Computerized product improvement apparatus and method

A method and apparatus for improvement of computer-related products by an independent developer may solve problems in hardware or software inadvertently, negligently, or intentionally left in products marketed by a vendor. An independent developer may procure access to a product, develop a testing regimen for functionality of the product, and perform evaluations to identify sources of any operational defects found. Accordingly, the developer may then provide a generalized testing regimen to test instances of product provided by a vendor, identify those containing the flaw, and may optionally provide a solution to the flaw, where practicable. The independent developer may obtain intellectual property rights in the testing, solution or both for the product. Thus, by notifying a vendor, an independent developer may become a supplier of testing or solution systems, motivating a supplier by one of several mechanisms. The developer may obtain a legal status with respect to the vendor by becoming a customer or user, in order to provide motivation to a recalcitrant vendor not designed to take responsibility for defects known and continued in marketed products.

BACKGROUND

1. The Field of the Invention

This invention relates to computerized methods for testing and tracking and, more particularly, to novel systems and methods for testing, tracking, and correcting errors due to software or hardware.

Product development cycles have become shorter and shorter. More of the responsibility for testing and “debugging” products falls to the actual beta testers or alpha testers. Nevertheless, products are continuing their development cycle well into their marketing bases.

For example, software is often released for public purchase before the known errors from beta testing have been cured. Hardware is often likewise premature, and more difficult to correct. Alternatively, beta testing may be inadequate, leaving various problems extant within either hardware, software, or a combination thereof.

Purchasers are often left with a need for identification and cure of errors in commercially available software and hardware. In some instances, product manufacturers and suppliers actively solicit comments, improvements, detection and identification of errors, and the like. In other situations, manufacturers and marketers of products are not so forthcoming.

For example, occasionally, problems are comparatively esoteric, and may occur only in a few rare conditions or instances. Nevertheless, some errors occur with sufficient regularity as to seriously encumber users unaware of the existence of such product flaws.

In recent years, computer and software manufacturers have been repeatedly surprised, even amazed, at the groundswell of opposition to products that are not adequately tested, supported, corrected, recalled, or otherwise identified as having correctable flaws.

Software, in particular, has arrived at a new threshold of pain for purchasers and users. Never since the advent of government agencies for consumer protection against fraud, product failure, product inadequacy, manufacturer non-responsiveness, and the like, have so many dollars of product value been subject to such massive amounts of owner and operator time in order to obtain the purported benefits of the products.

Some manufacturers are swift to seek out and post notification of errors existing in their products. Typically, errors are identified, with associated patches for correcting the errors. In some cases, products are recalled. With the advent of the world wide web, a host of users may provide a corresponding host of error corrections, all freely available to users interested in improving the performance or reliability of a purchased software or hardware product in the computer industry.

Historically, a manufacturer or other purveyor of a computer-related product may face a dilemma with respect to certain product flaws. To the extent that an error, built into or programmed into a computer-related product, is comparatively esoteric and unlikely to cause problems for the majority of users, a manufacturer or developer may prefer to ignore it. To the extent that such a flaw or error is ubiquitous and likely to cause pervasive and obvious problems, a manufacturer may prefer to cure the problem. Similarly, to the extent that a problem is likely to cause a comparatively small disruption of promised service, a manufacturer may choose to ignore it. Alternatively, to the extent that a problem is likely to cause serious economic damages to a commercial or industrial user of a software product or physical damage to persons or property as a direct result of the failure of a computer-based product, a manufacturer will take appropriate steps to find a correction to the problem, announce the presence of the flaw and the availability of a corrective measure, and seek to bring all copies of the product into compliance with a corrected version thereof.

Nevertheless, product improvement is largely a matter of motivation. Motivation may arise from personal interest, individual or enterprise-wide frustration, desirability of a result, previous experiences and expectations, and the like. In current process for product improvement, little incentive exists to provide for skilled third parties to improve marketed products. By the same token, manufacturers, whether large or small, may have limited motivation, resources, or the like to locate and correct errors. In fact, a certain motivation may exist to not seek out errors, nor to highlight them, nor even to repair them, in many instances.

What is needed is a mechanism, whereby software and hardware products related to computer systems may be improved profitably by third parties. Likewise, what is needed is an apparatus and method for consistently providing the necessary resources for testing, correction, notification, and product redistribution for products and upgrades related to computer-related based products, whether software or hardware.

BRIEF SUMMARY AND OBJECTS OF THE INVENTION

In view of the foregoing, it is a primary object of the present invention to provide a method and process for improving products, and particularly computer-related products by independent third parties. In certain embodiments, apparatus and methods in accordance with the invention they include obtaining a product from a vendor, the product containing a processor, and testing the product for functionality and for defects in operation. Evaluation, after finding a defect, may include testing to determine a source for defects located in the product. Thereafter, a testing regimen may be developed to instances of the product containing the defect or fault.

Consistent with the foregoing objects, and in accordance with the invention as embodied and broadly described herein, a method and apparatus are disclosed. Certain embodiments of apparatus and methods in accordance with the invention may include solutions to hardware defects, software defects, or both. In certain embodiments, a method and apparatus in accordance with the invention may provide solutions in hardware or software effective to return a defective part to service, in order to serve without having the defect, or without having the condition exist giving rise to the defect.

In certain embodiments, the faulty product may be hardware or software. In certain preferred embodiments, the solution to faulty hardware defects may be provided by software configured to override, circumvent, or otherwise avoid states or conditions of the hardware giving rise to the defect. Thus, the defective operation of the hardware may be avoided by implementation of software in accordance with the invention.

In certain embodiments, a third party may assess a defect and a number of products, or the types of products affected by the defect in manufacturing or design, in order to provide a severity profile reflecting the extent to which the product has been distributed, or to which damage may have occurred to purchasers of the product. A third party, possessing information related to the severity profile corresponding to a defect, as well as methods of testing and optionally curing defects in products, may notify a vendor and develop a liability profile reflecting the extent to which a vendor may be responsible for the defect, with knowledge, or as a result of negligence.

Since some defects may affect the health or lives of persons, liability may be extreme, and may relate primarily to numbers of failures, independent of knowledge. In certain embodiments, a method may include providing a solution to a vendor in order to correct defects in products manufactured and provided by the vendor. Solutions may be selected from modifications to the product, instructions sets provided to a vendor, to a user, or to both, instructing on the steps for curing the defect, or publishing a solution to be implemented by an owner (e.g. user) who has or may purchase the product.

