On 10/3/2010 7:17 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
I really don't have an answer to that. Who would enforce it. When you're
dealing with a Government, it will be a matter health, safety and cost,
and the company's defense will be one of statistics.
If people are dying and the perception is that the company simply
doesn't care, there is no defense that can be reasonably raised, no
matter what the actual facts.
If it just puts a bunch of /apparently/ well heeled geeks out of sorts
and costs them a little more of their /probably ill gotten/ loot, and
the company is making a reasonable effort within the existing framework,
then the geeks can go pound sand.
Unfortunately for Bill, (and in a way the rest of us), that's almost
exactly the situation.
Now that might be costing Pentax a lot of good will, but they may have
statistics, that show their failure rate to be within the norm, even
compared to Canon, Nikon, and Sigma, and they will stick to their position.
I don't think that the /health of geek's gotten loot/ matters here. Of
course, if you buy a piece of something and it gives you grief whereas
the grief is the only thing it gives you, it is possible to say that
your luck was tough on you.
I recall a relative of one of my friends living in ShwartzeneggerLand
had a brand new tire blow up on high way causing him a broken foot and
no lawyer would take it up to court. So indeed it may be logical that
the only way out of this hole is by extra careful shopping and tough
decisions (like switching brands).
It could be an interesting theoretical question though, but it is likely
too off-topic for this list.
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
