North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with the extent to which luck..')
- From: William Allen Simpson
- Date: Wed Jul 25 13:08:24 2001
Please do not confuse ownership and/or licensing with anything....
What part of "I'm not a party to the EULA" do you not understand?
Last I checked, in every state except Washington, the disclaimer for
fitness of purpose has been overruled. The product conforms to the
documented claims, or you have a cause of action.
Also, there is no "comparitive" in this negligence. The driver is not
responsible for design flaws in the car that killed the third party
As for the rest, I used to run a QA department, some years before
drafting the appropriations language to fund a little thing called the
"NSFnet".... I will affirmatively state that you know your analysis
even less well than you know your law.
Roeland Meyer wrote:
> Please, do not confuse "governing law" and "jurisdiction" with
> applicability. With most commercial software, you don't own it. The actual
> owners retain full ownership rights. That makes a huge legal difference.
> BTW, MHSC shrink-wrap, and all other MHSC contracts, are under Delaware law,
> with alternative jurisdiction in Colorado, and neither of the other two
> jurisdictions that you mention. It has to do with where the corporate home
> is. Further, lawyers make big bucks arguing "comparative negligence". None
> of us gets paid well enough to do so here. FWIW, almost all commercial
> software developers carry "Errors and Omissions" coverage, as a second-level
> backup to the lawyers.
> That said and in most jurisdictions, the driver has primary responsibility.
> This is due to the fact that the driver has primary responsibility for
> maintenance and application. This is the primary reason for the "fitness of
> purpose" clause.
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32