Reading (For Dummies): Legal action over the latest bug

August 14, 2003

Legal action over the latest bug

Random thought of the night. While the owners and operators of Windows computers agreed to an EULA saying Microsoft is not responsible for financial loss caused by flaws in their product, I never did. Assuming I proved that the latest Microsoft bug has caused me financial loss, could I sue Microsoft over it? Or legally would I have to go after the actual operator of the computer which caused the problem (even though they did nothing wrong)?

Part of me longs for the day when commercial software producers will be held accountable for lack of safety in their products. Current EULAs could be compared to Ford selling you a car and the contract reading, "If the fuel tank randomly explodes while the car is sitting in your driveway, killing everyone in a 12-mile radius, we aren't responsible." We certainly don't put up with that kind of crap in the physical world.

Posted by reid at August 14, 2003 12:44 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Reid,

I've always felt the same way. If software doesn't take responsibility for its flaws then where is the motive to improve it (other than the "cool & new" aspect of software. If software companies are unable to support their user base properly, should they be allowed to the same business rights (intellectual property). Actually, I just came up with an interesting idea. What if someone like you or I say that Microsoft service sucks, so we repackage a $100 version of windows with a $200 version of "Reid & Pete Windows" that includes good customer support and service, much like red hat has done to make revenue from a free operating system.

Though, playing devils advocate, software companies are unable to foresee how you use their software and thus can support that useable use. With your car example, ford is not responsible if you have 10 shots get into your car and kill 5 people as you peal out into the road. You deciding to drive drunk is an action that is exclusive to your use of the automobile, not the automobile yourself. Just like Microsoft saying "well I didn't tell you to open that email, so it’s your fault."

Anyone who reads this, let me know what you think. This could be an interesting thread. (c:

Posted by: Peter on August 14, 2003 02:58 PM

I mean "can't support that use"

Posted by: on August 14, 2003 02:59 PM

It's a noble plan, the repackaging idea, but remember that Windows comes with a license saying it can't be resold, etc etc. The likelihood of microsoft selling another company a license to 'repackage' windows and resell it seems small, especially if the other company wants source code (in my opinion the only way to provide adequate support for Windows would be to have the source). Why? Because I don't think it would be hard to do a much better job than MS, and they'd hate the competition.

Sure Microsoft would still make money off your hypothetical company's business, but you could do some dastardly like develop another OS on the side and work Pete & Reid's Windows (TM) towards the other OS' spec. Probably any license MS would be willing to sell would be too restrictive to do that, though.

Anyway this is all hypothetical. See the next post for another beef with Microsoft.

Posted by: Reid on August 14, 2003 03:12 PM