NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9705476" data-attributes="member: 7023840">No. That was absolutely correct. I have repeatedly (and repeatedly) stated that this is a complicated and nuanced issue. I have been the one who has raised the issue of how different jurisdictions matter- for example, not just different countries, but within different countries. I assume that, because lack of familiarity, you probably just passed over my statement regarding the issues involving regulating the legal practice which is almost impossible to summarize in America because we have fifty* separate sovereign systems (the states) along with a separate sovereign system (the federal government) and there is an interplay of how those different laws, rules, and regulations work. It's why something as simple as "What are the rules regulating practice in a federal court" aren't amenable to a quick and easy answer.*Again, simplification. Actually it's more than 50 due to other concerns.I was not the one making a universal statement of how product liability law works- you were. I was providing you an example of why that is incorrect. Moreover, you will have to excuse me if I find your statements regarding other jurisdictions somewhat curious; it has been a while since I have looked into it, but I recall learning that Germany (like most countries) does have a legal regime regarding reasonably foreseeable use. Moreoever, this is an EU issue- which was in the news recently because at the end of last year, the EU's new product liability directive came into place (replacing the one that was in force for three or four decades) that maintained the criterion for assessing a product's defectiveness that includes the reasonably forseeable use of the product- not just the intended use.I had assumed you would know that, given that the new EU directive was specifically drafted to supplement the old directive regarding new technologies, including, but not limited to, AI (see, e.g., new criterion about products that can learn or acquire features after entering service).Again, I do not think that this conversation is productive. I have repeatedly stated that I do not think you are conversant in the details of what I am discussing, and that's fine. You are still entitled to your opinions on the matter, and they are as valid as mine. I do ask that you stop telling me that I am wrong about something I do happen to understand. Good?</blockquote>

Verification