fmII
Thu, Jul 24th home | browse | articles | contact | chat | submit | faq | newsletter | about | stats | scoop 23:10 UTC
in
Section
login «
register «
recover password «
[Article] add comment [Article]

 High Tech (Ir)Responsibility
 by Neil Watson, in Editorials - Sat, Jan 19th 2002 00:00 UTC

Want to sell your own product but not have to worry about those silly guarantees and liabilities? It's easy -- start your own high tech company!


Copyright notice: All reader-contributed material on freshmeat.net is the property and responsibility of its author; for reprint rights, please contact the author directly.

Work without responsibility

Consider the automobile. The government regulates the safety equipment in your car. Airbags, side impact beams, 5MPH bumpers, seatbelts, and standard crash tests all help protect you and your passengers while in your car. Do you think most of these systems would exist without government legislation? Consider that airbag technology has existed since the 1970s.

While the government tends to keep an eye on the automotive industry, the computer industry seems to be able to operate with virtual impunity. Let's look at some examples:

Look at the recent proposed settlement between the United States Department of Justice and Microsoft. Many in the business and computer world consider it a farce.

Have you actually read the End User License Agreement (EULA) on any of your software? Did you know that, in spite of the thousands of hours of development and testing that make up the expensive price of software, there is no guarantee of any kind? If you buy the software and it doesn't work or destroys your data, it's not the software company's fault. It's no one's. Try to swallow these EULAs:

Two separate software companies:

One:

"(name withheld) does not warrant that the Software will meet your
requirements or that operation of the Software will be uninterrupted or
that the Software will be error-free."

"REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANY REMEDY SET FORTH HEREIN FAILS OF ITS
ESSENTIAL PURPOSE, IN NO EVENT WILL (name withheld) BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, OR SIMILAR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY LOST PROFITS OR LOST DATA ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR
INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, EVEN IF (name withheld) HAS BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES."

"IN NO CASE SHALL (name withheld) LIABILITY EXCEED THE PURCHASE PRICE
OF THE PRODUCT."

Two:

"TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL
(name withheld) OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL,
INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY
LOSS) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE
PRODUCT OR THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES,
EVEN IF (name withheld) HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGES. IN ANY CASE, (name withheld)'S ENTIRE LIABILITY UNDER ANY
PROVISION OF THIS EULA SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT
ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR U.S. $5.00; HOWEVER,
IF YOU HAVE ENTERED INTO A (name withheld) SUPPORT SERVICES AGREEMENT,
(name withheld)'S ENTIRE LIABILITY REGARDING SUPPORT SERVICES SHALL BE
GOVERNED BY THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT."

From a hardware company:

"Any Product requiring service during the Warranty Period should be
returned to (name withheld) in accordance with the "Return Material
Authorization" Process set forth in the documentation for that
product and on the (name withheld) Web site."

"EXCEPT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY SET FORTH ABOVE, IN NO EVENT SHALL
(name withheld) HAVE ANY LIABILITY TO PURCHASER OF THIRD PARTY FOR ANY
CLAIM, LOSS OF DAMAGE OF ANY KIND, EVEN IF (name withheld) HAS BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLY (nice grammar) OF SUCH DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO LOST PROFITS, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INDIRECT DAMAGES, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH (A)
THE PERFORMANCE, USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE ANY PRODUCT OR ANY DATA,
SOFTWARE, OR EQUIPMENT RELATED THERETO OR USED IN CONJUNCTION
HEREWITH, OR (B) INFRINGEMENT OF ANY PATENT, COPYRIGHT, TRADEMARK, OR
OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT OF ANY THIRD PARTY.  IN NO EVENT
SHALL (name withheld)'S LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF
CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, WARRANTY, OR INFRINGEMENT OF ANY INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHT, EXCEED THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID BY THE PURCHASE FOR THE
PRODUCT."

From an ISP:

"(name withheld) assumes no liability whatsoever for any claims,
damages, losses, or expenses arising out of or otherwise relating to
the unavailability of the Service in your geographical area, even
where such unavailability occurs after installation of the Service."

You would think these statements relieving the companies of any responsibility would satisfy them. Think again.

