Hi Mike,
It is this "certification is only possible like we say" attitude which I seriously question.
whether you question this attitude doesnt matter. you arent a lawyer in general, you arent a lawyer for these companies, and you arent indemnifying them. their legal review says that it's a requirement, so it is now a requirement for the software. anything beyond that is irrelevant.
Now was this so hard? This is actually an important fact that it is a legal requirement for a company - thanks.
It was a pain to find out however.
It's not the first time I hear this mantra. Can you give me some facts to back this up?
i dont know what kind of "facts" you're looking for. i didnt make this scenario up, it was described to me by a customer in the US and their experience with Chinese cloners. i'm not going to give customer information or name names if that's what you want.
Well, the problem with "facts" is that I like them to be backed up. I don't know whether I should believe this mantra until I have seen actual products and/or figures. If you don't need this - fine, your choice.
It's like the "patents strengthen innovation" mantra. Regardless that there was no study to ever show such effect this was repeated over and over. People questioning it got "shut up" replies like you deal out. Unfortunately recent studies show the opposite of the claim, no matter how much the mantra is still repeated.
Cheers Detlev