<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Snapchat May Have a Duty Not to Design Dangerous Software&#8211;Maynard v. Snap	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/03/snapchat-may-have-a-duty-not-to-design-dangerous-software-maynard-v-snap.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/03/snapchat-may-have-a-duty-not-to-design-dangerous-software-maynard-v-snap.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Mar 2022 09:13:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: ThorsProvoni		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/03/snapchat-may-have-a-duty-not-to-design-dangerous-software-maynard-v-snap.htm#comment-3206</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ThorsProvoni]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Mar 2022 09:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=23692#comment-3206</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The legal concept of presumptive negligence is often alleged to have grown out of the higher standard of liability for a common carrier. Even though one usually does not worry about this standard in federal telecommunications law, the POTS phone network was designed to keep running even in the face of two weeks of power outage.

[Don&#039;t hope for such reliability today!]

&lt;i&gt;Byrne v Boadle &lt;/i&gt;(2 Hurl. &#038; Colt. 722, 159 Eng. Rep. 299, 1863) is a major historical negligence case. 

It is the classic case, in which a Court comes to a legal conclusion by means of logical fallacy -- in this case affirmation of the consequent. The Doctrine of &lt;i&gt;Res Ipsa Loquitur&lt;/i&gt; is often said to have been born with this case and is maddening to anyone that understands propositional calculus.

Here is the complete decision.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5d79225be5c12acfec8e5e77dab85a3a9dd03aa44153c1605933793b365741e6.png 

This article on the &lt;i&gt;Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur&lt;/i&gt; is worth reading.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a9e13fe5453baad937f448d937b6fdb302fe76f9deceb4e650f0e9f65b27ab6b.png 

In order to explain the necessity of overruling the precedent of &lt;i&gt;Zeran v. America Online&lt;/i&gt;, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), I included the following in my Reply Brief, which responded to Twitter&#039;s Appellee&#039;s Brief.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b0b07ff9ff76ecf7d8dfef14634f6e4f1bc2a8ba4b9e5fc873c96c60e49b05c9.png 

In its Appellee&#039;s Brief, Twitter was nice enough to provide two examples of argument by logical fallacy.

It is often straightforward to design a product to prevent criminal use. 

A gun could be designed 
1. not to function in the neighborhood of a school and thus
2. not to be usable to spree-murder schoolkids.

If a gun manufacturer were held liable for such a spree murder, such a design would quickly become standard.

Likewise, the speed filter could easily have been designed not to function beyond the speed limit on a public road while it would function correctly on other modes of transportation.

The Snapchat speed filter is a physical widget. I have to make a software invention and then try to introduce a new claim type to explain the facts to those that believe software is magic.

[Tommy Flowers created the first logic gate in the 19-teens.]

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a9c41b5796996cc3aeedb4bb7319ccaa3fa31b8626d8c5c64f4e4b716c763a19.png  https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/64fa339a183a7b177aefd6ba04ac9c58514e1c86e42eef25ff3cbb64db858428.png  https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2a6815d3a08b6f9886a928c1ca893b226d8d14aba51477a2f20e14f86a9d8334.png]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The legal concept of presumptive negligence is often alleged to have grown out of the higher standard of liability for a common carrier. Even though one usually does not worry about this standard in federal telecommunications law, the POTS phone network was designed to keep running even in the face of two weeks of power outage.</p>
<p>[Don&#8217;t hope for such reliability today!]</p>
<p><i>Byrne v Boadle </i>(2 Hurl. &amp; Colt. 722, 159 Eng. Rep. 299, 1863) is a major historical negligence case. </p>
<p>It is the classic case, in which a Court comes to a legal conclusion by means of logical fallacy &#8212; in this case affirmation of the consequent. The Doctrine of <i>Res Ipsa Loquitur</i> is often said to have been born with this case and is maddening to anyone that understands propositional calculus.</p>
<p>Here is the complete decision.<br />
<a href="https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5d79225be5c12acfec8e5e77dab85a3a9dd03aa44153c1605933793b365741e6.png" rel="nofollow ugc">https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5d79225be5c12acfec8e5e77dab85a3a9dd03aa44153c1605933793b365741e6.png</a> </p>
<p>This article on the <i>Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur</i> is worth reading.<br />
<a href="https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a9e13fe5453baad937f448d937b6fdb302fe76f9deceb4e650f0e9f65b27ab6b.png" rel="nofollow ugc">https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a9e13fe5453baad937f448d937b6fdb302fe76f9deceb4e650f0e9f65b27ab6b.png</a> </p>
<p>In order to explain the necessity of overruling the precedent of <i>Zeran v. America Online</i>, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), I included the following in my Reply Brief, which responded to Twitter&#8217;s Appellee&#8217;s Brief.<br />
<a href="https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b0b07ff9ff76ecf7d8dfef14634f6e4f1bc2a8ba4b9e5fc873c96c60e49b05c9.png" rel="nofollow ugc">https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b0b07ff9ff76ecf7d8dfef14634f6e4f1bc2a8ba4b9e5fc873c96c60e49b05c9.png</a> </p>
<p>In its Appellee&#8217;s Brief, Twitter was nice enough to provide two examples of argument by logical fallacy.</p>
<p>It is often straightforward to design a product to prevent criminal use. </p>
<p>A gun could be designed<br />
1. not to function in the neighborhood of a school and thus<br />
2. not to be usable to spree-murder schoolkids.</p>
<p>If a gun manufacturer were held liable for such a spree murder, such a design would quickly become standard.</p>
<p>Likewise, the speed filter could easily have been designed not to function beyond the speed limit on a public road while it would function correctly on other modes of transportation.</p>
<p>The Snapchat speed filter is a physical widget. I have to make a software invention and then try to introduce a new claim type to explain the facts to those that believe software is magic.</p>
<p>[Tommy Flowers created the first logic gate in the 19-teens.]</p>
<p><a href="https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a9c41b5796996cc3aeedb4bb7319ccaa3fa31b8626d8c5c64f4e4b716c763a19.png" rel="nofollow ugc">https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a9c41b5796996cc3aeedb4bb7319ccaa3fa31b8626d8c5c64f4e4b716c763a19.png</a>  <a href="https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/64fa339a183a7b177aefd6ba04ac9c58514e1c86e42eef25ff3cbb64db858428.png" rel="nofollow ugc">https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/64fa339a183a7b177aefd6ba04ac9c58514e1c86e42eef25ff3cbb64db858428.png</a>  <a href="https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2a6815d3a08b6f9886a928c1ca893b226d8d14aba51477a2f20e14f86a9d8334.png" rel="nofollow ugc">https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2a6815d3a08b6f9886a928c1ca893b226d8d14aba51477a2f20e14f86a9d8334.png</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
