[Sussex] Suing Microsoft

[Geoff Teale]

Steve wrote:
------------
> Having read the article, and only based on this I don't think
> they have a good case.  It states that M$ did release a patch
> some six months before the attach.

I'm inclined to agree.  Unless a software company is doing bespoke work for
you then this kind of litigation is almost unheard of.  In England these
people using sale of good law (the equivalent of which the Korean case is
based on) would be made aware that there is such a concept as caveat emptor
and well as caveat vendor, though I do not now what way the judgement would
fall.  Another, more likely attack in England would be to sue Microsoft for
negligence in producing software that failed in this way.
 
> Some responsibility has to be with on the user to keep up to
> date and install appropriate patches.  

That would be caveat emptor then ;)  Or in the latter case we would apply
the concept of contributory negligence.

>It appears that M$ did
> release the patch.  To me a patch shows two things:
> 
>   1). a public acknowledge ment of the problem, and
>  
>   2). a way of correcting / stopping the problem for clients.
> 
> IANAL but IMHO the group of South Koreas no longer have a 
> case against M$.

I don't know about Korean law, but I doubt it is anything like as black and
white as that (the law rarely is).

Again, in English law (rather than korean law) if you were taking the tack
that Microsoft were negligent in producing software that could be breached
in this way then the existance of an officially sanctioned patch would open
up the plaintiff to contributory negligence, but would not excuse Microsoft
from their negligence.  If we are treating this as consumer law then a patch
or workaround is not acceptable under the law unless it can be proven that
_all_ customers are qualified to apply the patch or workaround.  In this
situation (where we treat software as a product like Coca-cola or a VW
Beetle) a total recall of the software and a reissue is what is required.
Obvisouly this makes no sense in the real world, but the law was not written
for the real world today it was written for the real world some time ago.

-- 
GJT
Free Software, Free Society. 
http://www.fsf.org   http://www.gnu.org

You have created a powerful solution for which there are no problems.
Everyone is impressed, but duly confused.


The above information is confidential to the addressee and may be privileged.  Unauthorised access and use is prohibited.
 
Internet communications are not secure and therefore this Company does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.
 
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
 
Claybrook Computing Limited is a subsidiary of Claybrook Computing (Holdings) Limited
Registered Office: Abbey House. 282 Farnborough Road, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 7NJ
Registered in England and Wales No 1287205
 
A Hogg Robinson plc company