[Sussex] Suing Microsoft

[Geoff Teale]

Steve:
------
> 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.

It does make a difference.  If you do bespoke work as long as you meet the
requirements defined in the specification you are pretty much safe from
litigation.  However Microsoft software is not tailored to a users needs it
is sold as a product, you buy it "as is".  There is a difference between a
customer making "this software must be virus proof" and contract term and
the vaguer assumption that a piece of software will be virus proof because
it is production grade.  THe problem here is that software doesn't really
fit this model.   Within in the bounds of current law what you have to
establish is whether or not it is reasonable to expect the software to be
bug-free.  I would suggest that recieved wisdom in the software industry
would suggest not.

> 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 thoroughly agree.  Open Source software is by no means perfect either.
Where there is no specific relationship between a customer and the software
vendor (ie. no agreed spec between them) my feeling is that caveat emptor
("Let the buyer beware") very much applies. 
   
> Then the law students need to be taught a little 19th century
> mathematics devised by George Boole.

Boolean law would be a Bad Thing TM.  
 
> Ouch!  This could get very expensive.

Yes, as a general rule, if it involves lawyers of software companies it is
always going to be expensive :)
 
> 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.

This would severly restrict the software market.  A more reasonable answer
is that the court could rule that in this case producing a patch was good
enough and thus set a precedent for future cases.  Not all of the law comes
from legislation - a good deal is built on precedent, it's just where there
is no precedent that things can be very fuzzy.
 
> 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$.

... and I would be right there with you.  I don't think Microsoft did
anything wrong here.  OK we can point the finger and say there was a flaw,
but Microsoft took action to prevent it.  The one thing I would argue is
that Microsoft (and some other vendors) should make more effort to push
awareness of their bugs - relying on Sysadmins to regularly check for
patches and banning no MS sites from listing MS bugs is not really very
proactive.  If the brakes fail on your MR2 tomorrow, you wouldn't be very
happy if Toyota said "Well, it said there was a fault on the support area of
our website!".  Dunno.. maybe thats a vague area.

-- 
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