In certain embodiments, solutions may be entitled to intellectual property rights. Similarly, testing processes and methods may be entitled to intellectual property rights. Accordingly, in certain circumstances, it may be appropriate that the process will include obtaining intellectual property rights. Subsequent licensing of intellectual property rights may be directed to purchasers of products or owners of products having a desire to individually license, or may involve licensing to vendors of defective products in order to correct defects in stock or previously sold instances of the product.

In certain circumstances, a third party developer of testing processes and apparatus, or solution apparatus and processes, may take steps to obtain a legal relationship with a vendor, thus imposing a duty on the vendor to the third party. In this manner, a third party provider may become a second party with respect to a vendor as a first party in a legal relationship giving rise to rights and remedies to the formerly third party developer of solutions and testing.

A developer may provide information identifying a defect to a vendor, and, if available, existence of a solution available to the vendor. Thus, a vendor may be motivated to purchase and provide a test to users, or solution. For example, if a vendor cannot solve a problem, and desires only to recall, then a testing regimen may be extremely important.

Alternatively, if a solution exists, then a field repair may be executed by a user, by an agent of a vendor, or other entity in accordance with the provided solution. Thus, a vendor may be motivated to provide testing or repairs in order to maintain customer satisfaction. In the event that a vendor is unconvinced of the risk, cost, liability, and so forth of leaving users unsupported against an embedded defect, the developer may demand that a vendor, cure the defect from a position of a legal relationship established as a customer, or the like.

In one embodiment, a process may include entering into an agreement and monitoring compliance of a vendor with the agreement in curing defects in accordance with obligations under the agreement. Alternatively, a developer may provide motivation from any suitable quarter including providing motivation to acknowledge and cure defects by taking steps toward obtaining a legal judgment. For example, a developer may file suit, may provide information to those positioned to file suit, or may take a status placing the developer in a position to file suit to enforce an agreement, or to motivate a vendor to enter into an agreement.

In certain embodiments, an apparatus and method in accordance with the invention may be embodied principally in hardware. In other embodiments, the solution may be embodied in software. In certain instances, a defect embodied in the hardware may actually be solved by a solution embodied strictly in software. In this kind of instance, careful programming may be able to circumvent certain hardware activities, by selective execution of test instructions, provision of data, or other activities that may trigger activities by a processor, thereby allowing intervention by software in the conventional operation of hardware. Thus, a hardware problem may actually be solved entirely by a software solution. In certain embodiments, a process in accordance with the invention may be embodied in a set of data structures providing operational data, executable data, or both configured in a computer-readable medium to be executable by a processor.

In certain instances, a vendor may acknowledge a problem, yet assert its own ability to detect a defect and cure the defect. In such an instance, a developer may contract with a vendor, causing the vendor to provide an alternative solution, and warrant the validity of the solution to provide a test and warrant the validity of the test. In such an event, a developer may continue to procure and test products provided by the vendor in order to monitor compliance and assure compliance with the agreement.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

The presently preferred embodiments of the invention will be best understood by reference to the drawings, wherein like parts are designated by like numerals throughout. Those of ordinary skill in the art will, of course, appreciate that various modifications to the structures detailed in the Figures may easily be made without departing from the essential characteristics of the invention, as described. Thus, the following description ofFIGS. 1-10is intended only by way of example, and simply illustrates certain presently preferred embodiments consistent with the invention as claimed herein.

Referring toFIG. 1, a process10may be embodied as one or several steps. The steps may be executed multiple times, and some steps may be executed in the order illustrated, or in another order as appropriate.

Nevertheless, a process10may include an evaluation process or step12, a development step14, a securement16of intellectual property related to solutions, a proposal18proposing solutions to an original vendor, manufacturer, provider, or developer of a product under study, and an evaluation20of a response obtained from the responsible party originally providing the product in questions.

In general, research, testing, evaluation, and the like may be embodied in a step12regarded as an evaluation12. Evaluation, involves evaluation on the merits of a product designed, configured, fabricated, constructed, or otherwise put forth as capable of providing some functionality or implementing some duty on behalf of an owner or user. Testing in modem hardware and software systems in sometimes extensive, and sometimes adequate. That is, testing may be extensive and yet inadequate in much of the software and hardware available in the marketplace.

In other instances, standardized testing is available, but the commensurate skills are not implemented or otherwise applied to the problem. By whatever mechanism, products may be placed in the marketplace by vendors, suppliers, manufacturers, developers, and the like obtaining money for those products, whether hardware or software. The products may or may not comply with the fundamental functionality expected by an owner or purchaser. Likewise, the promised functionality may exist, but may have failures periodically or at various times.

In other circumstances, a condition imposed by a user may create a condition not foreseen by a manufacturer, vendor, supplier, or developer, thus causing either a failure of the product to provide the intended solution or functionality, or a failure of the product in some other mode. A failure by a product in a mode not testable, or known to a user, may lead to consequential damages to the user of the computer.

For example, in certain instances, a user may have a program crash, or a program may create bad information or data from an analysis, or other process. Likewise, a product, such as a computer may be responsible to provide information, which information may be provided inaccurately, to a wrong location, or the information itself may be wrong. In financial information, failure of a computer to provide correct financial information may cause a failure of a transaction, or more significantly, an incorrect transaction, not detected by the system itself, due to some flaw therein.

A process of development14may involve research, development, or any of the technical processes normally associated with preparing solutions to a problem. Whereas the evaluation process12involves identification of the existence of problems, as well as identification of the source of such problems, the development process14involves finding and implementing methodologies for temporarily or permanently resolving or avoiding problems identified by the evaluation process12. Some of the potential outcomes of a development process14may be alternative software, testing programs, hardware patches, software applications suitable for circumventing hardware problems, and the like.

In certain embodiments, a development process14may fail, requiring users to either suffer through with a flaw, or avoid using a product in certain conditions. Alternatively, where a flaw goes to the fundamental purpose of a product, a failure in the development14of a solution may require that a test be done to determine which products must be recalled and replaced.

In certain embodiments, the development process14may involve development of a testing regimen. For example, the evaluation process12may identify failures of a system to perform adequately, or to perform consistently, or without adverse impact on the systems in which the product is embedded or relied upon. In such a circumstance, the development process14may be unable to use, or the testing regimen may be impractical to use for an individual user, or for anyone in the field. Accordingly, the development process14may develop a testing regimen or application suitable for distribution for use by service people, users, owners, and the like in order to identify products that would contain flaws found during the evaluation process12.

