Re: Economics of software security?
> "To the extent not prohibited by law". i.e those words are a waste of space as they have no legal standing at all but are just intended to persuade someone not to attempt to exercise their rights.
Disclaimer: IANAL
Whilst that may be a convenient side effect, I believe that this phrase is legally significant in its own right.
Where that clause or equivalent is missing and the wording of the disclaimer is illegal (ie. Denies protected rights, very common with warranty and fitness for purpose disclaimers), the whole clause can be struck out by a court if challenged. That can leave the company horribly exposed. This clause gives them an out in many cases because their defense is that because they explicitly exclude your lawful protections from the restriction* they cannot be accused of trying to usurp them.
*Which Jo Average often does not realise even exist.
Pro tip: when trying to claim under warrant and the retailer and/or manufacturer are not playing ball and a reasonable impartial person** would agree that you have a case, using the right key phrases as expressed in your consumer protection laws goes a long way to getting your issue resolved.
** That requires some humble pie and not your BFF on twitface.