jasst3@cisunx.UUCP (Jeffrey A. Sullivan) (03/22/88)
Some people have been ranting and raving about all of the retribution that they desire to be taken against the MacMag folks. They state that since some people have had damage to their machines, despite the claim that it was benign, that the MacMag people are liable or criminal or should be castrated, etc. I want to distance myself from these rather nasty sentiments from the start. I think that use of such terms and implied lawless behavior such as (I believe) someone who said they should be "kicked in the teeth" are totally out of line and should have no place on this net, or in any civilised discussion. This is the kind of vigilante mentality that really Goetz my goat. ;-) Anyway, the claim is that since someone had damage from the virus (I suppose this is provable? How do they _know_ the virus caused it?), that MacMag is liable allows the following logical extension. If anyone has damage to their software/hardware configuration due to a malfunctioning software, that software manufacturer is liable for the cost of repair and time of downness. This is obviously ridiculous. The MacMag people did not distribute an intentionally damaging item, and any damage occurring must be the result of unforeseen interactions. How, then, can they be held liable if you can not do the same ofr other software distributors? If ted jones, author of the new freeware utility, Splatz, discovers that his util caused Joe Schmoe to crash his HD with valuable and irreplaceable data on it, is he liable? Of course not. I do not condone the distribution of virii, and I _do_ think that it was an ill-advised prank, but it was obviously not "evil" as many have put it, nor can they be held liable (in my humble non-legal opinion) for any damages resulting from its use. I understnad that there are other extenuating conditions (most importantly, that the people dealing with the virus did not consent, knowingly or tacitly, to its use) but I still think the basic point of this post is vlid. -- .......................................................................... Jeffrey Sullivan | University of Pittsburgh jas@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu | Intelligent Systems Studies Program jasper@PittVMS.BITNET, jasst3@cisunx.UUCP | Graduate Student
c9c-dk@dorothy.Berkeley.EDU (DJ Flymo) (03/22/88)
Jeffrey Sullivan writes: > This is obviously ridiculous. The MacMag people did not distribute an > This is obviously ridiculous. The MacMag people did not distribute an > intentionally damaging item, and any damage occurring must be the result of > unforeseen interactions. How, then, can they be held liable if you can not do > the same ofr other software distributors? and: > resulting from its use. I understnad that there are other extenuating > conditions (most importantly, that the people dealing with the virus did > not consent, knowingly or tacitly, to its use) but I still think the basic > point of this post is vlid. But you see that is the *point*. The people did *not* consent to its use. If you give me something that I do not know about or even want, shouldn't you be responsible for any problems or damages incurred? If you take your car to be repaired, and along with repairing it, they do something else which you did not consent to or were asked about, and this causes more problems, would you accept an excuse of "We didn't think it would cause any problems, so it is not our fault." This defense of "unforeseen interactions" is weak at best. I could write a crummy program and as long as it worked for me, I could claim any problems were the result of "unforeseen interactions". Why are other software companies not held liable? Check the board, coach. The warranties for software programs are quite explicit. To quote the Microsoftwarranty, "Microsoft assumes no liability for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential,special or exemplary damages, regardless of its having been advised of the possibility of such damages." This is not to say that companies have not been held liable, but that pretty much covers their hindquarters. If you do not agree with my sentiments, please respond. I would really be interested in your thoughts on my "diatribe". Bruce Burkhalter c9c-dk@dorothy.berkeley.EDU "Anybody remember the limbo? What the hell was that all about?" Dennis Miller
woody@tybalt.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (03/22/88)
In article <7919@cisunx.UUCP> jasst3@cisunx.UUCP (Jeffrey A. Sullivan) writes: >Anyway, the claim is that since someone had damage from the virus (I suppose >this is provable? How do they _know_ the virus caused it?), that MacMag is >liable allows the following logical extension. If anyone has damage to their >software/hardware configuration due to a malfunctioning software, that >software manufacturer is liable for the cost of repair and time of downness. >This is obviously ridiculous. The MacMag people did not distribute an >intentionally damaging item, and any damage occurring must be the result of >unforeseen interactions. How, then, can they be held liable if you can not do >the same ofr other software distributors? If ted jones, author of the new >freeware utility, Splatz, discovers that his util caused Joe Schmoe to crash >his HD with valuable and irreplaceable data on it, is he liable? Of course >not. I just have a little itty-bitty bit of legal theory, but I just had to put in my two cents work. (Which it's prbably worth... ;-) To successfully make a legal claim against someone for a product which does damage, you must show (1) That it was the fault of the product, and (2) That the person or persons distributing the product are somehow criminally negligent in distributing that product. Suppose you (as a totally random example) are a building contractor building a house. You don't get the proper building permits necessary, and after the owner of the house moves in, the house caves in and destroys all of his personal property. You (the building contractor) are liable for the value of the house and all the property destroyed, as it was your fault and you knowingly did something wrong. Now I'm not a lawyer nor do I practice law in any way, shape or form (I just program Macintoshes), but I believe that one can argue successfully to a judge in a civil court that "willfully creating a potentially destructive 'virus' which spreads without knowledge of any users" is good enough for the "criminally negligent" part [remember in a civil case in many cases showing that someone with knowledge and forsight did something potentially harmful yet NOT illegal is as good as criminally negligent, but in a criminal court you must show a broken law]. Therefore I do think there is a potential civil case against MacMag in this country. The problem is that they are not in this country [or so I have seen posted here earlier], and filing against a foreign entity is (at best) a very painful process. - William Edward Woody woody@tybalt.caltech.edu (Mac>][n&&/|\)&&(MacII>AT) Disclamer: I haven't the foggiest idea what I'm talking about...