As a consequence of the development14, new methods, processes, applications, hardware, and the like may result. Accordingly, a securement process16or securement step16may secure to an independent developer, independent from the original providers, manufacturers, sellers, and so forth associated with the product in question, the intellectual property rights to proprietary tests, solutions, and so forth developed during the processes of evaluation12and development14. Intellectual property ownership may include patents, certifications, copyrights on materials, and so forth. The securement step16maybe ongoing and may involve one or more products, depending on the applicability of the testing regimen, solutions methodology, hardware, software, and so forth.

In accordance with one embodiment of a method and apparatus in accordance with the invention, a proposal step18may involve presentation to entities responsible for sales, distribution, manufacturing, and so forth of a subject project. The presentations may provide information regarding the evaluation process12, the development process14, outputs resulting from evaluation12and development14, presentation of proposed solutions, presentation of data, and additional information relating to business issues.

For example, during the evaluation step12, a technical evaluation of a product, its failures, and the sources of its failures may be augmented by business or industrial data relating to the prevalence of such defective products, the prevalence of the type associated with the defective product, and so forth.

Accordingly, the proposal18may involve providing the context of the problem, the context of the business implications of the product to those involved in the manufacturing, supply, and distribution chain, as well as the possible, probable, or likely implications of the failure of the product with respect to the businesses that rely on the product. For example, it is very likely that a failure of a significant product in some aspect of its conventional or expected performance may give rise to consequential damages against parties knowing the significance, importance, and reliance associated with the product provided.

Whether the proposal18is provided as a report, a paper, a letter, or a discussion, an evaluation20of the response obtained may be in order. For example, a party or entity in the distribution chain may be more or less believing. Likewise, such an entity may be more or less concerned by the degree of liability. A company may regard liability as extreme and the probability of the liability ever arising comparatively small. Likewise, a company may regard the probability of the fault being detected very high and the net liability low. Accordingly, various responses may be provided for evaluation20.

Accordingly, the evaluation20may lead to a test21determining whether or not a licensing interest exists on the part of a particular party in the distribution chain associated with the product. If no licensing interest exists, then a motivation step22may be appropriate.

For example, a company may need to understand the position of competitors. Likewise, the position of purchasers may be significant. In some events, only a threat of legal action will be found persuasive. In the legal arena, action may be based on the risks to a purchaser, class action based on risk to a class of purchasers, a false claims act based on providing faulty products to government agencies, with a degree of negligence, false representations, or knowledge of defects, and the like.

Following the proposal18, parties notified of the defects, the ability to detect defects, and possibly the ability to cure defects are on notice that further providing of faulty products is thereafter done with knowledge.

Accordingly, at a minium, future products should be corrected. Previous products, provided without knowledge of the defect, or knowledge of and ability to detect to cure the defect, may provide less liability. Accordingly, either through persuasion, additional information, combining of additional statistics, proposing solutions to other downstream entities within the supply chain, or the like may provide motivation22encouraging a license interest satisfying the test21. Similarly, legal action may be part of the motivation22provided to a responsible (liable) entity within the supply chain corresponding to a subject faulty product.

On the other hand, once the test21is answered positively, execution24of a license, or licensing24may proceed. Licensing may involve licensing of any or all rights to intellectual property associated with testing, solutions, or the like arising out of the evaluation step12or development step14. In some instances, the licensing process24may include settlement of legal actions arising out of the motivation step22. Accordingly, licensing24may be a generalized agreement process24in which threatening motivations from the motivation process22are removed, as part of the overall exchange of value between the independent developer and the entity in the supply chain having liability.

In accordance with the licensing process24, the supplying entity may distribute solutions30. In certain embodiments, the liable parties in the supply processes may prefer that the third-party developer responsible for the development process14provide the distribution step30. By whatever means, the third-party developer collects royalties26based upon the distribution30of solutions.

In this context, solutions may be merely tests, applications to conduct tests, information on how to conduct tests, software for solving a problem, hardware patches, and the like. Any combination of solutions which tends to ameliorate the problem caused by the effective product may be embodied in a solution distributed30to users and owners of defective products previously distributed. Similarly, distribution30may involve distributing solutions to those holding stocks of faulty products, and to those parties still in the process of manufacturing products which might otherwise be faulty without the solutions provided.

Distributing30may also involve recalling products. Accordingly, royalties26flow to the developer as a consequence of the value provided in the solutions distributed30. In one embodiment, a process10may include a funding step28in which all or a portion of royalties collected26are fed back into an evaluation step12to research, test, evaluate, and otherwise assess other products, as well as possible compliance issues with respect to products embodying the solution under license.

Referring toFIG. 2, embodied in two architectures asFIG. 2AandFIG. 2B, the relationship between entities or systems may be thought of in a variety of ways. To a certain extent, sequential relationships may apply. Nevertheless, in an ongoing process, involving multiple defects, multiple products, multiple companies, or the like, more of a free-form continuing communication architecture may exist.

Referring toFIG. 2A, an evaluation entity34may involve a private party, such as an independent third-party tester or developer. Alternatively, an evaluation entity may be a public entity. Possible organizations or entities that may serve as evaluation entities34may include organizations such as the Underwriters Laboratory, or an organization responsible for consumer reports and similar publications. The Consumer Product Safety Commission of the United States government, or similar agencies of state governments may serve as evaluation entities34. Public interest research groups may be evaluation entities, as may any private company, or foundation, or so forth. Ultimately, evaluation entities34may identify problems, and may participate in some aspect of an evaluation process12. Identifying a problem or defect in a product may be a part of an ongoing process and may be aimed at recall, recommendations, or any other purpose. In one embodiment of a process in accordance with the invention, the evaluation step12, regardless of its motivation, may result in knowledge becoming available regarding defects in products.

Development entities36may or may not be associated with the evaluation entities34. Development entities36may be manufacturers in a conventional sense who try to improve their own products in response to evaluation processes12conducted by evaluation entities34within the manufacturing and distribution chain, or from outside. However, the development entities36may just as well be independent third-party developers who are more skilled, or more motivated, and free from the daily routine pressures of those in the manufacturing and supply chain associated with the product.

Accordingly, the development entities36may develop their own methodologies for solving problems in a more elegant manner. For example, an evaluation entity34may recommend recall of a product. By contrast the development entity36may provide a solution that allows for correction of a problem with a product, without recall.

