micks56

Sure, but don't try to hack this metric too much. Manufacturers use it and don't try to game it. They actually want to improve it. Apple partners with Foxcon to get this number at 5, and wouldn't have it at 5 if they didn't believe Foxcon could manage demand. Apple would maintain inventories in their warehouse if that was the case.

This metric speaks as much about Foxcon's success as it does Apple's.

Failure to warn is only one component of liability. There is design defect, manufacturing defect, negligence, and so on.

"It's complicated" is very accurate.

I'm not defending the legal field in its entirety, but your opinion would change if you or your loved one were harmed or killed.

Not totally accurate. There isn't much uncertainty in the law, but rather whether you broke it. Plaintiff has the burden of proof. And while there may not be a specific statute spelling out liability, case law has equal wait in the US.

Here is an example. This is a common 3 part test used to decide whether a manufacturer is liable for failure to warn:

1. Manufacturer had actual knowledge of the alleged danger

2. Manufacturer had no reason to know that consumers would know of this danger.

3. Manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care to inform customers of the danger.

Despite the "no refund for deposits" clause, you are entitled to your full money back. It doesn't matter that they offer no warranties, express or implied, either.

You may have to go to small claims court to get it. Or you may have to get an attorney to get it (Tough to do, I know).

Just know he is feeding you BS and you will have to assert yourself to get it.

What state are you in?

The PDP-Linux maker should be sued for copyright (and trademark) infringement. Buyers may believe they are getting RedHat Linux because that is what the cover is, but they are not getting Red Hat Linux.

Once again, the programmer's work is sacred and we need Linus's permission, but an artist who creates cover art did trivial work and deserves no protection.

I don't think that your distinctions are fair.

Source code changes that I am suggesting will allow the new BaioNix to functionally "work" just as Linux does, just like how Baio created a picture but it "works" as a homage to an earlier Miles Davis photo.

And I am not suggesting trivial code modifications for the sole purpose of evading copyright. The changes that BaioNix has produce a simpler naming convention that enables programmers to understand the code easier.

People are acting like Baio has a slam dunk case but had to settle because he doesn't have money to defend. In reality Maisel has a slam dunk case and Baio wisely settled and cut his losses.

Is this a just result? As with everything, that is up for debate. But if you want to change the law to allow Baio-works one needs to consider what else it affects.

First, I can't say that I am surprised my post currently sits at 4 downvotes here on HN. A programmer's work is sacred while a photographer's is not.

Use some common sense? Baio absolutely published the photograph, which is why we are all having this discussion.

It doesn't matter why people buy something or if it had an impact on sales. A copyright holder retains the sole right to publish a work and its derivatives. That is the essence of how we protect works of art fixed in a tangible means of expression.

Hypothetical: Baio downloads the latest Linux kernel. He changes all variable and function names to words of his choosing. Baio now says that he has the right to distribute BaioNix code free from GPL copyright restrictions and does so. The Free Software Foundation sues Baio alleging copyright infringement.

Who wins and why? How is this different from or the same as Maisel v. Baio?

I have a BS/MS in Electrical & Computer Engineering. For a while I designed/manufactured sensor systems. Our customers were nuclear plants, oil refineries, chemical plants, etc. My company had a line of products that monitored steam valves, among other systems.

For a bunch of reasons I decided to go back to law school and added that skill.

So now I operate at the intersection of law, management/operations, and engineering for small companies. So far it is working out as a good niche.