Let’s change the law. 1

[gregor weertman]

The matter I always miss in writings in relation to M$ is the poor performance of the products.
The amount of money they ask for their product is far to high given the quality.
When you ask a certain amount of money for a product you may expect the same in return.
I think firms like M$ should be accountable for the damage that is done by errors in there products.
When that would be the case now, M$ would sell outstanding products or was bankrupt.
I would put my money on the last option.

Let’s change the law.
A software firm is accountable for the damage that is done by errors in their products regardless there terms.
This of course considering the price of the products.

Gregor Gregor.Weertman@mailcity.com

 

[petermeachem]

Not so. Microsoft stuff is cheap. Go check the pricing for Oracle, or Dreamweaver, or Photoshop, or Coreldraw. They don't work properly either! Peter Meachem
peter@accuflight.com

Support Joanna's Bikeathon

http://www.accuflight.com/blue_peter_bikeathon_2002.htm

 

[gregor weertman]

Yes.
The same law for all.

Gregor. Gregor.Weertman@mailcity.com

 

[BeckahC]

I don't know... that law would apply to contractors too, right? Same law for everyone? Let's say you developed a piece of software for a company and it had a couple of bugs, you work them out, easily, but the company can sue for any loss of productivity in the mean time... there would be no more "little people" in the field... thy would all go bankrupt and big businesses like MS and Corel and such that have insurance and extra money for a legal budget would still survive - you would just succeed with that law in stomping out the small businesses that already have trouble competing!

(JMHO, but it makes sense to me!) BeckahC

 

[svanels]

It looks to me like the famous sue[ culture of the United States, where a lot of people are looking for easy money without doing nothing for it. Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

 

[iSeriesCodePoet]

If you don't like the M$ products. Don't buy them. Plain and simple! Mike Wills
AS400 Programmer

http://www.koldark.net

Please, if you find my post useful, let me know.

 

[CajunCenturion]

Changing the Law would be disastrous.

First of all - has anyone ever written a program that is totally bug free - properly handles anything that user can do with it. Be honest with yourself.

Do you want to help responsible, and have to defend yourself when a program doesn't do what the user wants it to do. Never mind what the program is intended to do - user's judge the product by what they want it to do. You can't hold the software manufacturer liable if someone buys Excel to run their Human Resources department, and it doesn't provide all of the personnel functionality they expect.

Consider what would happen to the cost of software if such liabilities were put into place?

Not to mention that the cost of software is also dependant upon the available market. If a piece of software is developed that has mass appeal, then the cost of the software can come down, with profits being made in quantity of sales. On the other hand, consider a special purpose piece of software, where the available market is relatively small. The cost of that software would have to much higher because of reduced sales volume. To tie liability limits to the cost of software just doesn't add up.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[gregor weertman]

Why should the software industry be the only
who is immune to liability charges.

For every thing you create for the market you are responsible.
Only for software you can do what you want.
Make and cell software in 1998 with a 2000 bug,
release operating system with security bugs.
When the software does not run any more in 2000 or
someone breaks in to your operating system because of
a security bug?

You can’t fix every bug.
Never mind the small bugs.
Functionality?
It must have the functionality according the manual.

To Koldark: When I don’t buy M$ software the problem still exists.

I don’t refer to the legal practice in the US where the sky is the limit, even when there is no damage at all.

I don’t think the price of software will be higher because of such law.
The price of cars or tobacco does not go up either although they have to pay ridiculous sums of money.


Gregor.Weertman@mailcity.com

 

[BeckahC]

Ummm the price of both cars and tobacco have gone up a great deal in recent years, actually... where in NY can you get a pack of cigarettes, brand name, for $2.50 anymore? That price was from maybe 2 years ago... now it's doubled and then some (not that I smoke anymore... but still) cars are getting higher and higher priced for all the new and improved "safety features" and "reliability" and gas prices are up too (not really for the same reason, but not only buying but owning a car has become more expensive)

Airlines are now charging "Sept.11th fees" and surcharges for the added security that they are required now by law to add.

