Hacker News Reader

Comment by gamache | Hacker News Reader

But honestly, what do they care if a third-party battery explodes in the user's hand? IMO a better way to deal with this would be for the firmware to record when a third-party battery is used, but not prevent it; in this way, Panasonic could shield themselves from spurious maintenance requests (and lawsuits), while still allowing the camera's owner to ultimately decide how the camera is used.

This isn't unlike Apple's insistence on Apple-branded RAM being used in their machines; if you're having Mac problems, and you have third-party RAM installed, AppleCare will tell you to take a hike.

View on HN

Product Liability Law in many jurisdictions requires manufacturers to correct problems when they become known. Some jurisdictions require the correction for already sold and shipped product (Hello, this is Panasonic. Send your camera in for firmware update.) Other jurisdictions only require correction for new sales (Those cameras will merely ship with the updated firmware).

In any event, recording when a third-party battery is used does not shield a manufacturer from liability. In fact, it will be excellent evidence for the Plaintiff that the manufacturer knew of the design defect, and failed to correct it. Furthermore, the manufacturer failed to adequately warn the consumer. Two counts lost by Panasonic.

But this implies there is a defect in the camera that causes the explosion. The defect, and product liability, is in the battery.

Not according to the law. The Plaintiff's lawyer will allege that the camera is defective where it does not have the necessary safety devices to accommodate third party batteries. Courts consider that a design defect. Manufacturers have a non-delegable duty to install safety devices in their products.

"This isn't unlike Apple's insistence on Apple-branded RAM being used in their machines; if you're having Mac problems, and you have third-party RAM installed, AppleCare will tell you to take a hike."

Not true. Twice I've had Macs have issues and both had Crucial RAM. Each time I was asked to remove the RAM and re-verify the problem. Each time the problem persisted and was fixed by Apple.

So in other words, Apple wouldn't deal with your problem while you were using non-Apple RAM. I think we agree here.

That's a kind of unfair spin. A much fairer summary would be "Apple had him check whether it was an issue with his third-party memory before sending it in."

Verifing that the problem is something that they can help you with is part of helping deal with the problem. It's not the same as telling you to "take a hike".

> This isn't unlike Apple's insistence on Apple-branded RAM being used in their machines;

I've never had this issue, and I've taken in two machines for service with non-Apple RAM.

Apple very carefully qualifies RAM for each of their machines. Not all RAM is the same... some can choke up modern high-speed FSBs. You're paying for all the work it takes to qual those parts.

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame Apple for their policy. Wonky RAM can cause all sorts of weird bugs, so Apple is right to avoid the diagnostic nightmare.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com