Hacker News Reader

Comment by metricodus | Hacker News Reader

The EU loves creating standardized sticker layouts. In this case I would welcome it.

"Security updates guaranteed for: nn months"

"Security updates guaranteed until: YYYY/MM"

There should be a also scheme where companies who claim these things would have to deposit some calculated amount in some offical place.

(Btw, since so there's so much cheap crap being imported from china, I guess the most consumer-protecting approach would be to make both the reseller and producer responsible for the penalties resulting from a lack of security updates.)

View on HN

Not sure about the EU, but the UK has this covered under the Sales of Goods Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_Goods_Act_1979

Has that 1979 law been proven in court to be valid about the kind of things we are talking about now, and can you link the specific cases, please? :=)

Do you have a resource in which can look up past cases, including small claims court that is not paywalled in some form?

Asking as I'm aware of a couple of cases with friends in the past few years. Personally had one case in which was about to go to SCC regarding software update removing some functionality and the company settled out of court and left me most happy with the settlement.

I think the onus is on you.

That is why I asked as I'm not aware of any non-paywall sites that allow such lookups and neither it seems are you.

Maybe somebody else knows one, but as I stated, I have personally used this law in comparable circumstances and aware others have. But without the ability to lookup such cases on a non-paywall site then alas we have hit an enpass.

What he means is that if you are going around claiming all kinds of things then you should be the one to provide the evidence to go with the claims.

..yes. Thanks for clarifying :).

I'm fully aware of what he asked for and as I have made clear, unless somebody can link a site that allows such lookup of past cases (including SCC) then there is nothing further I can do beyond express my personal experience, and link to the law in question (which I did).

So unless you are able to link such a site then your not helping at all.

> So unless you are able to link such a site then your not helping at all.

You are right, we are not helping at all with proving your unsubstantiated claim.

Well, part of the claim is a personal experience, so evidence isn't strictly required, since the source is making the statement. At that point, you have to determine how well you trust the source.

More evidence would be preferred, and would definitely raise my trust that there wasn't some mistake of memory, but it seems a bit extreme to dogpile on someone who is stating what they believe as fact from personal experience, and when asked for verification seems willing to try to find that but without the knowledge or ability to do so and asking for pointers on how to do that.

Use dejure.org for German cases and law.

Bookmarked, alas for the UK the only public offerings are pay per search: https://www.trustonline.org.uk/ which does not seem to have Small Claims Court judgments.

Also http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/940/is-there-a-prefer... kinda back's this up alas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com