Or, at a minimum, the development entity36may provide a solution which can be distributed in association with a recall, greatly reducing the cost of actual recall from acquiring service by manufacturers or suppliers to simply distributing to registered owners a solution package. By either entity34,36, intellectual property rights may develop from either testing regimen, solution techniques, production alteration, solution application, or the like. Thus, intellectual property rights38may be developed and captured through appropriate registrations, applications, and the like.

In general, some mechanism, including at least motivation40by way of information, and possibly including one or more of the steps from the process10inFIG. 1, may lead to a licensing entity50. A motivation entity40may often be the development entity36. Meanwhile, the distribution system42or distribution entity42may be the parties in the manufacturing and supply chain, or the development entities36, or even simply the evaluation entities34, such as any case where information alone is sufficient to be distributed.

Accordingly, licensing entities50may involve those giving licenses, those receiving licenses, and those providing the licenses or creating the licenses and negotiating them. Similarly, the distribution entities42or distribution system42may comprise many different entities involved in having either information, testing applications, solution applications, hardware fixes, and the like distributed to users and owners of defective products.

Accounting systems and entities44may provide for tracking of distribution in order to provide funding by way of royalty collection26, and the like. Similarly, monitoring48of compliance of responsible entities with the licensing24and with the correction of defects in accordance with solutions and testing, may be provided. Again monitoring entities or systems may involve one or more entities from the entities within the manufacturing and supply chain, to the entities within the evaluation establishment34, to the development entities36who stand to gain by proper accounting and collection of royalties. Thus, funding systems46may involve processes and entities from multiple locations in order to execute them completely.

Referring toFIG. 2B, the processes32or entities32may be thought of as systems32. Systems32may involve entities, processes, information, applications, and the like configured to accomplish the task. Accordingly, the communications system51may be of any type required in order to provide effective communication between an evaluation system34, development system36, an intellectual property rights system38, and a motivation system40.

Similarly, a distribution system42may include various entities, computer systems, information systems, and a communication system51as well as internal communications with respect to the distribution system42. The distribution system42may provide distribution of information and solutions, or information and testing applications, and the like. An accounting system made up of entities and relationships, together with their processes and communication hardware and software may provide the accounting system44. A funding system46may operate by any suitable method to provide effective funding of evaluation processes12, development processes14, and the like.

Monitoring system48may involve various entities, whether evaluation entities34, or other entities. For example, the various entities may have those having access to licensing information from the licensing entities50, accounting information from accounting entities44, and may be related to funding entities46or systems46associated with the funding processes.

Referring toFIG. 3, any of the processes of evaluation12, development14, intellectual property ownership16, licensing processes24, motivation steps22, and the like may benefit from research data. That is, technical information regarding products, technologies, business, distribution, and the like may be important or required.

In general, a development system36may include entities, information, computer programs, databases, and the like. The resulting inputs and outputs from development entities36or development systems36, as well as the inputs and outputs from evaluation entities or systems34may be provided as inputs or outputs with respect to evaluation processes12and development14of solutions. The result of such information, or perhaps a requirement, may be databases or a database of research data52. In general, research data52may include product data53, user data54, solution data56, and entity data58.

For example, product data53may include standards60governing a product in question. Similarly, advertising, contracts, and the like may give rise to promises62that become imputed or explicit obligations upon sellers, distributors, manufacturers, and developers associated with a subject product. In general, the product data53may be regarded as technical data. Nevertheless, promises62may be thought of as legal information regarding liabilities or obligations undertaken by entities within the distribution process of the subject product.

Similarly, product data53may include various features64. The features64may be advertised features, required features, legally regulated features, or the like. However, the features64may typically be those features that are regarded as having commercial value giving rise to expectations and obligations.

Likewise, functionality66may be thought of as performance requirements. Features64may or may not relate to technical performance, whereas functions66will typically relate directly to the principal reason for the existence of a product. Accordingly, the functionality associated with function66to which a product is supposedly suited, may be critical.

Likewise, structures68may involve mechanical structures, data structures whether executable code or operational data stored by, as a result of or in the process of operation of a subject project, and may be documented by manufacturers, users, and the like. Accordingly, the structures68corresponding to a product may be thought of as those intentionally structured elements corresponding to a product, which are responsible for providing the functions66, the features64, or both, associated with a product.

Data concerning failure modes and effects analyses70may be important. One of the functions of an evaluation process12is the determination of various modes of failure, and the effects thereof. Typically, failure modes and effects analysis70is thought of as an engineering and functional issue. Nevertheless, in the broader context of businesses and legal liability, failure modes and effects analysis70may propagate information beyond the strict function of structures, and relate to the consequential damages or probable effects flowing to businesses as a result of the failure modes of a product. Additional project data72may exist as appropriate to a product and the industry it serves.

User data54may likewise include standards74. Many standards74are regulated by governments. Other standards are contracted by virtue of either contracts themselves, or by virtue of standardized practice within an industry. Thus, standards74may exist, and can be very important with respect to the evaluation processes12. Similarly, promises76understood by users may be significant user data54. Likewise, promises76may not be generic and associated strictly with the product, but may rather be associated with a particular user. As product costs increase, and sophistication of users increases, promises76may be more narrowly associated with a user, as user data54, than with a product, as product data53.

Likewise, features78may be unique to a user, since much of commercial software, hardware, equipment, and the like is customized with features for a particular application, meaning a particular use by a particular purchaser. Likewise, tasks80may be associated with a user and relate a user to a product. Ergonomic considerations82may again be related to the tasks80, but will typically be a relational data source relating a user corresponding to the user data54, to a product, corresponding to the product data53. Again, failure modes and effects analysis84associated with users in general, and a specific user, may exist as user data.

For example, failure modes and effects analysis70of a product may relate to failure of other additional equipment. Failure modes and effects analysis84may relate to the consequential damages or effects on a user. Accordingly, damages86may actually be a measure of physical or financial damages, related to a user54, as opposed to a product orientation, as with product data53.

Solution data56may include appropriate standards88, detection methods, processes, and equipment, collectively referred to as detection data90, and the like. That is, in general, detection data90may be modest or extensive. However, detection data90may be critical to the process of effectively identifying and curing defects across a general population of users of equipment found defective, or software applications found defective.

