[tofRobbroolve]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...re-vendor.html

How many things are wrong with this?

- Anyone who really feels they need to spy on their spouse, should probably find another partner

- Isn't suing a software company for using their software illegally, like suing gun maker for being arrested for shooting someone?

It's just one of those stories that reassures you, the world is full of idiots. [rolleyes]

[bunkalapa]

I think he needs to be put in jail for not taking responsibility for his actions. Any time someone tries to blame another person for a bad choice they've made they should go to jail for 4 months. Maybe then we'd have people filing fewer frivolous lawsuits because they don't want to accept responsibility for the things they've done.

[JewJoleSole]

- Anyone who really feels they need to spy on their spouse, should probably find another partner

I agree, but there are certain situations where something like this might be necessary....not in this case, but if you had a prenumpt that stated if the other spouse was cheating they got nothing, i could see doing this, if i were a tycoon. But i am not, and neither is he.

[dahlilaninfo]

i completely agree with you, BUT does it say anywhere that the software might be illegal?
________
Lincoln Navicross

[sterofthemasteool]

He should have made his own EULA to display on his wife's logon so that she wouldn't read it but would have been legally informed that he was logging everything she was doing on the machine[rofl]

[tofRobbroolve]

i completely agree with you, BUT does it say anywhere that the software might be illegal?

The software isn't, but some uses of it may be. Just like a gun might not be illegal, but shooting the postie with it might be.

I don't understand why so many people feel they can ignore individual responsibility for their actions.

[shemadagaswer]

I was curious about the manufacturer's duty to warn, and found this in American Law Reports:

"A duty to warn does not exist as to all product-connected dangers, in all situations. As has already been noted, there is no duty to warn of a danger (or, stated more accurately, it is not negligence to fail to warn of a danger) of which the manufacturer or seller has no actual or constructive knowledge,[FN16] and, because the duty to warn has its genesis in a condition of danger, there is no such duty as respects a product which is, as a matter of fact, not dangerous.[FN17]

It is also clear that there is no duty resting upon a manufacturer or seller to warn of a product-connected danger which is obvious,[FN18] or of which the person who claims to be entitled to warning knows,[FN19] should know,[FN1] or should, in using the product, discover.[FN2]" I can't see the plaintiff winning this one, but you can't always tell. And, of course, ALR isn't the Supreme Court.