4 ms·

Most consumer protection laws have to do with curtailing dishonest or misrepresentative behaviors -- eg, selling a defective product, misrepresenting product fe

Most consumer protection laws have to do with curtailing dishonest or misrepresentative behaviors -- eg, selling a defective product, misrepresenting product features, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection#United_Stat...

tikhonj 14y ago
Yes. And a program you can't modify to suit your needs is defective. This isn't enshrined in the law at the moment, but it's the same idea. However, my real point was just that people's being able to not buy your product is no defense: it doesn't work in consumer protection cases and shouldn't work here. Moreover, consumer protection isn't just about dishonesty: even if you represent your product perfectly accurately, you still can't sell certain (mostly dangerous) things. For example, if you design a really cheap car and market it as "cheap but dangerous", you still can't sell it.
- flatline3 14y ago
  > Yes. And a program you can't modify to suit your needs is defective. This isn't enshrined in the law at the moment, but it's the same idea. It's not defective according to the people buying it. That's what matters. > For example, if you design a really cheap car and market it as "cheap but dangerous", you still can't sell it. This analogy is not particularly applicable to consumer software, and applies mainly to liability. A lawyer would need to step in here, as I'm guessing neither of us are experts in consumer product liability.
  - tikhonj 14y ago
    I'm pretty sure it's not a matter of liability--it's simply against the law to sell a car without certain safety features (like airbags). Moreover, there are good reasons for a customer to not want airbags--they make the car heavier and that kills acceleration and handling. So there is plenty of precedent--just because a customer would be fine with something (like less safety) does not necessarily justify it.
    - flatline3 14y ago
      > So there is plenty of precedent .. No, for software, there isn't.

tikhonj 14y ago

Yes. And a program you can't modify to suit your needs is defective. This isn't enshrined in the law at the moment, but it's the same idea. However, my real point was just that people's being able to not buy your product is no defense: it doesn't work in consumer protection cases and shouldn't work here. Moreover, consumer protection isn't just about dishonesty: even if you represent your product perfectly accurately, you still can't sell certain (mostly dangerous) things. For example, if you design a really cheap car and market it as "cheap but dangerous", you still can't sell it.

flatline3 14y ago
> Yes. And a program you can't modify to suit your needs is defective. This isn't enshrined in the law at the moment, but it's the same idea. It's not defective according to the people buying it. That's what matters. > For example, if you design a really cheap car and market it as "cheap but dangerous", you still can't sell it. This analogy is not particularly applicable to consumer software, and applies mainly to liability. A lawyer would need to step in here, as I'm guessing neither of us are experts in consumer product liability.
- tikhonj 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure it's not a matter of liability--it's simply against the law to sell a car without certain safety features (like airbags). Moreover, there are good reasons for a customer to not want airbags--they make the car heavier and that kills acceleration and handling. So there is plenty of precedent--just because a customer would be fine with something (like less safety) does not necessarily justify it.
  - flatline3 14y ago
    > So there is plenty of precedent .. No, for software, there isn't.