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?

Comments

Because

[jazman_777]

Microsoft is a Lime. (Obscure _stretched_ reference to Harry Lime).

Re:Because it would be bad for everyone...

[KilobyteKnight]

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.

I wish I hadn't wasted my moderator points earlier today, or I would have modded this up. Thank you for pointing these things out (and saving me the time).