[free-sklyarov] Adobe wipes their hands clean of Skylarov

[David Haworth]

On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 06:29:55AM -0400, Robloch at aol.com wrote:
> Now that they have explained why they are not responsible, I'm sure everyone 
> will accept their case and won't blame them in any respect. NOT.
> 
> http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=3451

I have a few questions that perhaps someone with a bit of US-centric
knowledge can answer (being a European, I know very little about
US legal affairs apart from what gets brought to my attention).

1. Are there any laws against making provable false statements in
advertising materials (or even better, against making statements
that can't be backed up by evidence, like we have in the UK)?

2. Are these laws criminal laws, or merely civil laws (ie to whom
do you make the complaint)?

3. Have Adobe made any false claims about the security of their
eBook reader (similar to the "100% burglarproof" claim by another
vendor whose name I forget right now)?

4. If so, has anyone made an official complaint about the advertising?
As a side note, has anyone made an official complaint about the
"100% burglarproof" claim?

5. Does the old chestnut "I refuse to give evidence on the grounds
that I might incriminate myself" actually exist as a right, or is
it just something from the movies?

My line of reasoning is that if Adobe were threatened with a suit
for false advertising, they might be reluctant to testify in the
Sklyarov case on grounds that they might incriminate themselves.
Without Adobe's testimony, the DoJ's case would surely fall
apart in their own hands.

Dave

-- 
David Haworth
Baiersdorf, Germany
david.haworth at altavista.net