|
in reply to OT: Software & Liability
I've seen this argument surface before, and one point you don't touch on is the effect on cost of software.
While I agree with many points on both sides, the fact of the matter is, users are not ready for this! Users will not want to absorb the costs that this would incur. A couple points that lead into themselves: How much extra $$$ would this cost the software companies (lawyers, insurance, etc)?How many software companies will close up shop because they cannot deal with this increased costs?Of the companies left, how many products will not see a large price hike due to the added costs?How many users will be willing to absorb this?How many copies of Office Suites are bought "out of bundle" right now?How many of those types of applications will be bought significantly higher prices?How much additional money will computer manufacturers have to charge, not only for additional software cost on the "bundle", but also for their own lawyers, insurance, and engineers to ensure compatibility between products and security of all of them?What software falls into these categories? If Quake 7 crashes your system because your video drivers are to old, do you get to sue because they said they supported your card?Who draws these lines? and what are the criteria?Who supplies legal assistance for open source software?If a user finds a free tool written by Joe Blow, and this tool is no longer even supported by Joe, is Joe still responsible?
The problems with the analogies to Car companies and Toy Manufacturers is simple, software is by far easier (economically) to produce! Of course Cars are expected not to crash because you use the brake and the gas pedal at the same time, but you don't see very many home grown cars out there, do you? It's much harder to build your own car (including all engine parts and stuff) without a machine shop, body shop, etc. But software, all you need is an editor and a compiler which are readily available for free (economically that is, I'm not putting a price on home hour development nor the skills required, that is beyond my point).
The major problem I have seen with these arguments is that they only scratch at the surface of what all of the issues will be. Even the things I have mentioned doesn't take everything into account, and for every layer you start to add you incur more Cost Of Goods Sold and the end price surges by a that plus a PERCENTAGE of that! I'm not saying that it is necessarily a bad idea, I do think that security software at the very least should carry an amount of accountability, but I also don't think the industry is at a point where it can absorb the costs right now.
Just my $0.02 ($0.032 CDN)
"Nothing is sure but death and taxes" I say combine the two and its death to all taxes!|
Re: Re: OT: Software & Liability
by pdcawley (Hermit) on May 20, 2002 at 18:54 UTC
|
Maybe the way to start with liability is to start by holding the users of software liable for bad things that happens as a result of software they bought fucking up. This will hike up the insurance costs of the users in the case where they have software that disclaims all liability because the insurer can't recoup its costs by suing the software supplier.
This increased cost to the user results in them being more likely to pay the increased costs for warranted software. The software house uses this extra money to take out liability insurance (the total cost of which will be somewhat less than the total cost of the increased premiums of all the customers who used the unwarranted versions), bites the bullet of warranting their software and works to reduce the risk by improving the quality of their software.
This could be seen to be an inhibitor on the takeup of open source software, but in fact it creates a market opportunity for the likes of Cygnus/Redhat/Whoever who is prepared to fill the market requirement for warranted software by selling warranted support contracts for open source software. | [reply] |
Re: Re: OT: Software & Liability
by cjf (Parson) on May 20, 2002 at 19:10 UTC
|
one point you don't touch on is the effect on cost of software.
As I pointed out, improving the quality/security of software will cost the manufacturers more. This cost will most likely be passed on to the consumer. Is this a bad thing though? Think of the auto industry for a moment. Was putting in seatbelts a bad move because it made cars more expensive to produce?
How many software companies will close up shop because they cannot deal with this increased costs?
Probably a fair number, but if they can't ensure the quality of their software, should they be producing it in the first place?
If Quake 7 crashes your system because your video drivers are to old, do you get to sue because they said they supported your card?
If you drive at 200k/h with 10 year old tires down an icy road, is the car manufacturer liable for your accident?
| [reply] |
|
|
Was putting in seatbelts a bad move because it made cars
more expensive to produce?
Bad analogy. Seat belts are a marginal expense on a car (I
have a hard time believing that they would even add $500
(3%) to the cost of a $15,000 car). The reason that so much
current software is so shoddy is because doing it Right
would increase the cost of development substantially. Add
insurance, bonding, auditing, and other methods of
protecting against the possibility (certainty) that a
bug slipped past QA on top of that, and you're looking at
software production costs increasing by an order of
magnitude or so. And that's probably optimistic.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Old Video drivers versus 200 miles per hour is not right. My point was more like, do you know the torque of your motor mounts in your car? and if you do is every operator supposed to know that about thier car? and if they don't it's thier own fault if the tranny separates from the engine at high speed?
For the folks (at least most of us) who hang out here in the monastary, we can maintain our systems without a "mechanic", what about those who can't? With the version and patch hell we have already created (and would only get worse) no software company can or will ensure that kind of stability.
I guess my point is: "Where are the lines drawn? and who draws them?"
"Nothing is sure but death and taxes" I say combine the two and its death to all taxes!
| [reply] |
|
|
Old Video drivers versus 200 miles per hour is not right.
Perhaps, the example was meant to show that there are limits on liability.
Where are the lines drawn? and who draws them?
Your call, politicians, judges, or someone else who most likely has very little knowledge on the issue.
| [reply] |
|
|
