In message <004201cbbd75$55e22b60$01a68220$@com>, dated Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Dennis Ward <[email protected]> writes:
> >It may be that at that time, when brought into court, the manufacturer >will have to prove and convince the legal entities that a device is >safe and it meets the essential requirements, not just is presumed to >meet them or has simply passed a set of non-mandatory standards. It is very easy to magnify the manufacturer's responsibility to infinity, and to put the burden of proof on the defendant rather than the prosecution, but is that serving the community or a very narrow interest? -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK Plural: data, criteria, phenomena. Singular: datum (different meaning: use 'data element' for a single item), criterion, phenomenon. 'Effect' is a noun, 'affect' is a verb (except in psychiatry). - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
