Why Can't Microsoft be Sued Under the Lemon Law? 210
briant97 asks: "Microsoft is sitting back making all this money by charging for desktop and server operating systems. If you go for a server, they also add additional charges through client access licenses. Well, now that they've charged you all this money they leave their software open to viruses and exploits beyond belief, which will cost your company even more money. When will it stop? When will Microsoft become liable for their actions? I mean they are making billions while costing other companies billions. Ford, Chevy, and all other car manufactures get held liable if they make a defective product, why not Microsoft?" One can argue that you sign away your right to seek damages from Microsoft, by agreeing to the EULA, however there is still this issue as to the strength of a EULA since they've never been tested in court. How do you feel about this subject? Should software owners be allowed to "sign" away their basic rights via click-thru licensing, or should software manufacturers be liable for the critical defects that show up in their software?
Lemon Law (Score:5, Insightful)
From http://www.mylemon.com/faq.htm:
What types of products are covered by the Lemon Law ?
All motor vehicles primary used for personal use are covered under the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Lemon Law.
Re:Lemon Law (Score:2)
So while the lemon laws might not fit, I'd suspect some sort of action could be run through the Better Business Bureau [bbb.org]. What exactly you'd try to nail them with is up to you. I'm more of an idea man.
BBB (Score:2, Flamebait)
Several years ago, I tracked down a spammer with a clearly fraudulent make-money-fast scam, and filed a complaint with the BBB. They didn't ac
I'm also feeling addicted to Windows (Score:4, Funny)
Just like smoking.
Re:I'm also feeling addicted to Windows (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm also feeling addicted to Windows (Score:2)
Yeah I was a gamer, too.
slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:slippery slope (Score:5, Interesting)
It's bound to happen eventually. And I have to believe that the liability for software would not exceed it's purchase price unless there are punative damages for gross negligence. I was told by an engineer who sometimes works as an expert witness in product liability suits that it's very hard to prove negligence, so I don't think Joe College-student who is giving away his Free and Open Source project for free would be affected.
Re:slippery slope (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:slippery slope (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:slippery slope (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:slippery slope (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:slippery slope (Score:2)
The point he was trying to make was that even though the student may win in court, he likely won't have the resources to go up against a large company in court.
Re:slippery slope (Score:2)
Re:slippery slope (Score:5, Informative)
Even Microsoft will not be liable for their software defects. They make it perfectly clear in their own license (their exeption is refunds and replacement of the software).
Kinda debunks that concept about paying Microsoft licenses for the sake of having a liable software provider, doesn't it?
Re:slippery slope (Score:2)
I concur, Dumbass.
Re:slippery slope (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:slippery slope (Score:2)
And what if we replace the appropriate nouns with Ford, utomobiles, and automotive manufacturers? The problem is that consumers are not and never will be knowledgeable enough to judge softwar
Re:slippery slope (Score:4, Insightful)
And what do auto manufacturers do? They recall the cars and modify them. Put simply, they upgrade them. What does MS do when there's a new Windows vulnerability? Exactly the same thing.
Grab.
Re:slippery slope (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe he's arguing about it because you don't even understand the terms you are using, so you are obviously clueless.
Are you honestly going to sit there and insist that a normal, home PC is somehow worthy of lemon laws which are designed to protect the lives of citizens like you and me?
You believe that Lemon Laws are designed to protect lives and use this as your argument that software doesn't need similar laws. Go learn what Lemon laws actually are and then you'll realize how silly you look.
And why are you being so abusive to people in an argument over something you don't even understand? Is it because Microsoft was used as a perfect example of the type of company we need protection from? Why do you pledge allegiance to Microsoft? Do you work for it? Do you own stock in it? Tell us please.
Re:slippery slope (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course there's a big difference between the GPL and a EULA. A EULA imposes additional terms upon the buyer after a sale! This is, of course, redonkulous and utterly unenforceable. The consumer software buying process goes like this - you go to store, you pay your money, you walk out with a box of soft
Re:slippery slope (Score:3, Insightful)
For the record, I'd never ever contribute anything to the Open Source Community if I would be held responsible for the criminal act of another party.
Here's the problem: Viruses don't write themselves. It'd be like suing Ford because somebody put sugar in your gas tank.
Re:slippery slope (Score:2)
It'd be like suing Ford because somebody put sugar in your gas tank.
It would be more like suing Ford because the factory installed locking gas cap doesn't actually lock BY DESIGN.
Re:slippery slope (Score:2)
Oh... so there were a bunch of assholes running around blowing up Pintos?
