MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-10-07 |
| FROM | From: "Inker, Evan"
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] Product Liability Lawsuits Are New Threat to Microsoft
|
October 6, 2003
Product Liability Lawsuits Are New Threat to Microsoft
By STEVE LOHR
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/technology/06SOFT.html
Trial lawyers have watched with increasing interest in recent months as
malicious computer viruses and worms - all exploiting security flaws in
Microsoft software - have crashed computers and networks around the world.
It is only a matter of time, they said, before the class-action suits
against Microsoft start dropping.
The first came last week, filed in State Superior Court in Los Angeles,
asserting that Microsoft engaged in unfair business practices and violated
California consumer protection laws by selling software riddled with
security flaws. The suit seeks class-action status. More such suits are
anticipated.
The litigation, legal experts said, is an effort to use the courts to make
software subject to product liability law - a burden the industry has so far
avoided and strenuously resisted.
"For a software company to be held liable would be a real extension of
liability as it now stands," said Jeffrey D. Neuburger, a technology lawyer
at Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner.
To date, software companies have sidestepped liability suits partly by
selling customers a license to use their programs - not actual ownership -
with a lengthy list of caveats and disclaimers. So the warranty programs
offered by PC makers, for example, cover hardware but not software.
The industry has argued that software is a highly complex product, often
misused or modified by consumers. Assigning responsibility for a failure,
the argument goes, would be unfair to any single company.
Besides, software executives say, the industry is a fast-changing global
business that is largely led by United States companies. Opening the
industry up to product liability lawsuits, they say, would chill innovation
and undermine the competitiveness of American companies.
Yet whether the software industry can remain beyond the reach of product
liability is still not certain. The modern economy - from office work to
financial markets to power grids - depends increasingly on software. And the
trial lawyers are not the only ones who think software makers should face
stronger incentives to create products that are more reliable and secure.
Outside of the courthouse, regulations and legislation may also be deployed
to prod the industry toward more secure software. A report last year by a
National Academy of Sciences panel, made up largely of computer scientists
from universities and companies, included the recommendation that "policy
makers should consider legislative responses to the failure of existing
incentives to cause the market to respond adequately to the security
challenge."
The debate over software liability seems certain to become more intense,
computer security experts say, and some shift toward holding software makers
responsible for defects may be inevitable.
"The broad issue is, as a matter of policy, do we want suppliers of products
and systems that are critical to our economy to be able to absolve
themselves of all liability," said Mark D. Rasch, a former federal
prosecutor who is a senior vice president of Solutionary Inc., a computer
security firm.
But class-action suits against Microsoft over security matters, legal
experts say, will be hard-fought and difficult to win. Such cases are trying
to break new ground in a way that recent class-action antitrust suits
against Microsoft, for example, did not.
In the antitrust cases, the class-action plaintiffs filed in the wake of the
landmark federal case that found the company was a monopoly that had
repeatedly abused its market power. Microsoft has tried to settle its
antitrust class actions, including agreeing to pay a $1.1 billion settlement
in California earlier this year.
Microsoft, by contrast, has suffered no reverses in court that would
establish any liability for flawed software. In the current case, it is
conceding nothing. Microsoft issued a statement saying that developing the
most secure software possible was a top priority for the company.
"This complaint misses the point," the Microsoft statement added. "The
problems caused by viruses and other security attacks are the result of
criminal acts by the people who write viruses."
The suit was filed by an experienced product liability lawyer, Dana B.
Taschner, on behalf of Marcy Levitas Hamilton, a Los Angeles film editor,
and other members of the proposed class.
The 19-page complaint is a broad-brush document arguing that Microsoft's
Windows operating system, which runs 90 percent of all personal computers in
the world, is poorly designed, flaw-ridden, and that the company ships
software it knows is riddled with security flaws. The complaint adds that
Microsoft's system for warning the public of security problems is so
confusing and technically complex that it is of little use to the ordinary
computer user.
Because of Microsoft's insecure software, the complaint asserts, Ms.
Hamilton suffered identity theft - someone obtained unauthorized access to
her Social Security number and bank account information, which was stored on
her computer.
Still, a big hurdle for class-action plaintiffs, legal experts say, will be
the standard software license. It is what all computer users see and click
to agree to - even if they seldom read it - when they start a new machine or
load a new software program. For the plaintiffs to prevail, a judge will
have to rule, in effect, that the software license is unenforceable or is
overridden by another standard, like the "fit for intended use" rule that
applies to most consumer products.
Class-action lawyers say they are confident that this standard will
eventually be applied. "As a matter of policy, I think the courts will find
that software companies have basic obligations to provide a product that
does what it is supposed to do," said Terry Gross, a partner of Gross &
Belsky, a firm in San Francisco. "And that the companies cannot avoid those
obligations just because of the language in the license."
****************************************************************************
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual or entity named. If you are not the named addressee
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive
late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not
accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
This message is provided for informational purposes and should not
be construed as an invitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.
GAM operates in many jurisdictions and is
regulated or licensed in those jurisdictions as required.
****************************************************************************
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
