I don't think it's possible to list ANY part of a computer as "germ free". A better way to advertise would be to show the NASTY pictures we had posted on Gizmodo not so long ago and then say "At least we don't look like this".

Real mice carry millions of germs. These computer mice, by comparison, are germ free. Therefore, IOGEAR's claim makes sense. From a certain point of view.

Monty,

Unless the mice (the electronic variety) were autoclaved/sterilzed prior to shipment and packaged in biohazard-proof packaging, they aren't germless...even right off the line... About all they can claim is, "hey look, this 'new' mouse is visibly 'cleaner-looking' than your old mouse must be by now!"....

What doesn't kill ya makes ya stronger.

But the fact that the FDA came down on them is more a reflection of them violating the laws surrounding such claims, rather than that the claims themselves are necessarily completely bogus. But the cost to actually prove their claims and get the device approved by the FDA would probably make the mice cost $1000 each, so of course they'll just stop marketing it that way.

Honestly I doubt that even a perfect "germ free mouse" would make any difference to anyone's health apart from maybe the placebo effect for the terminal hypochondriac.

Z.

@Zoot:

Wel it would make some difference if you have a severe illeness which affects your immune system or if a germ free mouse is needed in a sterlie enviroment.

But even then you would have to make sure that its heated in a autoclave to make it germ free in the first place, packed in a sterile enviroment, and you may only unpack it again in a sterile enviroment.

But for that you can also use any other mouse which survives the autoclave ,..

It would also make a difference if you're a scientist working in a clean room, although the typical scientist working in a clean room wouldn't be such a dumbass as to believe the packaging claims of a "germ free" mouse.

On the other hand, if IOGEAR starts selling mouse-free germs, that could be HUGE!!!

Uh, fining IoGear $280,000 and expecting them to worry is like me putting a dollar in between a strippers breast, then getting mad because she doesn't loving me?

What I mean is. . . that is chump change to a large corporation.

It's a headline though, and that's more serious.

The final fee that was levied was probably reduced. Environmental penalties are typically levied for every day the company is out of compliance with whatever law (like, $10,000 per day or whatever). But then these fees are subject to negociations and can be reduced if the said company quickly corrects the problem.

This was probably part of a bigger recent case in which a lot of companies were caught up: a lot of these products are coated in a surface made with silver nanoparticles, which supposedly make for a very inhospitable environment for microorganisms. The problem is that none of the companies making the stuff actually went through the necessary FDA approval, as berribrand deduced. So it doesn't mean the stuff ISN'T an effective antimicrobial, just that it hasn't been through rigorous enough testing to merit the label.