Poor analogy. (Score:2)
Windows machines don't just suddenly spawn viruses. Comparing Windows viruses to Pinto fires implies that somehow, when Windows bluescreens, it sends millions of malicious packets out into the Internet. Ropy as Windows is, it doesn't do that.
What might be a
Re:slippery slope (Score:2, Interesting)
Not so sure about open source: When you use a Microsoft product, you pay them for it. With this in mind, you can discuss what sort of liability they have. OTOH using open source products is free, so using them is like using a knife someone gave you for free: If you cut yourself, it's your problem.
Of cou
Re:slippery slope (Score:2, Insightful)
Until it's you being held liable. Sadly, all it takes is one little mistake.
I do think there needs to be some type of software liability laws, but they are going to have to be like nothing else out there, basically a totally new concept.
Re:slippery slope (Score:4, Insightful)
"Lemon Laws" basically let you get your money back on a defective product.
So, keeping to that idea - Sure, I'll gladly refund the purchase price of $0 when a program I write fails to work for someone.
Similarly (as a freelance contractor), if someone pays me to write a program, and it doesn't work... Well, I don't suppose I'd get paid, would I? So why should Microsoft (and any other commercial software house) not have to live up to the basic standard of "works as advertised"?
Re:slippery slope (Score:2)
Of course, someone building a shed or a doghouse is exposed to less liabilty than the builders of a n office tower in earthquake territory.
As is.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Just don't buy it to begin with.....
Re:As is.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. If there was no sale, then the store is liable for fraud - because they sold it to me. And if you wanna go bark up that tree, you'll find that MS sells the software to them, so MS would also be liable for fraud.
Just because you've fallen for the EULA propaganda, doesn't mean it's true.
Re:As is.... (Score:3, Informative)
The only sale is a bit of physical media. You can do with the CD itself what you like. If you want to play frisbee with it or use it as a coaster, MS isn't stopping you.
But the software, they just sold you a license to use it. Nothing more, nothing less. You go to Hertz and pay the rental price, you aren't being sold the car, are you? You're being sold a license to use it under certain conditions (one condition being that you give it back after the hire period).
I don't say it's good,
Re:As is.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit again. Where's their signature? Where's mine? What is the term of the license and how do I renew it or cancel it? Which company appointed agent negotiated the terms of the license with me?
When you buy a copy of Windows, that exactly what you do under the law as it stands. Software vendors have not quite managed to change that yet so they just pretend they have in the worthless EULA's that they produce.
no doubt some aren't, but they've not been tested in court any more than the GPL ever has been
The GPL's been tested millions of times in courts: it's called copyright. That's the crucial difference between, for example, MS's EULA and the GPL - the GPL gives you MORE rights while MS is trying to get you to sign AWAY rights (without signing). That's a huge difference when it comes to court. You don't have to sign something to agree to having more rights!
If you don't understand the license and click "I agree" anyway, that's your problem.
No it's not. If I have to yodel to get MY software to install then that's what I'll do. If I have to press a button marked "I Agree" then I'll do that too. Makes no odds: I still own the program just as much as I own my toaster. If the seller thinks that their pseudo-legal claptrap binds me any tighter than copyright law, then that's their problem.
TWW
exploder (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:exploder (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:exploder (Score:3, Insightful)
Which brings up an interesting questions. Does it matter as much what caused the malfunction as how you were using it when it happened? Say I'm driving my car 130mph down the freeway when a faulty tie-rod end breaks causing me to carom around the freeway createing a 20 car pile up.
Re:exploder (Score:2)
Re:exploder (Score:2)
Re:exploder (Score:2)
Grab.
Re:exploder (Score:2)
A consumer sale is not subject to an EULA, since they walk into a shop, pick up a box based on the flashy colours and title "Microsoft Doodaa: manage your doodaas more effectively", and pay for it. Even small print on the back may not apply since an old biddie with poor eyesight is expected to buy things without reading everything. It also means that if the box is labelled to indicate su
Re:exploder (Score:2)
Re:exploder (Score:2)
U.S. reactors literally cannot go Chernobyl in the event of failure. Once the temperature rises to the point where the moderating system is destroyed, the reaction shuts down since it can't take place without the moderating system. This is called a "negative void coefficient", and is an essential part of every Western design.
The RBMK reactor used in Chernobyl had a positive void coefficient. When they lost moderation, the r
Re:exploder (Score:3, Insightful)
Even Chernobyl wouldn't have gone Chernobyl if the stupid bastards running the plant hadn't disabled all the safeties and forced it into that state. [elon.edu]
Link above is from a Google search so here's the cache link [66.102.7.104] as well.