Likewise, solution data92may include any information related to provision of a solution. Typically, the solution data92will be used by, and provided by a development process14associated with development entities36. Accordingly, solution data92may be inputs or outputs to the development process14or development entities36seeking to solve a problem and provide a solution thereto.

Solution data56may include intellectual property information94, particularly relating to the existence, nature, and availability of intellectual property protection for any of the processes and apparatus associated with solution data92, and the like.

Entity data58may include information relating to various entities. For example, standards bodies abound and regulate much of engineering, commerce, consumer relations, and the like. Accordingly, the data96of standards bodies may be significant. The standards bodies data96may include information on the entities, as well as information on the responsibilities. Likewise, the standards bodies data96may lead directly to provision of the standards data60,74,88associated with either product data53, user data54, solution data56, or any combination thereof.

Similarly, activities data98associated with entities58may relate to official activities, unofficial activities, commercial activities, regulatory activities, and the like.

Accordingly, activities data98may relate to responsibilities, undertakings, interests, willingness to engage in support or regulation, willingness to provide useful information, willingness to implement remedies, and the like. Similarly, ownership data100may be significant, even critical, to identification both of users and owners of defective products, as well as the responsibility chain or liability relationships of various entities in the manufacturing, distribution, and marketing processes related to defective products.

Accordingly, ownership data100may be extremely important to an overall resolution of product defects by independent third parties operating as development entities36. Thus, responsibility information102may actually relate to both ownership data100and to legal theories of responsibility, liability, and the like imposed by means of regulation, statute, contract, and the like. Thus, responsibility data102may provide linkages to various entities associated with various aspects of providing and operating products. Responsibility data102may extend to ownership data100associated, not only with ownership of factories and plants providing products, but with factories and plants using products after notification of defects.

Similarly, relationship data101may include legal, commercial, engineering, analytical, and other relationships by which entities may interact. Likewise, identification data103may be standard addresses, telephone numbers, other contact information, or relationships that may be hidden. For example, identification data103may include identification information relating to entities, relating to products, relating to batches, relating to lots, and the like, as required to link entities with products, link products with products, link products with processes, and so forth establishing the standards bodies data96that is appropriate, the ownership data100that applies throughout the manufacturing, distribution, and use of defective products, and the responsibility chains102that may exist between any entities. Other data99deemed useful regarding various entities may also be stored as appropriate.

Referring toFIG. 4, an evaluation system34or evaluation entity34may include numerous subsystems. The subsystems may also be thought of as sub-entities, or sub-functions. Thus, the evaluation system34may be thought of as describing either a system of entities and their interactions, the functionalities, the interactions, or all of the above. Thus, in general, an evaluation system34may include design104corresponding to and responsible for providing product design. Design104typically provides aesthetics and ergonomics associated with making a product pleasant, useful, and the like. By contrast, engineering106is typically responsible for providing specification and functional analysis. In an evaluation system34, design104may be dedicated to evaluation of design features. Similarly, engineering106made to be focused on the engineered aspects of a defective, or suspected defective product.

Similarly, manufacturing108may be responsible for evaluation12of manufacturing processes and materials in a product. Similarly, distribution110, marketing112, and advertising114, may all be invested in one or more persons, entities, systems, databases, and the like in order to evaluate distribution, marketing, and advertising, respectively, corresponding to a defective product. Often, the major education or communication processes of industry relate to the distribution110, marketing112, and advertising114entities within a manufacturing or distribution process. In the evaluation entity34or evaluation system34, the entities110,112,114, are responsible for providing the data and evaluation thereof corresponding to these functionalities.

Similarly, a failure modes and effects analysis entity116may evaluate, by any suitable means, whether with data or actual products, to properly evaluate12a product, or its performance in failure modes anticipated.

From a business point of view, ownership entities118, control entities120, and decision entities122may also be thought of as entities responsible for evaluating, or as systems responsible for providing evaluation12of ownership118, control and agency120, and decisions122that did or must have occurred within the manufacturing and distribution chain associated with a product.

By the same token, communications124, financing126, profits128, and consequences129typically relate to business aspects of distribution and manufacturing of a product. Accordingly, entities, systems, or processes for evaluation12of such information may be assigned to entities or tasks regarded as decision entities122, communications or systems124, financing entities or systems126, profit evaluation systems or entities128, and consequence evaluation systems or entities129.

Referring toFIG. 5, a development system36or system entity36may include entities or systems, as appropriate for accomplishing various tasks, such as collection and evaluation of information, providing analyses, providing new product design specifications or modification methods, and so forth. In general, a development system36will provide the functions for a new or modified product that a manufacturer, original developer, or other associated with the product would have provided in the beginning. The same functions must be performed for a modified product or a modification to a product. Similarly, an independent solution, a product in itself, must reasonably undergo the development process to assure that it indeed meets its functional requirements and needs, as dictated by the flaws being corrected in a subject product.

A product design system130may focus on the design aspects, including graphics, pleasantness, and general functionality that may not be as technically oriented, but nevertheless provides an operational and pleasing product. Similarly, functional analysis systems132provide the analytical support for the proof of concept and operation of an improvement process or product. Structural analysis134may involve a mechanical analysis of a mechanical system or a software testing analysis of the integrity of data structures and their relationships within a software product (e.g. application, module, etc.). An ergonomic analysis system136provides the information required to assure that users can interact with a product suitably. For example, the ability of a user to read, distinguish, understand, interpret, and the like various icons, statements, text, labels, buttons, and the like on a computer screen may be extremely important. Interacting with mechanical or computer systems may greatly influence their utility.

Reliability, availability, maintainability, and durability analysis systems138may be implemented to assure that in time, between failures, the net downtime compared to the uptime, the total amount of service that a product requires, and the lifetime of a product are suitable.

In order to provide testing, tests must be designed. Therefore, a testing design system140may be implemented by persons, machines, programs, or the like in order to provide testing design that will prove a product improvement, product modification, or solution product as a reliable option. Similarly, functional testing systems142will actually implement tests as designed in order to assure that the functional features or functional operation of a solution product or product improvement operate correctly.

Likewise, structural testing systems144and ergonomics testing systems146may execute tests as designed in order to assure that the structural integrity, whether mechanically structurally or logically structurally evaluated, meet product requirements. Similarly, RAM-D testing systems148may assure the reliability, availability, maintainability, and durability of a product in accordance with expectations of meantime between failure, net fraction of up time or operational time compared to downtime, the total cost and effort associated with maintenance, and the overall lifetime of the product are suitable.

In certain embodiments of an apparatus and method in accordance with the invention, test equipment design systems150may be required in order to implement tests. Hardware and software must be designed in order to provide test conditions to meet testing design criteria. Likewise, test equipment manufacturer systems152may include people, machines, processes, and the like as needed to provide test equipment effective to conduct tests. Thus, test equipment may be manufactured in accordance with test equipment designs, in order to meet the conditions required to be imposed on a product during a test as designed.

Referring toFIG. 6, intellectual property rights systems38may include people, processes, equipment, information, programs, computers, and the like as necessary to secure intellectual property rights. Accordingly, mark systems154for securing trademarks, service marks, and the like may be implemented. Copyright systems165may be implemented and relied upon. Other systems158may be relied upon, including contracts, secrecy (e.g. trade secret protection), confidentiality, hiring, contracting, and the like in order to protect other intellectual property by other mechanisms. Also, patent systems160may be in place to regularly or systematically identify and harvest patentable inventions.

Various of types of marks154may include trademarks162or systems162for securing trademarks. In general, the illustration ofFIG. 6identifies certain intellectual property rights38, and also fills the need of identifying intellectual property rights systems38effective for securing and enforcing those intellectual property rights38. Thus, marks154and systems154for marks may include trademarks162, service marks164, certification marks166, collective marks168, and the like, as provided for in law.

Similarly, copyrights156and systems156configured to secure and enforce copyrights may be directed to information170, collections172, including directories174, and lists176, and so forth177, as well as various sources of information such as instructions178. For example, instructions178and systems178for capturing instructions may include software, instructions for modifying software, machine level instructions, software code for instructing a processor and a computer, and the like.

Patents160, and systems160for securing patents may include provisional patent applications182, and utility patent applications180. Utility applications180, or utility patents180may include patents directed to methods184, whether detection methods188or solution methods190, related to a subject product having a flaw to be detected and solved. Similarly, utility patents180may include apparatus, typically in hardware or software, which may include improvement patents192, retrofit systems194, alternative systems196, or other combinations, improvements, and the like198. Intellectual property158may include trade secrets or other intellectual property having value, and protected by some other mechanism. Typically, protections may be available by secrecy, contract, and the like, rather than by statutory registrations.

Referring toFIG. 7, a process40suitable for motivating a reluctant vendor or manufacturer of a defective product from implementing an improvement product or an improved product may be useful. In one embodiment, a motivational process40may include a disclosure200disclosing certain problems to a manufacturer or supplier. Thus, a provider of a defective product upon receiving disclosure200may be informed of information identifying or describing a problem206. Likewise, relational information208may be provided in the disclosure200. That is, identifying the relationship between a product, a problem, a liability, and a provider of the product may be important.

Accordingly, relations information208may be important as part of a complete and effective disclosure200. Similarly, disclosure of solutions210may be critical to the understanding and the assurance of a potentially liable provider, thus assuring a limitation to liability and continuation of the problem. The presence of a solution210may be important to motivation to acknowledge a problem.

Additional information that may be provided in a disclosure200may be financial analysis212. For example, costs214whether relating to products, or improvements, damages, solutions, testing, or the like may all be important in the motivation of a provider of a product. Similarly, identification of risk information216and reward information218. For example, proper presentation of corrections may actually be a profitable enterprise for a responsible provider. By the same token, risks216and rewards218may be shared by various entities including providers of a product, evaluation entities34, and development entities36responsible for providing either testing, solutions, or both.

Other information219may be provided as appropriate. In particular, certain terms220may be provided as a motivation. That is, measuring risks216, rewards218, profits, losses, liabilities, and the like, in terms220under which a solution may be obtained (e.g. detection, correction, or both) may be a motivating factor toward acknowledgment and correction of problems.

Before, after, or concurrently with a disclosure200, an acquisition step202may acquire shareholder status for a developer or other entity giving a particular required status in a company. Similarly, an acquisition step204to acquire class status may be used. In fact, both acquisition processes202,204may be used. A shareholder status acquisition202provides some small degree of ability to influence from inside. Meanwhile, acquisition204of class status as a customer, or other user, or damaged party using a defective product may provide a cause of action against a company that refuses to take responsibility for faulty products.

If the disclosure200, and ultimately the provided terms220, are accepted by a company responsible for a defective product, then a test222proceeds forward affirmatively toward compliance monitoring230. Otherwise, if the test222results in non-acceptance of the disclosure200, terms220, subsequent licensing, or the like, then a demand224may be lodged. Demanding224a settlement or acceptance of a settlement offer may result in an obligation on a company to disclose and accept the risk that the knowledge imparted by the disclosure200puts into the company at risk. If the risk is disclosed and accepted, then a test226moves toward compliance monitoring230, with respect to the disclosure200.

On the other hand, instance of an unmotivated company that does not agree with the assessment of its liability may choose to stonewall against the disclosure200, or even threaten, resulting in a suit232. The suit may also imply an additional responsibility on a company to identify the fact that it is involved in litigation over the issue at hand. Again, if the risks have not been disclosed and accepted by the company, then additional causes of action exist in the suit232against the non-disclosing company.

In each case, if the test226results in proper acknowledgment to shareholders of the risks and existence associated with the outstanding liability, compliance monitoring230may be appropriate. In each case, however, to the extent that a risk is not disclosed and accepted, fully informing shareholders, then a suit232may be followed by discovery234followed by trial236, and ultimately a judgment238.

In any event, the progress, if not adequately reported, may add to additional risk, which must be reported and disclosed, returning repeatedly to the test226. A judgment238results in compliance monitoring230with respect to the judgment. Compliance monitoring230may include monitoring of warranties by a company with respect to its performance in dealing with the information from the disclosure200, or with respect to any aspect of the legal actions232-238.

Meanwhile, issues of infringement242may be monitored, since alternative solutions proposed by a company, and outside those developed by an independent development entity36may actually fail, resulting in a temptation to use an infringing solution. Meanwhile, functionality244of any proposed solution may actually be in question. That is, a development entity36may provide a solution, and a company responsible for the product may develop an alternative. Nevertheless, if the alternative is not fully adequate, then it is not a true alternative. Thus, functionality monitoring244may be a part of compliance monitoring230of the activities of a company.