Companies are now trying to hide any evidence of their poorly-functioning products behind the law. Consider the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that makes it a criminal offense in America to create software that would demonstrate a weakness or defect in the security of any software or hardware product.

This article at the Register talks about how Microsoft is attempting to prevent any discloser of bugs in their software.

Business Week has an article in which an ISP tells a customer to remove his firewall security or they can't help him with his broadband Internet connection.

"Psst, wanna buy a TV?" whispers Shady Jim in a trenchcoat. He points to the back of his truck parked in the alley. People do this all the time. When you buy Shady Jim's TV, do you expect to bring it back if something is wrong? Of course not. But what if you bought the TV from a store? What if you bought it from the manufacturer? Of course you should be able to return it. Not so with software -- once you open that shrink wrap, the software is yours, no matter how dissatisfied you are.

Disclaimer: The information supplied by the author is for reading purposes only. Should any of the information contained herein cause loss of data, destruction of property, empty love life, bad social standing, or any other event of natural or unnatural origins to the reader or any third party, the author will not liable in this universe or any other.


Author's bio:

Neil Watson works in the greater Toronto area as a network administrator. He lives in Markham, Ontario, Canada, where he spends his spare time running his own domain and learning Perl. He is married and loves his wife Lisa very much. He can be reached at freshmeat@watson-wilson.ca.


T-Shirts and Fame!

We're eager to find people interested in writing articles on software-related topics. We're flexible on length, style, and topic, so long as you know what you're talking about and back up your opinions with facts. Anyone who writes an article gets a t-shirt from ThinkGeek in addition to 15 minutes of fame. If you think you'd like to try your hand at it, let jeff.covey@freshmeat.net know what you'd like to write about.

[Comments are disabled]

 Comments

[»] Well paint me red and call me a wagon!
by Brian Pribis - Apr 26th 2002 10:39:51

Of all the EULA's I have looked at this was the nicest. I guess I never would have expected this from MS. This is from the VC++ .NET EULA. There are questions to be answered like the definition of a "defect" and so on. But this looks like a real life software warranty.

10. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR PRODUCT ACQUIRED IN THE US AND CANADA.
Except with respect to the Redistributables, which are provided "AS IS," without warranty of any kind, Microsoft warrants that the Product will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety days from the date of receipt.
If an implied warranty or condition is created by your state/jurisdiction and federal or state/provincial law prohibits disclaimer of it, you also have an implied warranty or condition, BUT ONLY AS TO DEFECTS DISCOVERED DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS). AS TO ANY DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER THE NINETY (90) DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on how long an implied warranty or condition lasts, so the above limitation may not apply to you.

[reply] [top]


[»] Slightly Off topic
by Spin - Feb 6th 2002 11:50:47

What I would like to see is some accountability for
software released at the "beta-testing" stage. It
seems to be perfectly acceptable to release software
and then release a 20MByte patch the week
afterwards, followed by a 40MByte patch a few weeks
later. Which perhaps would be fine if (a)I was on
unlimited cable, or (b)I could go to the place of
purchase to recieve this "software update", but (a)
I'm not and (b) I can't.

If I buy a new car, I expect it to be delivered with the
fuel tank in it, not be told, "That's ok sir, it is only a
four hour drive to our warehouse and you can pick it
up for free". Gee thanks, if only I had a
working car...

The software industry is just another industry, if they
don't have the discipline to install their own decent
standards, governments should step in and do it for
them. If that causes some of them to go under, well it
serves them right for not doing it better in the first
place. Software was a fledgling industry in the 1980's,
not now. If you are worried about the lack of software
this may cause, what are you doing on Freshmeat?

[reply] [top]


[»] the EULA
by Triolus - Feb 6th 2002 09:01:47

One think many of you may have never done is to have worked in a computer retail store like CompUSA. I get customers day in and day out that will moan and cry over a piece of software that they THOUGHT would do what they want.

The problem is that they don't read the box, or find information on it over the internet.. they look at the pretty pictures on the front of the box.

BTW, most computer problem are the result of the user, who likes to use new software as a scapegoat ("I installed Unreal Tournament and it gave me a virus!").

Then again, what do you expect from someone who will argue until they day he died that he just installed 128 ghz of ram in his modem? The majority of customers, and end users for that matter, are idiots.

