Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!think!barmar
From: barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Software ``Contracts''
Message-ID: <34222@think.UUCP>
Date: 22 Dec 88 21:07:06 GMT
References: <6519@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <1355@cps3xx.UUCP>
Sender: news@think.UUCP
Reply-To: barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 53

In article <1355@cps3xx.UUCP> usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes:
>What this means is that the software is not guarenteed to DO anything,
>and even if it does, the manufacturer can not be held responsible for
>it's performance or lack thereof.
>  How do software manufacturers get away with this?

Here are my beliefs about the warranty disclaimors:

Mostly, such total disclaimors of warranties are not enforceable (just
like the road signs that say "road under repair, pass at your own
risk").  There are many implied warranties that are always in effect,
no matter what the package says.  For example, the disclaimor doesn't
permit them to distribute a program that they KNOW will destroy your
data.  And a program that obviously doesn't do what is described in
the manual is fraud.

Since no one yet knows how to write a non-trivial program without
bugs, these disclaimors are necessary to keep people from suing
because of minor problems.  Without them there would be very little
software published.  Imagine a class action suit by all the people who
bought MS Word 3.0 for the Mac.

Comparing software warranties to car warranties is unfair.  How much
of the software you run on your PC is responsible for your physical
well being?  When your car crashes you can lose your life; if a
spreadsheet crashes you lose a few hours of work.

The clause where they deny responsibility for damaged caused through
the use of the program is another necessity.  Suppose you use a tax
preparation program, and it has a bug that the publisher didn't know
about, and the IRS fines you for filing an incorrect return.  It is
YOUR responsibility to check your own return, and you can't sue the
software publisher for damages.  Even H&R Block has such a proviso
(when I was younger I remember their TV ads offering to pay any fines
for incorrect returns, but I don't know whether they still do).

Another important clause in the disclaimor is the warning about
"suitability".  It is the customer's job to make sure that the program
is appropriate for the task.  Unless the publisher made obviously
fraudulent claims, it's not his fault that you bought a desktop
publishing program when you should have bought a word processor, a
spreadsheet instead of a database, or a simple terminal emulator
when you needed one with extensive script capability.

I'm not a lawyer or a software publisher, so don't quote me on this
stuff.


Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar