> The fact that their methods differed from what the manufacturer recommends would not be a problem if they could prove that the false positive/false negative rates were up to the relevant standards.
Well, better than the relevant standards. Otherwise all the "reverse engineering" -- i.e, tampering -- is fucking meaningless.
It's meaningless if nothing is better about how you're doing it. Presumably in this case the thing they wanted to improve was the amount of sample you need to use, not the false positive/negative rates.
But they knew at the time they were peddling it that they didn't yet have that advantage. So selling it on the premise that they did was... Well, fraudulent, in my book.
Well, better than the relevant standards. Otherwise all the "reverse engineering" -- i.e, tampering -- is fucking meaningless.