Where UCITA Came From
alkali writes "The New Republic has a short essay by Brendan Koerner which explains some of the legal history behind UCITA. If you've never heard of Mortenson v. Timberline before, you need to read this." Pretty good review of the the concept of liability for defective software.
I saw this article mentioned in the ``YRO" box, but not in the general list of articles. Even then, it only took me a minute or two to track it down.
And there's already two off-topic or stupid posts here.
Interesting article, though.
]not sure if I'm logged in here at the Twilight Zone or not[
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
What I found the most interesting was the author's hypothetical claim that if a piece of software for a set of brakes fails, the software writer is not liable for the death of the passengers.
This raises an interesting question. If a car manufacturer puts out a buggy car, they are required, by law, to issue recalls and fix the automobiles. If the car has a potentially hazardous problem because of a software only glitch, could the manufacturer simply say, "I am sorry, I am not issuing the recall, read your licensing agreement for the brakes"?
Of course, the first automaker to try that would suffer a PR nightmare. I don't think congress or the US court system would let them not issue a recall. So, god help them if they subcontract the software. They will be left holding the bag with the authors of the code saying, "too bad for you guys our code sucks."
Open source anti-lock brakes anyone?