Microsoft's Little Liability Problem

[bhoggett]

Yawn.

If you wanted real and significant news that may actually affect all of us, why not post this article about Microsoft's loss in a patent case that affects all browser plug-in architectures.

I'm surprised I haven't seen it here, to be honest.

[bhoggett]

@Wayne

I wasn't suggesting the admin staff had failed in any way. I am surprised that no one else has posted this however.

I would have done so myself, but I only became aware of the story a couple of days ago, and decided it was "too old" to warrant a "news" item.

No criticism of anyone was intended.

[bhoggett]

@mikeymike

The problem with the case is that it doesn't just affect ActiveX, but all plug-in technology, including Macromedia's Flash and Sun's Java. Open Source browsers like Mozilla and Konqueror may well be forced to do without any plug-ins whatsoever.

The risk is that Microsoft, being forced to rewrite a bunch of stuff, are going to introduce new "standards" and we'll end up with more websites that don't work with non-Microsoft browsers.

The loss is obviously bad news for Microsoft, but it may be even worse news for the rest of us.

What we have here is another example of a company failing to exploit their own technology, waiting until others have established it as a widespread practice, then coming up with patent suits and cleaning up without ever producing anything. It's a perfect example of why these loosely defined patents are a complete nightmare.

[bhoggett]

@minator

If MS sell consumer products they should fall under consumer protection laws in which case the EULA will be overrulled and well, ouch!

If they lose the case then "ouch!" indeed, and not just for Microsoft. Open source authors will suddenly become liable for any losses users may suffer as a result of their software having bugs/security flaws. Small commercial developers ditto.

Microsoft may well be able to absorb the cost and adapt to the new conditions, but how many others will be forced to give up?

However, the case has not been won. At this moment it's just one in a long line of cases, many of them completely cranky, filed against large corporations by people looking to make a quick buck through litigation.

[bhoggett]

@mikeymike

I think you're over-reacting a touch. If Microsoft could do that, they would have done it already.

Of course, I'm putting forward the worst possible case. However, bear in mind that the article does say MS have said they will be making changes and the W3C believe that will break a lot of people's web sites. As long as they work with the W3C, there's no problem, but should they go off at their own tangent...

MS's attempt to make the Internet proprietary failed, because people wanted it open. MSN v1 was the attempt. Their other attempt was with IE4 and channels, that didn't work either. Since then IE has become a tiny bit more standards compliant.

True, and there's a reasonable chance it will stay that way, but MS are powerful enough to take the other route. I'm not at all convinced they have given up on controlling the Internet yet. For instance, Microsoft have recently contacted rival instant messaging client developers to inform them that they are implementing new licensing requirements that require developers to either pay a license fee or be locked out of MSN. The leopard doesn't seem ready to change its spots quite yet.

As for the liability case, I agree with you. I find it highly unlikely that Microsoft will lose it. At the very worst (for them) they'll reach an out of court settlement with the plaintiff that does not involve them admitting any wrongdoing. That way, no precedent gets set, and no culpability is admitted. I doubt we're about to see any major changes in EULA practices.

[bhoggett]

@minator

They already are liable in Germany.
However there is simply no point in trying to sue someone if they have no money and they haven't made anything from the product. I think Open Source authors while not being immune won't have anywhere near the same problems.

Rubbish. That's like saying that people can leave their doors open because thieves only steal from rich homes.

There are large companies involved in many open source projects. Open source isn't just about a few bedroom programmers writing software in their spare time, you know. IBM invested 1 billion dollars last year in Linux development, for instance. Litigators would just target people like IBM for their actions, even if IBM were not directly responsible for the security leak.

Will widespread software liability be a good thing? Yes, but only if users are forced to pass a test before being allowed to use computers, the same way you need a driving license to drive a car. Operating a computer is not like operating a DVD player, and users can do a lot of damage, to themselves and to other people, by misusing the technology. It's only reasonable to restrict computer use to those who are qualified, no?

How likely is that to happen, do you think?

[bhoggett]

@mikeymike

 :-D

Heh, I agree: relevant computer user "permits" are unlikely to happen because so few people take the complexity of computer use seriously. People are told "buy a computer, it's really easy and you'll be able to do lots of stuff", and so they blame the system rather than their own incompetence when things turn out a little more complicated than they were led to believe.

That's why I think developers should have the right to say "use this at your own risk" if they see fit. It's then up to the user to decide whether he wants to use that software considering the risk, or else use something with a license that covers him in any eventuality. Blanket laws that enforce liability regardless are an absolute nightmare scenario.