4 ms·
I doubt it would meet the legal definition of fraud if it is true that features are removed rather than patched or if some sort of certification upstream of a g
by haZard_OS 9y ago
I doubt it would meet the legal definition of fraud if it is true that features are removed rather than patched or if some sort of certification upstream of a given security patch is absent. But I'm not a lawyer so...
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoI would argue saying "patched up to x date" is a statement that you've got the patches up to that date. And claiming that without it being true would, in fact, be fraud. Whereas just not updating your phone would just be taking poor care of your customers.