Re:exploder (Score:2)
Re:exploder (Score:2)
Re:exploder (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They should be liable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They should be liable (Score:3, Insightful)
Duh. They get away with it because they cannot guarantee the environment in which the software is run. Do you think your car would have a stellar warranty if there were no roads?
Because it would be bad for everyone... (Score:5, Interesting)
"But that's great!" you say. "Microsoft could be sued until they were just bits of blackened rubble!"
Yes, that would be wonderful.
Now, what about the floating-point exception handler bug in Linux? Well, looks like we'd have to sue Linus et al.
I'd be willing to bet that Microsoft would take a lot longer to reduce to rubble than Linus and his ragtag crew of happy software authors.
Even if you limit it only to software that's charged for, well, then, good bye RedHat. Ditto Mandrake. Bye SuSe. It's all over.
Basically, if the authors could be sued, then there would be no software industry.
I know the question was also asking why they couldn't be sued for allowing viruses in. Well, why can't Ford be sued for letting me drive my car on roads? There are *wrecks* on roads! What is Ford thinking??
The point of this whole rant is: Software is far, far to complex to be held to the same standards as physical products. Mankind has been making physical products for around 200,000 years now (if not more). We've been making software for 50. Let's wait until we have the same kind of experience making these products before we hold them to the same standard.
Re:Because it would be bad for everyone... (Score:3, Insightful)
But how much did this particular bug cost the industry? This would be the maximum liability. And obviously only the vendors would be liable; They're the ones selling it as a working OS suitable for certain purposes. There is only an implicit warrenty once you charge for it.
Re:Because it would be bad for everyone... (Score:2)
I have a couple of problems with this metric:
1. First of all, these numbers are always inflated. Do you really believe that worm X cost the industry $2.5 bil? Those are numbers that are calculated using estimates like the average amount of time lost per employee, or an average of how long it took to recover from it. These numbers are multiplied by other estimated numbers (number of companies out there * numb
Re:Because it would be bad for everyone... (Score:2)
Well, by that logic no one should sue aircraft manufacturers either, as airplanes have only been made for about 100 years. But yet it happens.
You can't cop out of liability by saying "my product is too complex for me to build properly." That's crap and you know it.
If it can cause the same kind of damage as a physical product, then it should have the same liability as a physical product.
I
Re:Because it would be bad for everyone... (Score:2)
Lets compare to building a bridge. A bridge is composed of i-beams, cables, bolts, straps, asphalt, etc. Now, lets say if there is paint pealing on the bridge. That doesn't cause it to collapse. Also, lets say if one of the bolts had internal fractures due to manufacturing. There are many thousands of bolts in that bridge. One of them failing isn't going to bring it down. And if one bad bolt can cause it to fail, then it wasn't engineered properly to begin
Isn't this important to open source as well? (Score:2)
Given, the GPL is not a EULA (End User License Agreement) -- the GPL only takes effect if you modify or distribute the application -- it still seems if it was tested and failed in court, it could have a big impact on OSS.
What do you think?
Re:Isn't this important to open source as well? (Score:2, Informative)
The prevailing wisdom is that the GPL only grants rights. It doesn't take them away. Hence if it was ruled invalid, anyone who distributed GPL software would be guilty of copyright infringement.
For much the same reason, it is quite unlikely that all clauses in an EULA would be invalidated. The part that permits you to install it on a machine would have to remain valid.
Re:Isn't this important to open source as well? (Score:3, Informative)
My opinion is that if software writers were liable for damages it would be the end of the software industry, including open source. Microsoft may last the longest but even it would be destroyed by litigation. All softwar
Re:Isn't this important to open source as well? (Score:2)
I dont see how the license would fail though.
Well (Score:2)
Now the problem is that companies buying software don't require full guarantees. If the DOD says this software must be perfect, then its the onus on the Seller to supply that guarantee.
This allows for open source companies to guarantee software without forcing every Linux distribut
This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is being no more negligent than their competitors would be. Businesses recognize the risk of using Microsoft, Apple, Sun, third-party or OSS software, and balance that against their need to actually use recent innovations. The end result, a fast life-cycle on development and rather unreliable products. Businesses suffer losses when software is compromised, but that's built into the cost of getting software years before it could be released otherwise.
If consumer advocacy laws applied to software development right now, you'd see innovation plummet. What few developers that would bother with top-notch reliability (which is comparitively boring) would still take years to create something after the idea was publically announced.
