>> No, but I don't really expect to. I'm sure
>> they believe that they've covered their bases,
>> but if they issue a statement that they're Y2K
>> compliant, they'd open themselves up to lawsuits
>> from every photographer who thinks (for whatever
>> reason) that a Y2K bug messed up their pictures.
> Since I just paid good money for an F5, you can
> bet I'll be in line for a lawsuit against Nikon
> if it's not Y2K compliant, statement from them or
> not.
Lawyers don't care if the company gets sued, they
just care who wins and how much.
About six months ago, we got a blizzard of memos from
our legal department forbidding any employee from even
saying the word 'compliant' in front of a client. Then
there was and endless stream of e-mails suggesting lots
of weasel-worded phrases that we could substitute that
didn't have the same legal connotation, but always
recommending that we avoid the topic altogether if
possible. This after spending most of a year making
sure that everything was ready for Y2K. (BTW 'ready'
is an approved weasel-word)
If your F5 (or mine) screws up on 1 January, then
all Nikon will be liable for is to fix the camera.
If they state that it's Y2K 'compliant', you could
sue (and probably successfully) for the loss of
income from the pictures as well, which (considering
just who's taking pictures with Nikons) could add up
to a big chunk of cash.
It doesn't make sense to anyone but a lawyer -- it
isn't supposed to.
-Don
