Software liability laws: a dangerous solution [LWN.net]

Software liability laws: a dangerous solution

Posted Sep 8, 2007 2:25 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
Parent article: Software liability laws: a dangerous solution

It's already the law that you can buy software with a warranty and if it's broken and causes you damage, the seller pays for it. It's also the law that you can buy software without a warranty and accept the risk of bugs yourself. The proposal is to remove that second option.

That's a valuable option! People usually buy software without a warranty today. Why? Because the seller gives you a much lower price (even zero) if you do, and the buyer thinks he can control the risk himself for less than it would cost for the seller to do it.

So if the law removes the option, the buyer will have to pay the higher price to the seller. Who is that good for?

I rarely support taking choices away from people. But I might support a disclosure law -- so the seller has to explain how dangerous the software could be if it has a bug in it.

(Log in to post comments)

Software liability laws: a dangerous solution

Posted Sep 8, 2007 10:53 UTC (Sat) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link]

So if the law removes the option, the buyer will have to pay the higher price to the seller. Who is that good for?

In Hungary a couple of years ago cars with two stroke engines were effectively outlawed: basically the customer will have to pay a higher price for the four stroked cars. And actually it's good for the rest of us because it's better on the environment.

Not selling flawed software to the clueless users is also good for the (virtual) environment, meaning less botnets, less spam, less DoS attacks, etc.

Bye,NAR

Software liability laws: a dangerous solution

Posted Sep 9, 2007 1:47 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

Not selling flawed software to the clueless users is also good for the (virtual) environment, meaning less botnets, less spam, less DoS attacks, etc.

OK, that's a good point and my argument may have wandered a little from the point. But I think it's still possible that putting the liability on the buyer does the job better. Hungary could have achieved the same thing by outlawing driving of new two-cycle cars, putting the regulation closer to the actual source of the problem.

I've thought for a long time that the solution to the spam problem is to make people -- even bot hosts -- pay to send email. This would cause users to demand that their ISPs limit their ability to send mail and to invest in virus control measures. Or software without bugs, if that's how the viruses are getting in.

paying to send email

Posted Sep 12, 2007 8:17 UTC (Wed) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]

A good idea, but unfortunately very difficult to see it happen unless the existing email system collapses, assuming that Metcalfe's law holds.

Nevertheless, I have written a paper and specified outline protocols for a payment system that might be of interest if the existing email system does collapse (or in connection with other mass applications for micropayments, assuming the preference for flat-rate communications costs becomes outweighed by the general desirability of being able to make larger numbers of smaller payments more flexibly.)

Software liability laws: a dangerous solution

Posted Sep 9, 2007 8:11 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

when was the last time you were able to buy equivalent software with and without a warranty?

and a service contract is not a warranty. if you look at the licensing agreement of just about any software that you buy you will see that the seller disclaims any responsibility and that the software is not guaranteed to do anything at all, let alone what you want it to do. this is useually followed by a clause limiting their liability if the software does something wrong to the purchase price of the software.

consumers do not have a choice today.

Software liability laws: a dangerous solution

Posted Sep 9, 2007 17:24 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

That (the fact that virtually no software is offered with a warranty) is pretty much my point. It's not offered because no one will buy it. People won't buy it because they believe they can protect themselves from the risk of a bug (or just bear the risk) for less money than it would cost the seller to guarantee there aren't any bugs.

I believe the free market does a better job in this way of sorting out the complexities of the risks of operating computers than legislators can.

Software liability laws: a dangerous solution

Posted Sep 9, 2007 18:50 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

you are missing the point.

the free market can't fix the problem if consumers don't have a choice.

people haven't opted to not buy the warranty, the companies have decided not to offer it (and not just for cheap software, take a look at the license for very expensive software, it says the same things)

Software liability laws: a dangerous solution

Posted Sep 9, 2007 21:55 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

the free market can't fix the problem if consumers don't have a choice.

Yes it can; it does it all the time. In the big picture, the consumers have a choice because if they want something (I mean are willing to pay for it), someone will provide it. The market is huge and dynamic. If there's even a chance consumers would choose something and nobody is offering it, there's profit to be made and someone will offer it. I believe the software industry has considered offering warranteed software and consistently determined that consumers would choose the cheap unwarranteed competition instead.

I do support government regulation to promote competition, including by reducing barriers to entry into a market. Just not anti-competitive regulation that outlaws certain voluntary transactions.