Slashdot Mirror
Why Can't Microsoft be Sued Under the Lemon Law?
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?
causing the cooling system in the reactor to stop working as it should. I think we all know what happens next...
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.
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?