AS mentioned above, LCDs/flatpanels don't have a refresh rate - they are always on, unlike a CRT. The refresh rate is completely unrelated to how well the images on an LCD look, and a 60Hz LCD doesn't flicker from flourescent lighting. At all.
The reason that LCDs have anything other than 60 HZ escapes me. I suspect that this actually has to do with how fast they can input data from the PC, as an LCD running, for example, 60Hz and 72Hz (at the same resolution), looks the same. Even in flourescent lighting.
Not quite. Negligence deals with unintentional acts, never intentional ones.
As an illustrative example - If I put a brick on my windowsill and it falls of and hits you, it's negligence. If I purposefully frop the brick out the window, it's a different tort (battery, in this case).
Since Sony put this onto the CD on purpose, it probably can't be a negligence case, although it may be a differnt tort (probably trespass to chattel - a generic tort dealin with someone breaking your stuff).
The 4 elements you described are used to analyze whether some unintentional conduct is actually negligent or not. In this case, it wouldn't be applied, since the conduct is intentional.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (I'm a law student, actually), and this shouldn't be taken as legal advice.
Slashdot Mirror
AS mentioned above, LCDs/flatpanels don't have a refresh rate - they are always on, unlike a CRT. The refresh rate is completely unrelated to how well the images on an LCD look, and a 60Hz LCD doesn't flicker from flourescent lighting. At all.
The reason that LCDs have anything other than 60 HZ escapes me. I suspect that this actually has to do with how fast they can input data from the PC, as an LCD running, for example, 60Hz and 72Hz (at the same resolution), looks the same. Even in flourescent lighting.
Not quite. Negligence deals with unintentional acts, never intentional ones.
As an illustrative example - If I put a brick on my windowsill and it falls of and hits you, it's negligence. If I purposefully frop the brick out the window, it's a different tort (battery, in this case).
Since Sony put this onto the CD on purpose, it probably can't be a negligence case, although it may be a differnt tort (probably trespass to chattel - a generic tort dealin with someone breaking your stuff).
The 4 elements you described are used to analyze whether some unintentional conduct is actually negligent or not. In this case, it wouldn't be applied, since the conduct is intentional.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (I'm a law student, actually), and this shouldn't be taken as legal advice.