Going only from the article, I'm skeptical of part of the argument: > It also countered in the complaint any claim that a Kytch device's remote connection to a

Going only from the article, I'm skeptical of part of the argument: > It also countered in the complaint any claim that a Kytch device's remote connection to an ice cream machine could result in the machine turning on while a person's hand was inside—in fact, Taylor's own manual advises unplugging the machine before servicing it, and removing the door of the machine to access its rotating barrels automatically disables its motor. I suspect someone who didn't design real-world systems might read this and think "Of course it's not a safety problem, because the machine is unplugged, Silly," or "No one can get hurt by the rotating barrels, because the motor is disabled when something-something." Meanwhile, people who have designed systems are assuming, "Of course, sometimes the machine won't be unplugged when being maintained. That's one of the things we have to assume will go wrong. And text in a user manual doesn't seem a credible component of safety design here, implying always-perfect operator behavior of teenage fast food workers who are stressed and fatigued." A lot of engineers' questions come to mind (e.g., about that interlock and other mechanisms and safety scenarios, and how the third-party add-on integrates), but this isn't my specialty, and I'm wondering what that UL certification covered. I can totally believe that many companies will do all sorts of underhanded things, including colluding to smear a competitor, but I'd want a credible assessment by expert specialist engineers.