Bottom line, make a law that costs the manufacturers or suppliers more in time and or money, and you will see a huge increase in pricing, out of both protest and sometimes necessity. That's basic economics. Charge the manufacturer more and the consumer will be charged more for the product, and the cost hike is usually much more than enough to take care of the extra money needed and then some. Charge the companies more, and we will pay eventually. (JMO) BeckahC

 

[cyclegeek]

Personally I think this is all very silly - but one wonders if gregorweertman had his way would programmers have cause to complain about malpractice insurance? Or would it be mal-coding insurance? At least we'd be like doctors and lawyers: outrageous hourly rates and the butts of bad jokes.

Perhaps free-market forces are not sufficient, but who would police use? What would the penalties be? How would standards get created?

The problem with, 'there oughta be a law' gripes like gregorweertman's is the ill-considered idea that some greater but ill-defined authority is needed to control an equally nebulous situation. If one hires a gardener to lend greater lushness to one's yard and the result more closely resembles the sahara, then one has recourse to the courts to dispute the terms of the contract between the gardener and the garden owner. Likewise if a firm loses money because of faulty software, they have every option of proving their claim in court without need of special laws or agencies.

Now this sort of behavior changes when a product or service can directly affect the health or well being of actual people, say in the case of the automobile industry. By most counts lots and lots of people drive automobiles, therefore laws are in effect governing the auto industry in order to protect the greater good of the population.

Don't buy it. That's the free-market response to bad anything. Sure worked for "New Coke".

Take'em to court. Well, that's basically just democratic freedom, because the offended party must bring suit, not their uncle Sam.

But, call the attorney general because my computer just crashed? Hmmmmm.....

Cheers,
Cyclegeek

p.s. for a silly topic, it's more fun than I thought.

 

[CajunCenturion]

cyclegeek,
I agree with you in principle, however, I am little concerned by the following paragraph

Now this sort of behavior changes when a product or service can directly affect the health or well being of actual people, say in the case of the automobile industry. By most counts lots and lots of people drive automobiles, therefore laws are in effect governing the auto industry in order to protect the greater good of the population.

Where does the software that controls an automated traffic light control system fit? Or the software that the is used by the FAA?, Or software the controls the pacemaker? or heart monitor, and so on.

So I ask you, where do you draw the line between software that directly affect the heath or well being of actual people, and that which does not?

Now I complete agree (as indicated in my previous posts) that changing the law is disastrous, but I also feel it would be just as disastrous to try and classify software, based on how it affects people, in order to justify regulation. Lets not open that box. Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[svanels]

In the end all the programming would be done in India or east Europe, leaving the americans to complain that there are no programming jobs anymore. Happened with the cars, the computers etc. Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

 

[gregor weertman]

When I read this I think it is better to
leave the law as is.
No law should target the small businesses like that.
Especially in the US.

Between the lines I read a real problem in the US.
It’s a legal problem with outrages costs for manufacturers.
This legal system is ill to my opinion.

In Europe you really have to prove how much money you lost to get compensation.
I never heard of an emotional damage that exceeded 10 thousand dollar outside the US.

In my country you can be held responsible for destroying
someone’s live and get away with it for a few dollars.
I don’t say I agree with this however it’s better for business.

Cyclegeek, I’m glad you have fun.

To all who responded to this forum:
I thank you.

Regards Gregor.
Gregor.Weertman@mailcity.com

 

[cyclegeek]

Regarding drawing the line between software that affects the public good and otherwise, I guess I didn't think that out totally, but I think my point still stand. As an aside, I'm always a little surprised when I listen to Supreme Court cases where the justices attempt to understand legal points by putting them into contextual situations, often of an absurd nature but for the purpose of investigating a point's logical validity, a practice not unlike formulating test data to vett new program logic. Just what is the difference between software that allows one to share music over the internet and software that controls a pacemaker? What sort of law or rules separate the two applications of the same technology? Well, I suppose it would be any agency in control over the use of the application, for instance, the Federal Drug Administration must approve medical devices, so, one imagines (or sincerely hopes) that the good people at the FDA look at every aspect of a pacemaker including any software contained therein. Likewise for traffic controlling devices, it is probable that departments of transportation as government agencies are able to leverage their authorities to gain control over the quality of software controlling traffic lights.

