3 ms·
Why not at least 9? Or 5? I think it would be best to focus on the deterrent effect for the future: we need a law that makes this business strategy not viable.
by salviati 2y ago
Why not at least 9? Or 5?
I think it would be best to focus on the deterrent effect for the future: we need a law that makes this business strategy not viable. Not on punishing bad behavior that already happened. Maybe such law already exists, but we need more enforcement. Or a better thought out law.
I don't think it's important if _that_ person gets jail time. I would not particularly rejoice at the news. But if somehow this practice was made impossible or impractical, I'd
- wongarsu 2y agoOne of the reasons for punishment is deterrence. It it becomes clear people consistently go to prison for doing something like this that will reduce the likelihood of people doing this in the future
- joshuaissac 2y agoOr at least make it mandatory to disclose such behaviours before purchase. Failure to disclose should result in the vendor and the manufacturer becoming liable for the repair/replacement costs (with the vendor similarly able to push the costs to the manufacturer if it was not disclosed to them either), as well as any actual damages resulting from the failure of the product.
- toss1 2y agoNeed the jail time and a safe harbor if the behavior is fully disclosed in advance with all advertising (a simple phrase will do such as: "Useful life limited to ~10 years, details at xyz") Some people might be fine with a product with a known lifespan, or want to pay more for the unlimited life version The penalty should be more like corporate death than individual prison, as that often gets fobbed off on some scapegoat rather than on the actual manager responsible