[Am-info] SOFTWARE RESPONSIBILITY AS AN ARGUMENT ... and liability

[Roland Bockhorst]

This list barely touched on the liability issue some
time back. No one picked it up and ran with it.
"Strict liability" could make a huge difference if the
political winds blew differently. The shrink wrap
license asserts many rights and defenses in favor of
the vendor, not to mention disclaimers. There is much
unexplored territory in that license. The only user
friendly court ruling I know of to date has been the
permitting of backup copies of media. 

I'm reminded of a line from a musical in regard to a
gambling game. "Hell, I know it's crooked but it's the
only game in town."

Another consequence from an illegal monopoly.


am-info@venice.essential.org, eandrews@star.net



-----Original Message-----
From: Erick Andrews [mailto:eandrews@star.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:39 AM
To: AM-INFO
Subject: Re: [Am-info] SOFTWARE RESPONSIBILITY AS AN
ARGUMENT AGAINST
OPEN-SOURCE


On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:49:35 -0500, Fred A. Miller
wrote:

>SOFTWARE RESPONSIBILITY AS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST
OPEN-SOURCE
>
>      (Source: ITworld.com) During the past year, I
consulted with
>organizations attempting to come to terms with
whether to use
>open-source software, operating systems and tools. An
argument I
>heard against open-source is if a problem occurs,
there is no one
>to hold responsible.
>
>http://www.linuxworld.com/go.cgi?id=741462
>

[...]

I have a legal question here that perhaps someone can
shed
some light on:  does software fall into the realm
"strict liability"?
To ask a different way:  are there any legal
precedents that
any software product that has caused harm to a user
ever brought 
any compensatory settlement for the user?

You may recall from the 1980s things like hammers,
ladders,
industrial machinery, coffee pots, toys, and even hot
coffee
liability lawsuits brought awards to plaintiffs for
damages.





-----Original Message-----
From: Erick Andrews [mailto:eandrews@star.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:39 AM
To: AM-INFO
Subject: Re: [Am-info] SOFTWARE RESPONSIBILITY AS AN
ARGUMENT AGAINST
OPEN-SOURCE


On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:49:35 -0500, Fred A. Miller
wrote:

>SOFTWARE RESPONSIBILITY AS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST
OPEN-SOURCE
>
>      (Source: ITworld.com) During the past year, I
consulted with
>organizations attempting to come to terms with
whether to use
>open-source software, operating systems and tools. An
argument I
>heard against open-source is if a problem occurs,
there is no one
>to hold responsible.
>
>http://www.linuxworld.com/go.cgi?id=741462
>

[...]

I have a legal question here that perhaps someone can
shed
some light on:  does software fall into the realm
"strict liability"?
To ask a different way:  are there any legal
precedents that
any software product that has caused harm to a user
ever brought 
any compensatory settlement for the user?

You may recall from the 1980s things like hammers,
ladders,
industrial machinery, coffee pots, toys, and even hot
coffee
liability lawsuits brought awards to plaintiffs for
damages.



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com