykooler 10y agoI remember reading that line a few years ago (when I was new to computers, and actually read EULAs), and wondering how in the world someone would use a music player to design nuclear weapons?