🚀 go-pugleaf

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...