[LINK] Identity theft virus infects 10,000 computers

[Deus Ex Machina]

Craig Sanders [cas at taz.net.au] wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 03:48:52PM +1000, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> > Craig Sanders [cas at taz.net.au] wrote:
> > > this argument is bogus - there's no one to sue even with proprietary
> > > software.
> > > 
> > > no one has ever sued microsoft (or novell or ibm or any other
> > > proprietary software developer) for their shoddy software, and likely no
> > > one ever will. even if someone ever started the process, it is extremely
> > > unlikely that it would even get to court, let alone be successful.
> > 
> > again this is false. you cant waive away all responsiblity in an eula,
> > regardless of what the eula says. its fairly common in contracts to
> > claim to waive away rights granted by law, but the reality is you
> > cant.
> 
> yes, i'm aware of that. 
> 
> it wasn't the EULAs that i was basing my argument on. it was the
> complete absence of any legislation anywhere in the world to hold
> software developers liable for faults/negligence in their software.

oh please. a quick look under google shows that negligence in software
is a serious legal issue and a big insurance problem. I do have
programers that develop software for 3rd parties who insist on software
liability insurance and it is *not* cheap.

> plus the fact that microsoft etc have large teams of trained attack
> lawyers on staff.
> 
> success in court often has a lot more to do with how much money you can
> throw at your case than it has to do with the facts or with justice.

truish to a degree. its more a case of how much money can assault your
opponent with rather then sway the judge/jury. a lot of cases resolve
outside of court because one side has run out of money.

Vic