[39868] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: product liability (was 'we should all be uncomfortable with
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jul 25 17:08:44 2001
Message-ID: <3B5F3380.EDF0BFD1@delong.sj.ca.us>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:00:48 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.sj.ca.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Hollis <goemon@anime.net>
Cc: LBolton@geiger.com, nanog@nanog.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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
