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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-11 11:13:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: software suits, was Re: Long names are doom ? Message-ID: References: <3b24dc21$1@news.tce.com> Organization: LJK Software Date: 11 Jun 2001 14:13:51 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.44.122.34 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 992283238 216.44.122.34 (Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:13:58 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:13:58 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8567 comp.lang.java.programmer:75356 Date: 2001-06-11T14:13:51-05:00 List-Id: In article , tmoran@acm.org writes: >>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. Agreements not to sue are often held invalid if the defendent is judged to be more "sophisticated" than the plaintiff in US courts.