[reply] [top]


    [»] Re: the EULA
    by Teemu Voipio - Feb 16th 2002 02:26:46


    > Then again, what do you expect from
    > someone who will argue until they day he
    > died that he just installed 128 ghz of
    > ram in his modem? The majority of
    > customers, and end users for that
    > matter, are idiots.

    The fact that most complaints come from idiots doesn't mean that most of the users are idiots. It doesn't take too much intelligence after all to understand that it's no point to go to a store to complain about something you have/never had any idea of... knowledge and intelligence are different things after all. It's true that mayority of end users don't know shit about computers, but that has nothing to do with their intelligence.

    If one can't read at least the very first EULA and notice that "yeah yeah it's just about no warranty", or even after that go to store, then it might have something to do with intelligence and you might find that the same people MIGHT are the ones to ask stupid questions..

    --
    -teemu

    [reply] [top]


    [»] Re: the EULA
    by MikeFM - Feb 26th 2002 16:43:44


    > One think many of you may have never
    > done is to have worked in a computer
    > retail store like CompUSA. I get
    > customers day in and day out that will
    > moan and cry over a piece of software
    > that they THOUGHT would do what they
    > want.
    >
    > The problem is that they don't read
    > the box, or find information on it over
    > the internet.. they look at the pretty
    > pictures on the front of the box.
    >
    > BTW, most computer problem are the
    > result of the user, who likes to use new
    > software as a scapegoat ("I installed
    > Unreal Tournament and it gave me a
    > virus!").
    >
    > Then again, what do you expect from
    > someone who will argue until they day he
    > died that he just installed 128 ghz of
    > ram in his modem? The majority of
    > customers, and end users for that
    > matter, are idiots.

    I've worked retail and catalog/net sales of computers, software, etc. The biggest problem in my experience is that often sales people are poorly trained and work on commission. When a customer asks a question they just sort of guess and tell them something that is often totally wrong. Once these customers have talked to a few sales people like this and their friends that know about these things because they read Yahoo! Magazine they no longer have any idea what the proper termnology for things is or how things work but they think they do know. So in your case this person comes to your store, asks a clerk for a program that does what they need, the clerk finds a box with a pretty picture that looks close and shows it to the customer. The customer looks at the shiny box and thinks the clerk is right. They go home and it doesn't work so they come bitching back to lucky you the only guy in the place with a clue but of course they don't remember who sold them the software. All geeky white guys in stupid company shirts look alike afterall.

    Despite all that EULA's don't help at all. The customers still come in and bitch, you get stuck trying to clean the mess up, and then when customers with real problems come for help your busy with the retard and there is no way for the customer who's computer crashes every two minutes due to a Windows bug to get help.

    [reply] [top]


[»] Holding back information
by Ulric Eriksson - Jan 19th 2002 18:18:08

Once an exploit is out in the wild, it's usually a matter of hours before you risk being hit by it. So there is good reason to allow software producers some reasonable time before publishing an exploit or information that can be used to reproduce it. By reasonable time, I mean a few days. The alternative is to have companies rush out half-solutions that don't solve the problem.

Of course, a month is just silly. Nobody can expect the problem to go unnoticed for that long.

About the ISP who wanted the user to turn off his firewall: what are they otherwise supposed to do? A sufficiently paranoid configuration, or misconfiguration, is indistinguishable from a cut cable.

[reply] [top]


[»] Umm
by Justice London - Jan 19th 2002 15:56:19

As far as the article linked to regarding the person having trouble with their cable-modem provider not supporting their system that had zone alarm installed... That's not something that any ISP should or could support. It's one thing to have the guy un-install it, but to just turn it off while they help the user trouble-shoot isn't much to ask, and is to be expected. Zone-alarm by default won't even allow the system to be pinged, which is a normal tool used to trouble-shoot. I don't see any problem with asking a user to turn off a firewall. Actually, if you call your ISP, and have a firewall turned on.. I wouldn't expect to get support.. it just adds too much complexity to trouble-shooting an issue.

[reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Umm
    by Ray Shaw - Jan 27th 2002 23:02:25


    > As far as the article linked to
    > regarding the person having trouble with
    > their cable-modem provider not
    > supporting their system that had zone
    > alarm installed... That's not something
    > that any ISP should or could support.

    Actually, Earthlink gives you a free copy of ZoneAlarm when you sign up for DSL. Not that it's any use to me :) However, I expect that they'd still ask you to temporarily disable it if you were having connection problems. The less variables involved, the better.

    --Ray

    [reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Umm
    by Teemu Voipio - Feb 16th 2002 02:32:17

    I agree. When troubleshooting, cut different thing to minimum. Once it works add more thing until it doesn't, and you (hopefully) know what's wrong. Cutting down the firewall temporarily is the same thing as going to a known-to-work power outlet just to see if it's the device or something else..

    --
    -teemu

    [reply] [top]


[»] Not Really An Issue
by Gilgongo - Jan 19th 2002 09:46:53

I don't think this is really a very important issue.

Software is costly and extremely complex to produce and bring to market. Ongoing user support costs can be almost open-ended. Overall, profits are actually very slim on all but a few high-end products. Almost all consumer software outside the M$ camp is pretty low margin. This is partly why shareware is/was so popular.

Given this fact, and given that almost by definition consumer software are not mission critical, life-threatening or otherwise potentially disastrous, it's hardly surprising that manufacturers seek to give no warrantees in their contracts.

That said, it's always emotionally difficult for consumers to read total opt-out clauses. It seems to go against nature, and naturally angers people.

Perhaps if the software companies made their motivations for such clauses clear, people wouldn't be so indignant.

--
Gone are the days when you could say "Those were the days."

[reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Not Really An Issue
    by Bruce Korb - Jan 23rd 2002 23:32:39


    > I don't think this is really a very
    > important issue.
    Think "UCITA". http://www.infoworld.com/UCITA

    See your local search engine for endless references. Just type in, "UCITA". Ick.

    [reply] [top]


[»] Enterprise Grade Software
by The Werken Company - Jan 19th 2002 08:55:41

Then again, there's some software that guarantees that it will function exactly as its documented. In the case of a particular enterprise object-database, if an API didn't function as documented (ie, had a bug) you would have cause to demand action to be taken.

If you're buying a $49 piece of consumer software, you're not going to get much guarantees. $10,000 for something, with 20% maintenance, and you'll see warrantees, etc.

[reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Enterprise Grade Software
    by Egil Moeller - Jan 19th 2002 18:13:02

    Hehe, take a look at what D. Knuth says about TeX :) There you have your guarantees. But that is old and proven software - he knew very few bugs had been found lately when he put that price up... Most softwarre is pretty new and haven't had the time to maturre enough. Perheaps if people stopped wanting new features we could get some really good s/w. Think of cars; how much new featurres have you seen lately (and not car stereo enhancements, but real features of the car itself)? How many bug-fixes and security updates? I would say allmost no new features, but a hell lot of bug-fixes and security add-ons.

    --
    PGP Public key

    [reply] [top]


      [»] Re: Enterprise Grade Software
      by Cristian Draghici - Feb 7th 2002 16:31:17


      > Most softwarre is pretty new and
      > haven't had the
      > time to maturre enough. Perheaps if
      > people stopped
      > wanting new features we could get some
      > really good
      > s/w.

      New features is one of the problems. People writing software should learn when to stop adding features. Adding features is not necessarily good.

      Look at MS Word. Do you want more features? I don't. I can barely handle it's intelligence in auto correcting my writing.

      Has vi changed in the last 3 years? Did vi complain about needing an upgrade because the file you are trying to open is written with a newer version?
      No, because noone makes money out of sellling vi.


      And now going to cars. Where's this reliability in cars? They are safer, that's for sure but are they more reliable? I don't think so.
      Maybe I'm paranoid but i think the quality in spare parts is decreasing with newer models. And it's not because the technology is missing. How hard can it be to design a fuel pump that runs for 10 years?

      I'd say it's all about money. Write software for the fun of it and you'll see fewer bugs.

