From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-13 01:35:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.ems.psu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.r-kom.de!feeder01.news.de.uu.net!news-1.bank.dresdner.net!not-for-mail From: James Kanze Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: software suits, was Re: Long names are doom ? Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:28:37 +0200 Organization: Dresdner Bank AG Message-ID: <3B272435.B01F9F05@dresdner-bank.com> References: <3b24dc21$1@news.tce.com> <3b267365@news.tce.com> Reply-To: default@dresdner-bank.com NNTP-Posting-Host: ffzj09tz.bank.dresdner.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD drebazen10 (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8641 comp.lang.java.programmer:75875 Date: 2001-06-13T10:28:37+02:00 List-Id: Dale King wrote: > wrote in message > news:Kk6V6.82266$%i7.62035400@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com... > > >Unfortunately, a software lawsuit would have little ground to > > >stand on. Imagine if McDonald's required all customers who order > > >hot coffee to sign an agreement before they are given the coffee > > >where they acknowledge that the ... > > >agreement: "IBM does not warrant uninterrupted or error-free > > >operation of > > If my doctor used that IBM software and harmed me, I would sue > > the doctor *and* IBM. If IBM then wants to sue the doctor for > > improperly using their clearly labeled dangerous software, that's > > between them and the doctor. If my car crashed because of a > > software glitch I'd sue the car company, whether they created the > > buggy software themselves or bought it from IBM. And if my doctor > > or auto dealer said I'd have to sign a "hold harmless" agreement, > > I'd go elsewhere. > Note that I didn't say that there is no grounds for a lawsuit, just > very reduced grounds. Yes, in extreme cases of negligence on the > part of the software companies when selling an application for a > life-threatening application (the term we use around here is a > heart-lung machine as in the software does not have to be perfect > since it is not a heart-lung machine). But in general it would be > very difficult to sue when you agreed that the software might not > work. If Word crashes and you lose 6 months worh of work, can you > sue and win? Not likely. I don't think that grounds only exist in the case of negligence, nor in the case of critical systems. The difference of power in the two parties can provide grounds, as can general consumer protection laws. In the case of software, the grounds are at least partitially mitigated by the fact that this is the general state. Ford/Bridgestone are required to replace a lot of tires because the normal situation is that the tires aren't a problem. No court would require that they provide tires better than what you might reasonably expect. And what you reasonably expect is at least partially determined by what is being offered. If I sell a "word processor" which simply ignores all input, I'm pretty sure that you could prosecute me regardless of what license you'd clicked. If it generally worked, however, and just crashed a couple of times a day, well -- that's what a reasonable person expects, isn't it? -- James Kanze mailto:kanze@gabi-soft.de Conseils en informatique orient�e objet/ Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung Ziegelh�ttenweg 17a, 60598 Frankfurt, Germany Tel. +49(069)63198627