Slashdot Mirror
Calling Software Reliability Into Question
phillymjs writes "CNN is running a story on software reliability, and how the lack of it may cost more and more lives as technology creeps further into everyday products. It appears a debate is finally starting amongst everyday (read: non-geek) people about vendor liability for buggy software. Some opponents of the liability push are unsurprising: Says the story, 'Microsoft contends that setting [reliability] standards could stifle innovation, and the cost of litigation and damages could mean more expensive software.' The article also says, however, that consumers' favortism of flashy products over reliable ones is partly to blame for the current state of software."
Really - why do you think vendors place the "this software is not meant for any purpose, express or implied" language in licence agreements? Because if the vendor promises something, and that thing is blatantly not promised, then the customer can still generally get their money back en mass, thanks to resellers demands, and if it goes far enough, the legal system will generally enforce contract law with regard to purchases and false advertising.
Similarly, if a company were to go insane, and actually make a clear promise on people's lives with their software, down to the legal writing, with no one signing any waivers, and someone got killed as a direct result of the very design of the software, then under existing laws, at least someone in that software company would be legally brought up on charges for that death.
To add any extra levels of "blame" on top of that seems to me to be as superfluous as, well, the DMCA.
The moment anyone starts "getting away" with what otherwise would be crimes just because a computer was used (not because of encryption, which can be done without computers also) - then I'll agree that new laws might help... but to add special liability for sofware companies seems more an act of hysteria than anything else.
Ryan Fenton