[Sussex] Suing Microsoft

[Steve Dobson]

Morning

On 07 May 2003 at 09:53 Geoff Teale wrote:
> I'm inclined to agree.  Unless a software company is doing 
> bespoke work for you then this kind of litigation is almost
> unheard of.

I don't think it should matter if the software is bespoke or
not.  The only difference really is "who wrote the spec?".
The contract between software vendor is, IMHO, about meeting
that spec not about the author.

>             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.

But all software produced is fault.  This has been proven.  If 
M$ (or Sun, or HP, or IBM, ...) can only release "perfect"
software then the no software will ever be sold.  I don't think
this is good for the industry.  For the last fifteen years I've
been paid by companies making money from selling software one 
way or another.
  
> I don't know about Korean law, but I doubt it is anything 
> like as black and white as that (the law rarely is).

Then the law students need to be taught a little 19th century
mathematics devised by George Boole.

> 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.

Ouch!  This could get very expensive.

>                                         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.

Well the solution is clear.  Dell and the other PC vendors 
should stop pre-installing the software.  Anyone who can install
the software can patch it (the skill set is the same).  For 
those who can't then they will have to "purchase" support for
installing and for upgrading.

> 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.

Agreed, and my example was not ment for the real world either :-)
I think this is the clearest case that shows how screwy the law
is to real life: I actually feel like I want to support M$.

Steve