Ten to one legislative control over software technology will happen fairly organically, like the natural need to construct traffic control devices and laws outlining driver behavior in the early 1900's.

But, like Cajuncenturion pointed out, there is a slippery slope sort of dark side to legislating anything e.g. peer to peer file sharing as the abortion issue of personal technology (shall we shortly hear the cry, "My computer, my choice"?). How long before a particulary virulent lobby gets enough influence to control or even outlaw graphics software that can be used to either create Shrek or a pixelated version of The Little Mermaid Does the Pacific? Very, very silly, yes, but pitch the idea of licensing the ability to use Flash to enough people and statistically there will probably be a group that says, yeah, I'll sign that petition. Actually, the Supreme Court's recent decision regarding animated child pornography shows this sort of topic is not mere future-speak-wonderment.

Good lord but this turned into a complicated topic. Talk about the virtual can of worms.

 

[CajunCenturion]

And then someone goes to the Supreme Court with the arguement that software and its related output is governed by the 1st Amendment, "its my right of free expression." After all, shouldn't the person who publishes software have the same 1st Amendments rights as the author of a book, or a movie.

Please do not constue that to be a reflection of the way that I feel -- let me make it clear -- I do NOT feel that way. It is just an observation of where this could lead.

Personally, If we're going to accept the position that government should/would/could apply oversight over and legislate what is acceptable software standards with regards to the effects over the general population, then why not start with the Standard Accounting Practices, and legislate that into the Accounting Software used by the Enrons and Worldcomms. Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[AIXSPadmin]

Accounting standards are regulated, but they are interpreted differently, by some companies and by some auditors. There are Accounting boards and also the SEC regulates practices.

 

[cyclegeek]

Absolutely a programmer in most cases should enjoy protection under the first ammendment. I believe that's why the Supreme Court shot down the case trying to outlaw cartoon kiddy porn. That kind of case drives me nuts, because as 'wrong' as that sort of practice is, I don't have to right to limit someone else.

But then again, is software speech? The usage of software, for instance with every keystroke, can lead to the production of speech, but is MS Word or some online chat-ware speech itself. I honestly don't know how to look at this. What can it be compared to? Can a typewriter be compared to software - it is a mechanical device used to produce media and therefore, speech.

I think the problem might be the how and who, as in, how can this technology be used and by whom. Cars are great, but they can't be used to kill people and folks under age 17 can't drive them. Cars are a regulated, controlled technology. Good lord, could you just imagine having to register as a user of a particular kind of software technology?

 

[sleipnir214]

<sarcasm type=dripping>
Oh, accounting boards and SEC regulations really helped with Xerox, Enron and Worldcom.
</sarcasm>

That's something I hope one day to understand: How can a company be solvent one minute and $5 billion (&quot;Yes kids, that's 5 billion with a 'B' dollars&quot in debt the next? The debt had to have been there a minute ago, just hidden. What did they use to pay for stuff? Their own bodily emanations?

 

[CajunCenturion]

Thank you sleipner214 - you beat me to the punch. You took the words right out of my mouth. Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[sleipnir214]

cyclegeek:
The jury is not out yet (pun intended) on software as free speech. Look at the current state of DeCSS:

http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20020703_eff_2600_pr.html

&quot;..cars can't be used to kill people...&quot;? Tell that to James Boyd, Jr. -- I'm sure he'll be glad to hear it. Apparently, he must not dead after all, because he could not have been dragged to death behind that truck in Jasper, TX.