Trial lawyers and their clients have an obvious interest in portraying consumers as helpless and child-like, and rich corporations as robber-barons preying on the poor and weak. But why does the rest of society jump on that bandwagon? Because profit and wealth, once badges of achievement, are now considered prima facie evidence of malfeasance. The trail lawyers, in an attempt to enrich themselves, have launched a full-scale attack on the system of capitalism itself. But unlike a real capitalist, who enriches himself by serving others, the trial lawyer is a parasite - he achieves his success at the expense of others, and the degree of his success is the degree of destruction visited on society.
---------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues List-Post: [email protected] Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2002, 8:30 AM The general impression in Europe is that the 'culture of blame' began in the USA, leading to such warning messages as "Do not use this appliance to dry pet animals" on microwave ovens. It often seems that legal trends begin in the States and take about 10 years to get over to Europe. It seems a pity that the liability laws have got themselves into this state, but it was not my doing anyway and maybe some manufacturers did need to improve their attitude towards the safety of their customers (I'm thinking here of exploding Ford Pintos and similar products) so maybe it is not all bad news. Regards, Keith Armstrong In a message dated 03/01/02 05:33:20 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Subj:Re: EMC-related safety issues List-Post: [email protected] Date:03/01/02 05:33:20 GMT Standard Time From: [email protected] (Robert Macy) Sender: [email protected] Reply-to: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> (Robert Macy) To: [email protected] (Gary McInturff), [email protected] (Ken Javor), [email protected] Great, Now we have to start adding information on the sales brochure, like "As the purchaser of this product places this product into service said purchase is forming a licensed arrangement with the vendor to not hold said vendor culpable for all uses and potential misuses of this product...." You get the drift, just copy the MS licensing language on all software. - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PE [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112 -----Original Message----- From: Gary McInturff <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: Ken Javor <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > List-Post: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 2:38 PM Subject: RE: EMC-related safety issues Did the camera have "proximal cause" to the event that befell the child, well not unless it fell of of the ceiling or the tripod fell over and hit the infant, or the camera overheated and started a fire. Other than that the Lawyers need to dig their heads out - juries as well. They are just trying to chase the money. Cameras don't cause disease likes SIDS. They don't cause buildings to collapse, or burglaries or whatever else might befall the baby They are just a convenience. If they an additional input path to the parents may stop, but the actual monitoring (or the failure of monitoring) neither helped or hindered the health of the child. The camera manufacturer, even if this is sold as a baby monitor, I can't see how holding the camera manufacturer responsible can even be considered, except that it gives the lawyers somebody to sue with some money. I suppose it might give t! he parents a misplaced sense of (and I hate this word) closure because they can blame some body, rather than just life, fate, or whatever. I don't doubt your statement that somebody is trying to hold the manufacturer responsible, I just point out that it is asinine and in my opinion inexcusable to do so. Recorded history doesn't show a huge plethora of infant deaths because parents weren't able to have a video camera in the room. Gary -----Original Message----- From: Ken Javor [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:22 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues I have read a part of the IEE guide mentioned below. What I have read on a paragraph by paragraph basis is fine, but I find the overall philosophy deeply troubling. The tone of the document is that the manufacturer is responsible for all uses or misuse of the equipment he sells in concert with every other type of equipment made or that might be made at some time in the future. This document is a trial lawyer's dream. It takes us from a society in which a sale was deemed a transaction of mutual benefit between equals to a society in which an Omniscient Producer must cater to the needs of an ignorant, childlike Consumer, and in direct corollary, any misuse of any product by any consumer is deemed proof that the Omniscient Producer was profiting by taking advantage of a helpless victim. I realize this document merely reflects this prevalent view, but the idea that an Industry group would provide such a smoking gun for some trial law! yer to use in defense of some poor misled swindled consumer is, to say the least, troubling. To say that Industry standards don't go far enough, that it is the responsibility of the Producer to be able to determine all possible environments and failure modes that might ever occur is placing an impossible burden and any rationale entity, upon reading this document will immediately cease production of anything that could conceivably ever malfunction in anyway whatsoever. Case in point: A friend of mine bought one of these 2.4 GHz remote miniature video cameras with integral IREDs and is able to monitor his infant twins from his own bedroom, even in the middle of the night with no lights on in the twins' bedroom. Suppose that 2.4 GHz link is disturbed in some way and he misses something important happening in that bedroom. Is the manufacturer of that video system responsible for any ill that then befalls my friend's twins? I think not. But this safety guide says yes, and places the manufacturer at risk. ---------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues List-Post: [email protected] Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2002, 9:49 AM Once again, John, you seem to be trying to give a negative impression about the IEE's guide on EMC and Functional Safety (which you now admit you haven't read) instead of simply saying what it is that you think is wrong with it. Of course I am passionate about the IEE guide - my colleagues and I spent a long time working on it! When I discovered you were criticising it to the emc-pstc of course I had to respond - but I was not (and am not) trying to defend the guide, merely trying to find out just exactly what it is that you (and your silent 'equally senior experts') don't like about it so I can get it improved. I am sorry if my wordy emails give the wrong impression - the simple fact is that I always write too much (as any editor who has had an article from me will confirm!). Once again I ask you - and everyone else in the entire EMC or Safety community world-wide - to read the IEE's guide and let me have constructive comments about how to improve it. You can easily download it for free from www.iee.org.uk/Policy/Areas/Electro (- you only need to download the 'core' document for this exercise and can leave the nine 'industry annexes' for later criticism). I'll make it easy for anyone to comment even if they haven't read the Core of the IEE's guide.... ...the guide is based on the following engineering approach, explicitly stated at the start of its Section 4 and duplicated below. ***** To control EMC correctly for functional safety reasons, hazard and risk assessments must take EM environment, emissions, and immunity into account. The following should be addressed: 1) The EM disturbances, however infrequent, to which the apparatus might be exposed 2) The foreseeable effects of such disturbances on the apparatus 3) How EM disturbances emitted by the apparatus might affect other apparatus (existing or planned)? 4) The foreseeable safety implications of the above mentioned disturbances (what is the severity of the hazard, the scale of the risk, and the appropriate safety integrity level?) 5) The level of confidence required to verify that the above have been fully considered and all necessary actions taken to achieve the desired level of safety ***** Please - anybody and everybody out there - tell me if there is anything wrong with this engineering approach to EMC-related functional safety. Involve experts you know who are not subscribers to emc-pstc too. Please be as detailed as you can be. If I receive no constructive comments about the above 5-point approach by the end of January I will assume that the IEE's guide is on the right tracks and will not need major revisions. You can send any comments to me via emc-pstc or directly to [email protected] or [email protected]. Interestingly, my reading of IEC/TS 61000-1-2 leads me to believe that it follows the same general approach as the IEE's guide. Regards, Keith Armstrong
