Ups ] [ Post
Followup ] [ CPU-Central Message Board ] [ Home ]
Subject: Re: MSI
Date: 7/2/2004 9:58:41 AM (GMT-7)
IP Address: 220.127.116.11
In Reply to: MSI posted by
They may still be liable IF the plaintiff can prove that MSI continued selling boards using capacitors they knew were defective. Warranty replacement coverage does not readily compensate for equipment downtime, especially for any boards used in a business environment.
I'm quite willing to believe MSI and others may have done exactly that:
--engineering: "we're suspicious that caps from supplier x are bad, we've lost a few more than usual in stress testing."
--RMA division: "we think so too, we're seeing an unusually high board failure rate starting from about N months ago and its mostly bad capacitors."
--beancounters: "ssshhhh...our margins are thin enough as it is. We can't just ditch the parts we have. Use up the remaining stock and quietly replace anything that gets returned."
--purchasing: "we arrived late to this conversation. What's that about capacitors?"
--beancounters: "uh...little green leprachauns told us our capcitor supplier may not be in business much longer. When you get a chance, start price shopping."
--purchasing: "oh, the green ones again. Sure, okay, we'll make some calls next week."
--engineering: "mmmppphhhaggaggggg COUGH COUGH COUGH...we, uh, like our jobs. Yeah, what they said. Leprachauns."
--RMA division: "well, either way WE have job security for the next couple years. Score!"
OTOH, if that indeed occurred I think the plaintiff will have a hard time proving it in court. But with lawyers involved, who knows?
FollowUps | Post
E-Mail Sender |
- Re: MSI - Bob -[7/4/2004 4:03:00 AM (GMT-7)]
- Re: MSI - Connie -[7/5/2004 5:55:27 AM (GMT-7)]
- I guess - LED -[7/2/2004 2:45:58 PM (GMT-7)]
- Re: LOL..(nt) - Smoker -[7/2/2004 11:44:37 AM (GMT-7)]
Maximum of 100 messages displayed.
Post a Followup
Ups ] [ Post
Followup ] [ CPU-Central Message Board ]