Though what you say is true, an engineer, who would be required in this case, might also need to examine the test data to prove that there was malpractice.
If Nvidia can prove that no failures ever happened to them in testing and their testing fulfilled the laws statutes, then no matter what the plaintiff says or does, or even the judge, the company would be deemed to have released their product in good faith.
The guilt might actually lie with the middle man, the brand who redesign their boards with custom PCB and silk screen, and add their own connectors.
Note that this connector is an Intel patent, and Nvidia can offset liability to them if it proves the connector is a dud.
Just because in California, a judge can see a precidence, it can still be overturned on appeal or by the Federal Judges, making this even more murky and fudge like.
None of that matters. This isn't a criminal trail so throw all that law drama nonsense out the window, there is no "guilt", no law is required to have been broken, only one side has a claim of damages from another. There will be no "engineer prove X" or some youtube guy making some comment, or even a publicity statement from nVidia being used, none of that matters. Also there is no such thing as "good faith" or "best effort" in a civil case, this is why there are insane warning tags on everything.
The plaintiff claims damages and will have their lawyer make a statement to a jury, of random people, of why they thing they deserve those damages. The defendant will have their lawyers on why they think they plaintiff doesn't deserve those damages, then both sides get to present any evidence supporting their claim while also refuting the evidence presented by the other side. When it's over with, that jury, of random people, go into a room and discuss which side had the better argument and how much damages, if any, should be awarded. The important part about this is these random people don't own nVidia stock, aren't fans and generally don't like large corporations in general. If it becomes a class action, meaning multiple plaintiffs, then it gets super bad for the defendant because it immediately bolsters the arguments of the plaintiffs. Pictures of obvious burning on a consumer electronic with the argument of "they made a dangerous product" do not go over well with jury's. The defense of "hey it wasn't that dangerous and the dude didn't plug it in all the way" really doesn't go over well with jury's. It's why almost every civil lawsuit gets settled long before reaching trial. A settlement gets entered with an NDA attached to not discuss the settlement, the plaintiff drops the lawsuit and everyone walks away.
Also people be thinking that a civil suit is this one sided affair where nVidia says "dude didn't plug it in" and the judge says "oh I guess trial over". Each side gets to attack the other sides arguments, and the jury is already predisposed to disbelieve the big multi-billion USD corporation.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram