Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with theextent to which luck..')

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Wed Jul 25 17:12:07 2001

Dan Hollis wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 LBolton@geiger.com wrote:
> > Your analogy is flawed.
> > The question is, should Firestone be responsible for someone going around
> > slashing the tires?  No they shouldn't.
> > Then why should Microsoft or any other software manufacturer be responsible
> > for the damage done by third parties?
> 
> Better analogy:
> 
> Microsoft is advertising "high security padlocks", but is instead selling
> locks that dont work at all.
> 
> -Dan
OK... I'll admit this might be a better analogy.  However, I don't
believe
that my analogy is "should Firestone be responsible for slashing tires".
My analogy was "Given that road hazards exist, and given that Micro$oft
knew their tires were particularly vunlerable to this obvious road
hazzard,
did Micro$oft have a greater responsibility for recall or should they be
subject to recovery of damages by injured third parties."  In my
opinion,
they should, indeed, be in such a situation.  If you SELL a product that
you know is defective or later learn is defective in design such that it
is likely to cause or contribute to harm, your failure to recall that
product actively creates a liability for the consequences.

Owen




Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.