Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtgzz!dmt
From: dmt@mtgzz.UUCP (d.m.tutelman)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.legal
Subject: Re: Boiler plate warranties - software isn't that reliable
Message-ID: <1082@mtgzz.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 12:21:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtgzz.1082
Posted: Wed Aug 28 12:21:44 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Aug-85 07:43:06 EDT
References: <3199@pur-ee.UUCP> <332@looking.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ
Lines: 60
Xref: watmath net.micro.pc:5136 net.legal:2193
Cc: dmt

< followup to a message appended below >

Would someone who really knows please take a crack at this.
(Maybe we should merge net.micro and net.legal; this is the
second folloup on a legal issue I've written this morning.)

I thought that the "standard boilerplate" warranties weren't binding
on a court, and that you COULD INDEED sue for damages.  But you would
have to convince the court (jury? judge?) that a reasonable person
would naturally use the product in the way you did when you were
damaged.  Interpretation: if the court believes software is unreliable
and shouldn't be trusted not to damage you, then the vendor is free.
But if the court belives that software can be made reliable, and
prudent people should trust it, and the vendor screwed up in this case
(read "negligence"), then the vendor will have to pay.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer, just exercising freedom of ignorance
(which, according to the law, is no excuse :-).

			Dave Tutelman
			Physical - AT&T Information Systems
				   Holmdel, NJ 07733
			Logical  - ...ihnp4!mtuxo!mtgzz!dmt
			Audible  - (201)-834-2895
--------------------------------------------------------
> In article <3199@pur-ee.UUCP> kk9w@pur-ee.UUCP (David Andersen) writes:
> >
> >The fact that someone wrote that they are not responsible does
> >not mean that they are not responsible.  If something breaks
> >that a reasonable person thinks shouldnt, regardless of the
> >boiler plate on the wrapper the manufacturer is liable for
> >damages.  If my software screws up and causes me a substantial
> >loss, the software manufacturer could be liable for those
> >damages, possibly to the tune of 3M$ or more. 
> 
> 
> You have got to be kidding here.   Software just isn't that reliable.
> Whatever warranty system you use, you have to take into account how it
> will be in practice.  All programs have bugs, and only massive redundancy
> and great efforts can ensure software as safe.  Big companies might be
> able to afford it, but you will kill the little guy requiring liability
> like this.
> 
> Think about doctors and malpractice insurance.  Think about car insurance.
> Immense awards are driving up the price to the consumer.  Some doctors
> won't deliver babies anymore because of the price.
> 
> Some liability and warranty may be in order, but this magnitude is too
> much if you want the little guy to be able to produce software.  Customers
> who buy software must realize how complex a task writing it can be.
> If I sell a C compiler, I could never possibly imagine all the different
> kinds of code that might be written with it.  There might be safe things
> or there might be a traffic control system.  If somebody writes a traffic
> control system that causes a car crash because of a bug in my compiler,
> am I liable?  Or do I have to put, "this compiler is suitable for compiling
> only safe applications software that doesn't control physical machinery"
> in my advertising?
> 
> -- 
> Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473