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

Micro$C0ft iz th4 suxx0rz!!!!111

[rice_burners_suck]

Let's write to Congress and suggest a law covering necessary commercial software--that is:

• Software that costs, say, $40.00 or more to license,
• does NOT fall under a free/open compliant license, making it possible for the user to audit the code WITHOUT paying additional fees for access to a human-readable, non-shrouded copy of the code,
• and which is required for the performance of personal or business goals.

It would NOT cover software selling for less than $40.00, and would NOT cover strictly frivolous and unnecessary software such as games, pr0n software, purely eye-candy software, and other things not necessary to earn one's living or to generate business revenues. (Yeah yeah, game testers, but the definition of a software tester is one who takes the risk of losing data or opening oneself up to security flaws in the testing of software, so that would not apply either.) It would not cover scripts or other code that is human readable. It would not cover software used under a license provided for evaluation, such as a shareware license, or try-before-you-buy, when the damage occured before licensing said software for the $40.00 or more license fee. Basically use your common sense and figure out what I'm trying to say here.

Microsoft and all the other vendors out there would be forced to either:

1. Reduce the price of their software to $39.95, or...
2. Make their software bulletproof to avoid getting the shit sued out of them.

Of course, you'd have to prove actual damages, and that the software in question is at fault for the damage--that is, that the damage would not have occured but for the existance of a flaw in the software. So if your RAM is fucked and a bit goes stray and the damn thing writes over your database because of that, you're fucked, not the software maker.

Now, how in the fuck do you avoid frivolous lawsuits? Hmmmm... Maybe just make the law apply to Microsoft and to nobody else.