Meanwhile, some black market developers would create the same function in some illegal and wholly unsupported product, but businesses would buy it up like crazy.
The reason that these kinds of regulations are important with cars and pharmaceuticals is that these industries put people at risk to their lives. A flaw in a car will kill people. A flaw in software will cost a company some money, but is a threat that can be overcome through market practices. The company insures against damage, pays a premium, and gets reimbursed on loss. Nobody dies. Big fricking deal.
Businesses where reliability does matter (i.e. infrastructure and medical projects) go further and independently make sure they only use software that has gone through the ropes. This software tends to evolve more slowly, or else has a disproportionate amount of money thrown against it to speed things up.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:2)
The diffrence is that the software you speak of is running on a controlled environment. So long as your plane isn't expected to run Solitaire on a whim, it stands to reason that Delta (Boeing?) can reasonably guarantee its safety.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:2)
Same goes for the car. More developers work on smaller blocks of code with more failsafe techniques. This costs more money and takes more time, but is something that's necessary for that specific industry.
The reliability of consumer and corporate software is not that import
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:2)
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:2)
Liability For Software Bad (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Liability For Software Bad (Score:2)
Not very likely (Score:2)
I'd rather be willing to explore the possibilities to sue people who make decisions to license half-assed products, waste additional money on AV software and man hours to keep holes closed, employ incompetent administrators which results in wasting everybody's money and time when Internet links
Think of it like a car. (Score:5, Insightful)
My 1998 Honda had a problem with the ignition that, if a certain combination of environmental factors, driving habits, and the phases of the moon and planets all combined correctly, the contacts would corrode under the extreme voltage and cut power to the engine while in operation. Their response: Take the car to a dealer to have the ignition switch replaced free of charge.
I.e.: This otherwise safe and well designed car has a small flaw that under certain conditions may manifest itself in a potentially annoying to potentially dangerous way, depending on what you are doing.
Now, let's pretend it is a computer.
Your well-engineered and hardened security Windows 2003 Server system has a flaw in a protocol parser that allows, with the right combination of messsages, someone to cause code to be executed on your system.
In other words: This otherwise safe and well designed server operating system has a flaw which, depending on several factors, may manifest itself in an annoying or dangerous way.
Any complex system is going to have problems with it. Millions of lines of code, or hundreds of thousands of moving or conductive parts, each can have something fail if there's a tiny problem with it.
Microsoft releases their fixes free of charge, just like a dealer service recall on an automobile.
What's the problem here? You can eliminate 95% of these vaunerabilities by simply *not running without a firewall* and *not running unneeded services* which is (GASP) something you'd do on Linux as well. Linux is just as vaunerable if it's sitting open and unprotected on a network with 500 services running as root. Would you do that? No. So why do you do it with a Windows box?
If it's because Windows is more of a "turn-key" solution, and the user doesn't think to secure their box, it's not Microsoft's fault, the blame rests surely in USER ERROR.
Re:Think of it like a car. (Score:2)
The Honda problem didn't require any deliberate evil intent on the part of a third party to create it, but exploiting the OS vulnerability did.
Re:Think of it like a car. (Score:2)
I'll probably get flamed for this, but a better example would be not that the system breaks on it's own such as the faulty ignition switch given in the example, (BSOD defect) but both the Honda and the MS OS are favorites for thieves simply because they are both easy to break into and steal. When was the last time your Honda dealer had a recall simply because the car was a popular target for car thieves? Th
Re:Think of it like a car. (Score:2)
Windows until recently wasn't built to be attack proof. MS wised up about the "big city" deal with their 2003 server release, hardened to the bone.
Re:Think of it like a car. (Score:2)
Case in point, I rescued a box a few years back that some know-it-all had gone and edited
It wouldn't work (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets first talk about supported hardware configurations.
Before I would allow certain liabilities like this, I would require a given supported configuration. Lets say something like a Pentium 4 processor running at 3Ghz - without HyperThreading, A Chipset, a single graphics card (make it old too), a single hard disk from one manufacturer - the list goes on (well in reality - the list doesn't go on). Your hardware isn't in the supported configuration (You did buy directly from Dell didn't you ?) forget the support, it isn't a tested and qualified system.
Software configuration
You weren't going to install ANY other software on your system, other than mine... How do I know that THAT software didn't cause the problem - so nix any software purchases - or that will void the warantee as well.
So basically you end up with a supported system, that is completely useless. Not much fun at all. And you WANT to have this happen by getting lawyers involved ?
