[Wolves] Things I have learn't in the last 16 hours

[Peter Evans]

On Thursday 11 January 2007 12:26, Kevanf1 wrote:
> Not to mention if it is actually illegal?

Opinion only, not  being a lawer.

Would it depend on how the hardware was marketed?

If the disk is clearly labeled 'Not for use in RAID environment' then they're 
possibly covered, particularly if they warn about data loss.

If no such warning is attached then they are more than likely open to claims 
for damages.

If they've got the ability to detect whether a disk is part of a RAID then 
what they could do, probably perfectly legally and without redress, is 
delberately reduce the performance of the disk itself to the point where you 
wouldn't want to include the unit in a RAID and opt for the 'server' version 
instead (and here I make the assumption that this is an engineering 
possibility).

This latter scenario mirrors what I understand at least one mobile handset 
manufacturer has implemented where the handset can determine if a battery is 
a 'manufacturer original', and if it isn't then the handset turns off all 
the 'normal' power saving features and drains the battery at the same rate 
all the time.

In fact thinking about it the parallel here would be to engineer the disk so 
that if it were connected in a RAID is that it refuses to function at all.  
If they've labelled it as such then there's no damages or reduced capability 
to claim against.
-- 
Regards,

Pete Evans