      --
      Cristi

      [reply] [top]


      [»] Re: Enterprise Grade Software
      by Emil Perhinschi - Feb 25th 2002 12:13:17


      > Most softwarre is pretty new and
      > haven't had the
      > time to maturre enough. Perheaps if
      > people stopped
      > wanting new features we could get some
      > really good


      I guess it's not the people that want new features: I believe that the programmers should reconsider adding features for the sake of showing that they can add new features.

      Just think of lame web designers that put a big Flash that only tells you ``Hi, welcome here!", or use intricate JavaScript to display menus that could be done very well in plain HTML and that freeze your browser. Or of the menus in MS Office 2000, not to speak of the Office assistant that pops up almost at random, and tells you things that you are not interested in :( I think that the Office assistant is a bug.

      Gnome and KDE are going this way, too. There are a lot of features that are put in just because it could be done. Who wants a desktop that looks like an airplane navigation board? It's just in order to show that M$ can be outdone :-(

      I guess that ``mature software'' is that whose makers know what they want from it, and do not atempt to make a ``super-tool'' that does almost everything: this is teenage attitude. And if one forgets why s/he started to write that piece of code, it is likely that s/he would forget to make those cute new features work well toghether.


      Emil Per.

      [reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Enterprise Grade Software
    by tekmate - Feb 17th 2002 17:08:21


    > Then again, there's some software that
    > guarantees that it will function exactly
    > as its documented. In the case of a
    > particular enterprise object-database,
    > if an API didn't function as documented
    > (ie, had a bug) you would have cause to
    > demand action to be taken.
    >
    > If you're buying a $49 piece of
    > consumer software, you're not going to
    > get much guarantees. $10,000 for
    > something, with 20% maintenance, and
    > you'll see warrantees, etc.
    >
    >

    I don't agree brake pads for my car cost less than 49 dollars and I expect them to work no ifs ands or buts. I'm not saying software will ever be free of bugs but if the product says it will do something or work on a particular system and it doesn't why shouldn't I have the right to at least return it and buy something else. MS office is not cheap if I went out and paid 400 for a full version shouldn't I at least expect that the product will allow me to write a letter without crashing.

    [reply] [top]


[»] Liability and Support.
by NullStream - Jan 19th 2002 07:26:53

In very many cases these 'I don't care' type of shrink wrapped liscences are not only due to the amount of resources it requires to support a sigificant user base but as well customers love to blame vendors for their problems and will sue at the drop of a hat. I really don't blame companies for throwing out these life-rafts for themselves.

Where life and death is at stake hardware and software vendors will provide support and guarantees for their products. This is especially apparent in the medical imaging and aerospace fields.

In the gaming console market finding serious bugs is rare and even though there is no software 'warrenty' you would be hard pressed to find fatal errors in the software. Due to the single configuration factor with little to no depdant user serviceable parts console programmers don't have to write software which supports every piece of hardware under the sun (which is where most bugs come from IMHO).

Of course this is all IMHO.

[reply] [top]


    [»] Re: Liability and Support.
    by mewse - Jan 20th 2002 20:35:38


    > In the gaming console market finding
    > serious bugs is rare and even though
    > there is no software 'warrenty' you
    > would be hard pressed to find fatal
    > errors in the software. Due to the
    > single configuration factor with little
    > to no depdant user serviceable parts
    > console programmers don't have to write
    > software which supports every piece of
    > hardware under the sun (which is where
    > most bugs come from IMHO).

    This is not actually the case. The reason that you see fewer bugs in console software is that before you can release, you have to be approved by the console's manufacturer.

    On the Dreamcast, for example, this meant that you had to survive a run on a memory debugger (which checked for common mistakes such as NULL or otherwise illegal pointer dereferences, doubly-deallocating memory, etc) for 24 hours of continuous play. If that debugger found ANY problems during that time (much less if the game crashed or froze!), you'd be rejected, and have to fix the bugs before resubmitting for another try. And each resubmission was a moderately expensive process.

    mewse

    [reply] [top]




© Copyright 2008 SourceForge, Inc., All Rights Reserved.
About freshmeat.net •  Privacy Statement •  Terms of Use •  Trademark Guidelines •  Advertise •  Contact Us • 
ThinkGeek •  Slashdot  •  ITMJ •  Linux.com •  NewsForge  •  SourceForge.net  •  Surveys •  Jobs •  PriceGrabber