There is a difference in kind between a latent defect being in a product
and the product not being serviced properly and I doubt a court will have
much truck with a car company that says that regular inspection of the spot
welding of the axles is part of user servicing. In the case of a car I
can't think of any examples where there'd be doubt as to one or the other.
Software vendors and customers get into some delicious arguments about
software maintenance - this is where the customer gets to pay the vendor
for the vendor to correct problems with the software. On the one hand
you're providing an incentive for the vendor to provide buggy software, so
that maintenance is essential, on the other hand it's just a fact of
business that the bugs aren't going to be fixed unless you pay for it
(Vendors tend to cushion the blow by chucking "new releases" into the
package as a bonus). Similar arguments arise over warranty periods. If a
bug is found after the end of the warranty period it's not going to be a
result of wear and tear, it's because the vendor didn't do the job properly
in the first place.
The whole discussion indicates to me that there are no accepted standards.
That's probably because of the relative immaturity of the market. Sooner or
later the courts will start throwing around liability for software. I
guess just not soon enough for some of the correspondents.
Brendan
"Frank
O'Connor" To: MToohey@fesa.wa.gov.au
<foconno1@bigpo cc: Rick Welykochy <rick@praxis.com.au>,
nd.net.au> link@www.anu.edu.au, (bcc: Brendan Scott/Gilbert & Tobin/61)
Subject: Re: [LINK] "New Laws: Thou Shalt Patch"
01/08/01 02:46
PM
Ahhh ... but what is the situation when, from Day 1, Ford requires
the owner to bring the car in for servicing daily or weekly and
install new parts to replace defective parts?
What is the situation when Ford doesn't advise the owner personally
(so he is not aware of the defect) and simply places hundreds of
bulletins on a set of Ford notice boards that are difficult to find?
What is the situation when installing each repair means downtime for
the truck or car that the owner is using in their business?
What is the situation when the underlying design of Ford's cars is
fundamentally flawed in the interests of 'user features' to the
extent that the car represents a serious threat to the life and
security of the owner as a result?
What is the situation when ...
You get the idea. :)
Regards,
At 12:09 PM +0800 1/8/01, MToohey@fesa.wa.gov.au wrote:
>Rick,
>
>in relation to your car analogy
>
>" Let me see now ...
>
>1. Ford Motor Co. produces a car with a defect. The defect turns out
> be a possible source of injury. The result: Ford is *legally liable*
> to recall and fix said vehicles. "
>
>But if a customer does not service or maintain the vehicle as the manual
>requires, and a loss or damage occurs due to a failing of the product,
then
>the supplier has a means of escaping liability.
>
>cheers,
>Matt.
-- ************************ Apathy is a great cause for concern ... but who cares? ************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 03:10:02 EST