Sign in
in
   
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."  -Aristotle

About Me

I am a co-founder of Notches, an early stage startup currently based in NYC. We are building a free, open reviews network that anyone can participate in and anyone can build on top of. You can find out more on our official blog.

Read more about my background.

Connect with me on...

Recent Readers

Flickr Photos

 

Warning:

This article is more than 45 days old. Given the speed at which the technology world moves, this post is probably somewhat out of date. Please keep this in mind when reading the post. If this is a tutorial, please check whether you are using the same versions mentioned in the article.

Should we apply product liability to software?

Rob points out an article that suggests that software developers should be held liable for security and (presumbly) other bugs.

While I may not agree in the article's entirety I do agree in part. That is, software manufacturers should assume liability for poorly constructed products just as "real" manufacturers do.

(Of course, this means the corporate entity should be responsible, not the indvidual, which I think is Rob's real objection).

Software is increasingly becoming an important product in and cornerstone of modern commerce. When software fails, it can lead to real losses (especially when you consider that software controls more and more physical devices now). Thus, it seems more than reasonable that we demand the same degree of care that we require from physical manufacturers.

After all, it's not like software manufacturers are making guns.

Only published comments... Nov 01 2005, 06:19 AM by Tim

View related posts

 

Rob Hyndman said:

There are good reasons for not imposing this type of liability. I've written about it on a few occasions, most recently here:

http://www.robhyndman.com/2005/10/20/liability-for-software-vulnerabilities/

The point is summarized in the last para:

"The analogy that is often used is liability on car manufacturers (see here, for example), but I’m not sure that’s appropriate. Nothing else we’ve known as a society so far holds the potential for such radical transformation of the way we live and work. Never before has innovation been so vital, both in terms of importance and vigour. And with innovation and complexity come risk - unavoidably."
November 1, 2005 5:31 PM
   

Tim said:

I don't disagree - innovation is important (as you can see in things like the Grokster case - you never want the chilling effect).

That said - I don't see how a negligence standard (as opposed to strict liability) would necessarily discourage innovation...
November 8, 2005 10:31 PM