If a company remains compliant, then a test246for compliance affirmatively answered maintains stable, or ends in the test247and process40. A negative response to the test246for compliance may result in additional disclosures200relative to the risks being run by non-compliance, looping through the entire motivation process again.

All of the information discussed with respect toFIGS. 3-6, and the entities and processes associated with theFIGS. 1-7may be relied upon as appropriate during any and each of the steps of the process40.

Referring toFIG. 8, one alternative of embodiment of compliance monitoring230may include compliance monitoring of warranty provisions240. That is, a warranty by a provider of a defective product, as a result of negotiation, settlement, or the like, with respect to a motivation process40, licensing process24, or the like may be warrantied240against degradation250of performance, and affirmatively in favor of effectiveness251of a product.

For example, warranties240may be made providing that no degradation of service, operational parameters, or the like will occur. Similarly, the effectiveness to do the functional job may be warranted. Thus, warranty monitoring240may involve monitoring250of product performance to test for degradation, as well as monitoring251of effectiveness to be able to properly operate and perform the function for which the product is intended.

Similarly, a provider of a defective product, or a formerly defective product, may contract, covenant, or be ordered to provide242a proposed solution. The proposed solution provided242may be that from the developer36, or may be, optionally, an alternative solution proposed by the product provider itself.

As part of compliance monitoring230, a proposed solution, subject to the warranty provisions240, may be evaluated244. For example, evaluations determining whether the solution fits all cases252, or a test for all cases252may be part of the evaluation244functionality. Similarly, evaluation254of limits, such as, for example, degradation of performance as one option, may be significant. Similarly, evaluation256for non-violation of intellectual property rights may also be a part of evaluation244of the functionality of the proposed alternative solution optionally proffered by a supplier of a formerly defective product.

Referring toFIG. 9, an apparatus270may implement the invention on one or more nodes271, (client271, computer271) containing a processor272(CPU12). All components may exist in a single node271or may exist in multiple nodes271,312remote from one another. The CPU272may be operably connected to a memory device274. A memory device274may include one or more devices such as a hard drive or other non-volatile storage device276, a read-only memory278(ROM) and a random access (and usually volatile) memory280(RAM/operational memory).

The apparatus270may include an input device282for receiving inputs from a user or another device. Similarly, an output device284may be provided within the node271, or accessible within the apparatus270. A network card286(interface card) or port288may be provided for connecting to outside devices, such as the network290

Internally, a bus292may operably interconnect the processor272memory devices274, input devices282, output devices284, network card286and port288. The bus292may be thought of as a data carrier. As such, the bus292may be embodied in numerous configurations. Wire, fiber optic line, wireless electromagnetic communications by visible light, infrared, and radio frequencies may likewise be implemented as appropriate for the bus292and the network290.

Input devices282may include one or more physical embodiments. For example, a keyboard294may be used for interaction with the user, as may a mouse296or stylus pad. A touch screen298, a telephone299, or simply a telephone line299, may be used for communication with other devices, with a user, or the like. Similarly, a scanner300may be used to receive graphical inputs which may or may not be translated to other character formats. The hard drive301or other memory device301may be used as an input device whether resident within the node271or some other node312(e.g.,312a,312b, etc.) on the network290, or from another network310.

Output devices284may likewise include one or more physical hardware units. For example, in general, the port288may be used to accept inputs and send outputs from the node271. Nevertheless, a monitor302may provide outputs to a user for feedback during a process, or for assisting two-way communication between the processor272and a user. A printer304or a hard drive306may be used for outputting information as output devices284.

In general, a network290to which a node271connects may, in turn, be connected through a router308to another network310. In general, two nodes271,312may be on a network290, adjoining networks290,310, or may be separated by multiple routers308and multiple networks310as individual nodes271,312on an internetwork. The individual nodes312(e.g.271,312,314) may have various communication capabilities.

In certain embodiments, a minimum of logical capability may be available in any node312. Note that any of the individual nodes271,312,314may be referred to, as may all together, as a node271or a node312. Each may contain a processor272with more or less of the other components14-44.

A network290may include one or more servers314. Servers may be used to manage, store, communicate, transfer, access, update, and the like, any practical number of files, databases, or the like for other nodes312on a network290. Typically, a server314may be accessed by all nodes271,312on a network290. Nevertheless, other special functions, including communications, applications, directory services, and the like, may be implemented by an individual server314or multiple servers314.

In general, a node271may need to communicate over a network290with a server314, a router308, or nodes312. Similarly, a node271may need to communicate over another network (310) in an internetwork connection with some remote node312. Likewise, individual components12-46may need to communicate data with one another. A communication link may exist, in general, between any pair of devices.

Referring toFIG. 10, a memory system320may include one or more physical entities containing information useable by persons or a computer. In one embodiment, a memory system320may include one or more physical memory devices associated with processors or computer-readable otherwise in order to feed information into a processor. Thus, in general, a memory system320may store executables and operational data for use by a computer in providing analysis, and outputs having utility in accordance with the invention. In certain embodiments, a memory system320may store research information322. The research processes320or research module320may include research information, and research executables for supporting or effecting research. Similarly, an engineering module324, whether physically a single entity or whether only logically related separate entities, may provide engineering.

A management module326, which may be made up of other modules, logically related, whether or not physically contiguous in any portion of the memory system320. In general, any module322,324,326,327may be embodied as any number of executable instructions at any level of instruction. For example, a single, machine-level instruction, or half a million lines of source code may each serve a role as some type of a module. Similarly, data compositions may be provided as operational data for use in execution by a processor. Such a combination of data may be a module.

A product module327may embody the portions of a product improvement process or offering in order to rectify flaws in a previously marketed product. Accordingly, a product module327may be made up of separate modules that may be embodied in a computer readable medium in order to be distributed, or to facilitate distribution of product testing, product repair, or other product-related information. The modules making up the product module327may be fully executable or fully operable on a computer.

Alternatively, portions of the product module327may be exclusively operable on a computer. In other embodiments, portions of the product module327may be software elements provided for use by a technician or user in implementing methods in accordance with the invention to correct or improve a product previously sold as a faulty or defective product.

A research module322may include research criteria328. Research criteria328may include any information regarded as significant, important, required, or helpful in either making investigations or in operating experiments and tests, or even in simply inquiring of search engines. Accordingly, the research module322may include processes and systems for research instruments330. As with other illustrations herein, the memory system320may also be thought of as a model or illustration of systems for providing the information and elements that are identified herein.

