[schoen]

I remember being confused as a kid about the "this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation" labels.

I kept reading "must accept" as a technical requirement, somehow like "must not be shielded against" or "must not use technical means to protect against", rather than what I now think is the intended legal sense "does not have any legal recourse against".

It's weird that they phrased it in terms of how the device itself must "accept" the interference, rather than the owner accepting it.

[bitwize]

I always thought it meant "must continue to function despite" such interference, i.e., it must not blow up or break permanently in the presence of such interference.