God, I hope so! (Score:2)
If there were enough demand for it, you'd expect software companies that are developing for pay to warranty their code. This would be one area where they could clearly outperform free-beer software! But I don't think such demand is very high, except in certain niche industries (defense, transportation, etc. although I thin
This would totally kill the software industry (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe that's a bit extreme. Seriously, software is way more complex than a car. Who among you would bet your entire net worth that you haven't shipped code with potentially serious bugs in it? There are always bugs.
Maybe a mandatory "your money back if you aren't satisfied" law would fly. But 99% of the people who take advantage of that offer are going to keep a backup copy of the software, "just in case"
This idea could never get past the unanimous opposition of every company in the software industry. Just live with it - software has bugs. If you don't like it switch to another package or just go back to pencil and paper.
Re:This would totally kill the software industry (Score:2)
I only have a little experience with the design of cars, I can't accurately judge your claim of complexity. But remember that cars are only about 40 years older than computers but are a far more understood beast than software. Automotive and mechanical engineers know where to expect things to b
Oil change (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't expect a car dealership to be liable if your engine siezes because you never changed the oil.
The patches and exploits are handled as they arise and if you keep up with the maintenance than you wont suffer catastrophic failure.
Sure this is a bit of a stretch but you have to take some damn responsibility. You can't blame MS for all your woes.
They make a good product that keeps the majority on the road. Every generation has new features and new flaws. The fact is the flaws are publicized and you have an opportunity to patch them.
The time and money spent is part of the upkeep. It is like oil in an engine... if you never maintain it it will fail. It will leave you stranded and up a creek with a very expensive repair.
However, when maintained you get acceptable operation.
Quit your mindless bitching! Blame the Virus Writers for writing the viruses. Patch your system be it MS, *nix or whatever. Take some damn responsibility and stop blaming everyone else.
djb's take on EULAs (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a lemon, it's a program (Score:2)
Why is this so misunderstood? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is this so misunderstood? Why is legal "analysis" like the preceding accepted as unquestioned fact?
Here's the thing. Well, here are the things--there are two of them.
So this entire
Try it! (Score:4, Interesting)
At least in the US anyone can sue anyone for anything. Winning however is difficult. Still, if you think you have a case call a lawyer and present it. If you really do have one, lawyers are good at filling in the details. Details like perhaps lemons laws are not the right path in your state where some other law is better.
Warning: not anyone can win a lawsuit. And you can be counter sued. Still slashdot is not the place to ask, most of us (such as me) are not lawyers, so we aren't aware of everything.
Even if EULAs are valid (which as others have noted is not tested), nearly all states will not allow you to sign away some rights. Might help you in itself. (if nothing else why test the EULA if the clause they are using isn't valid in your state)
There is one more downside: you have to deal with lawyers. No matter how evil you call Microsoft, lawyers are worse! Only sue if it is really worth it.
FTC Heard Arguments on This (Score:5, Insightful)
97 comments were filed publicly. Everyone from RMS [ftc.gov] to IEEE [ftc.gov] to, well, me [ftc.gov].
Basically, software warranties would make Free Software illegal. The model wouldn't work if we were held to quality expectations. Read the comments to educate yourself.
Defective products (Score:2)
Two ways (Score:2)
What this is all about is whether Microsoft is really costing people money or not. Why would Microsoft cost you money? Because you *had* to install or use their often defective products. Because you had no choice. So, two ways to look at it.
1) You have no choice. Linux simply doesn't do what Windows can. I don't agree with this but then this is what the parent is suggesting. Is the open source community letting us down? Besi
What about the responsible developers? (Score:2)
Have any of those developers been sued for bugs or defects?
Or is it the case that those developers do genuinely work to produce quality software while, as one might assume, the ones who disclaim all warranties are the ones who produce faulty products?
Micro$C0ft iz th4 suxx0rz!!!!111 (Score:2, Troll)
It would NOT cover software selling for less than $40.00, and would NOT cover strictly frivolous and
Consumer products vs. software (Score:3, Informative)
When you are developing a consumer product, whether electronic or not, there are usually a very limited number of modes of interaction between the user and the device, and generally a very well-defined, firmly specified set of data it operates on. Testing and making sure it works properly is relatively easy - you don't worry about whether somebody has a Voodoo 8 Extreme graphics card or Kingston 1-bit-weird RAM or the strange USB dongle that overrides the standard Windows drivers with their own DRM-enabled gunk. Product lifecycles are much longer, it may take anywhere from 8 to 36 months to get a product to market depending on its nature, and it is expected to have a shelf life of several years to earn back all the R&D costs and make a profit.