For example, research instruments330may include hardware, software, or both for conducting tests, controlling tests, or evaluating tests. Similarly, setting up tests, designing tests, or the like may also be included in research instruments330.

Nevertheless, the research instruments module330may also be thought of as one representation of information, software, programming, or the like effective to operate or interact with research instrumentation. Similarly, each block within the memory system320illustrated inFIG. 10may be interpreted as the system for providing information, or as the software, the hardware, the code, or any of the above. Similarly, each module within the memory system320may also be considered as the information itself.

Accordingly, the research module322may include search engines332for searching other data or databases based on research criteria328. Thus, individual or independent research instruments330may provide new information, while the search engines332may search for previous obtained information of others. Thus, the research database module334may receive information both from the research instruments330and the search engines332, in accordance with the research criteria328.

Research criteria may include products, product specifications, operations, advertising information, claims, functionality, common uses, and the like. Research instruments330may be configured to test or evaluate any fact for its veracity. Research instruments330may also be implemented to test a product for performance in accordance with advertised, regulated, standardized, promised, or expected performance factors as identified in research criteria328.

An engineering module324may include engineering analysis tools336, engineering modeling tools338, engineering design tools340, product design tools342, and the like. In general, engineering analysis tools336may be thought of as analytical processes, programs, data, hardware, or any combination thereof that may be effective to evaluate the performance and function of a product in question.

Engineering modeling tools338may be used to predict performance of such a product based on measurable or other identifiable parameters. Thus, engineering modeling tools338maybe thought of as predicting performance. Engineering analysis tools336may be thought of as determining whether or not a device performs in a particular way, determining the failure modes and effects, and the like.

Meanwhile, engineering design tools340may be thought of as tools relied upon by a developer36or development entity36in designing a product. Accordingly, information, computer programs, hardware, and the like, may all be a part of the engineering design tool module340available in the engineering module324as needed to prepare a solution for a defective product or an effective test system for identifying defective products.

Product design tools342may sometimes be confused with engineering design tools340. Nevertheless, product design processes are typically considered to be those associated with the acceptability or usability of a product with respect to a user. Engineering design tools340are usually regarded as those associated with strict functionality within some specification, which is typically independent of human users, but may relate to function, strength, electrical parameters, data parameters, and so forth.

A management module326may include an administrative module344corresponding to administration of the research module322, the engineering module324, and possibly the product module327. In general, administration344is a major part of tracking all information, feeding information into an analysis programs, retrieving outputs, and so forth. The management module326may include a data reduction module346containing analytical processes and systems effective to reduce data to information usable in making decisions.

Similarly, a research communications module348may provide the functionality required in order to communicate between various modules322,324,326,327or within those modules. For example, information must be retrieved, distributed, analyzed, returned, and so forth in order to control systems, collect information, distribute required information to users thereof, and the like.

A product module327, as with all the modules322,324,326,327, may be embodied in any suitable configuration in order to accomplish the logical purpose thereof, regardless of physical location of information or executable commands at any given time. Nevertheless, a product module327may include a test module354, a deliverable provided to or capable of being provided to a user or vendor of a faulty product in order to test such products to determine whether or not a subject flaw exists in the product.

Similarly, a solution module356may be optional, and may be distributed to a vendor, user, or others associated therewith in order to provide a solution solving a discovered flaw, discovered as a result of the test module354or by other mechanisms. That is, for example, testing and analysis may show that a particular serial number identifies a product having a flaw as a result of being manufactured by a specific process or at a specific location.

Accordingly, a test module354may not be required if certain faulty products may be identified readily from some other criteria. Nevertheless, a solution module356may typically follow a test module354identifying a product as faulty. Accordingly, a solution module356may be embodied in computer instructions effective to correct the hardware or software flaw detected in the product.

Similarly, a delivery module358may include any or all of those processes, information, and things required to deliver a test module354, a solution module356, or both to an appropriate destination. For example, a delivery module358may embody any or all, or any subset of all of the required processes, steps, and things required in order to provide information and services to an entity affected by a faulty product.

Typically, a delivery module358may be used to inform perspective recipients of the existence, value, and criteria associated with the test module354. Similarly, the delivery module358may embody processes and methods for identifying the significance, requirement, and availability of the solution module356. Thus, the delivery module358may be an engine operating over the Internet to download software for the test modules354, or solution modules356made available with respect to a particular product.

By contrast, the delivery module358may be conventional mailings of diskettes to users or purchasers identified with sales of a defective product. Various mechanisms for delivery module358may be embodied as required to obtain effective coverage of the distribution of test modules354, solutions modules356, or both.

The compliance module360may be embodied in several configurations to operate over conventional communication systems, networks, the Internet, on individual computers, or through other information collection systems. In general, a compliance module360may provide information calculated to determine compliance of a vendor, supplier, manufacturer, or other entity in the supply chain, responsible for defective products, in order to determine whether or not the correct licensed solution, infringing solution, or an inadequate and faulty solution is being provided.

In certain embodiments, a compliance module360may simply be a computer program operating on a computer in a test laboratory to which selected samples of products (e.g. test modules354, solution modules356, or both354,356) may be sent in order to do a sampled analysis for compliance. Thus, a memory system320consolidated on a single memory device, on a diskette, on a computer readable medium of any type, in a computer system, distributed throughout multiple computer systems throughout the world, or in any suitable configuration may provide research322, engineering324, management326, and product327effective to identify and remedy faulty products provided from a product supply chain from a manufacturer to users. From the above discussion, it will be appreciated that the present invention provides a method and apparatus for development of solutions to product defects by independent developers as third parties independent from purchasers and sellers of the products. A method and apparatus for improvement of computer-related products by an independent developer may solve problems in hardware or software inadvertently, negligently, or intentionally left in products marketed by a vendor. An independent developer may procure access to a product, develop a testing regimen for functionality of the product, and perform evaluations to identify sources of any operational defects found.

Accordingly, the developer may then provide a generalized testing regimen to test instances of product provided by a vendor, identify those containing the flaw, and may optionally provide a solution to the flaw, where practicable. The independent developer may obtain intellectual property rights in the testing, solution or both for the product. Thus, by notifying a vendor, an independent developer may become a supplier of testing or solution systems, motivating a supplier by one of several mechanisms. The developer may obtain a legal status with respect to the vendor by becoming a customer or user, in order to provide motivation to a recalcitrant vendor not designed to take responsibility for defects known and continued in marketed products.