George,

>No, I disagree. As stated in my other post, by definition, quality is conformance to requirements, nothing more. Any other definition is subjective. The product either does what it's supposed to or it doesn't. As a matter of fact, there was a book on the subject of quality within the last 15 years. It's title is: "Quality is free". By failing to produce a product that meets the requirements, you increase your cost, not lower it.

I think we have different interpretations of the word quality. By your definition I still doubt..... On the other general interpretation I think the law is true.

Example: Two companies make radios. One company makes radios on the same specifications as the other but company1 uses components of better quality (more expensive) than company2. The radio of company1 is lightly more expensive to buy. I client would not buy the radio of company1 because company2 delivers the same radio (same spefications) for less money.

Note that in the requirements was nothing noted regarded the quality of the components so both radios have the same conformance to requirements.

Walter,