Anyway, if my device that plugs into a wall socket and has an on/off switch blows up and burns somebody's house down, it's pretty clear who's at fault - either the people that designed it, or the people that manufactured/assembled it. If my software fails, there's often no way to say whose "fault" it really is - was it the hardware assembler? The video card manufacturer with their flawed drivers? The OS developer with their crappy architecture? The spyware bundler that stuck destabilizing software on the system? Or the application developer who wrote an app that worked fine on all the systems they did QA on, but mysteriously failed in some unanticipated configuration?
Even ignoring these problems, we still have the issue of short product lifecycles, lots of feature-based competition, version warfare, and so on. They all occur in most product businesses, but at nowhere near the rate and intensity as in the software industry. And when it comes down to it, the people who buy software for personal use and often for businesses too, consistently prove they value ooh-ahh features and version numbers at least as much as, if not more than stability and security.
Ironically, this lemon law stuff usually comes from frustrated software developers, not consumers. The developers hate the fact that their companies' marketing or sales people force them to release products too early, in unfinished or untested forms and then they get blamed for the fallout. Usually this is the result of poor project management and the inability to accurately assess tradeoffs between featurization, release schedules, and financing prior to setting out on the project and prior to beginning development. Know what you're building before you build it, or make sure you have lots of time and money.
Be careful what you wish for... (Score:2)
And I'm sure that Apache developers would think twice about contributing anything.
No one forces you to buy Windows (Score:2)
For example there are: Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, AIX, HP/UX and Apple OS/X on the desktop and server. Yes some are more suited to being one or the other, but they all work. Depending on who you get them from and under which terms you get varying degrees of support.
There are probably others too, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head befor
Re:No one forces you to buy Windows (Score:2)
However, if the alternative OSs don't have the software or hardware support you need, you're stuck. The last time I tried to switch from Windows to Linux, everything was fine except that gnomemeeting was flat out refusing to connect to a remote netmeeting session, and my HP Deskjet 720c printer which produced a perfect test page was rendering garbage with OpenOffice. I spent more than enough
If Users Can Sue MS, They Can Sue You, Too (Score:4, Insightful)
Any legislation mandating performance and security standards for software, or allowing its users to bring suit against the people that developed and distribute it, will likely be aimed at open source, as well as other non-MS commercial products. (If not intially, certainly rather soon. A lemon law targetting only MS is no more likely than a lemon law targetting only General Motors.)
Bottom line, then: If users can sue Microsoft, they can sue open source developers, too.
Distinguish between virus/exploits and bugs (Score:2)
It's UCITA (Score:4, Interesting)
Virginia was the first state to pass UCITA. Probably no small coincidence that AOL is headquartered there.
Stretching the car analogy too far. (Score:2)
At any point of time almost all cars on the road have problems, usually the problems aren't fatal/critical.
And often the reason why the cars on the road have problems is not mainly because of the car maker but because of the car owner/operator.
Then there are the people who go around vandalizing cars.
Beacuse you dont actually 'own' anything? (Score:2)
I would imagine that the way the laws are written today, you have to actually own something to have it considered for the "lemon laws"..
You also sign away much of the responsibility that the software maker has when you agree to 'use', which may negate any option anyway..
Re:All software makers should be held liable (Score:3, Informative)
The fuses melt, the rods drop and the reactor is disabled.
Nuclear power plant desingers justifiably have a belt and braces approach to things. This also applies to the software. They are not going to be running Windows. I suspect they'll not run Linux either. Neither are anywhere near reliable enough.
Re:All software makers should be held liable (Score:2)
Re:All software makers should be held liable (Score:5, Insightful)
As an example of why software makers should be held liable, imagine a nuclear power plant being run by some OS. Now imagine that OS has a bug which causes it to crash if certain conditions are met. Now imagine those conditions are met one day, causing the cooling system in the reactor to stop working as it should. I think we all know what happens next...
Which is why Microsoft forbids the use of MS software for such mission critical apps.
If you need an OS to run a nuclear plant, you'll have it custom made, by someone who can be held liable and who'll probably provide the source.
Re:All software makers should be held liable (Score:2)
I can't speak for nuclear in particular but in chemical plants and refineries, the mission critical failsafes are usually controlled with the DCS for slower things (tank overflow, high temperature, etc.) and PLC's (programmable logic controller
-1 offtopic, but I have karma to burn... (Score:2)