|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:06:20 -0800, "Owen DeLong" <[email protected]> [snip] > I agree it would be nice to set some standards. I think what is needed > is a consortium of software security experts to set some minimum "safety > standards" that can be used as a legal basis. You're barking up the wrong tree. Mediocre product quality is just one of many symptoms of a lack of competition. The real problem is that we've got monopolies backed by a draconian patent regime. Imagine a situation where there are drop-in replacements for most proprietary technologies with little or no barrier to entry (financial or technical). A serious flaw in product X could easily cause mass customer defection to competing products. Maybe some of the profits of today would have to be invested in quality assurance to prevent that. How would a brand of household-appliances hold up to the competition if their products were riddled with flaws that had no solution, just workarounds using expensive add-ons? Should the market accept that MS enter the market of "anti-products" instead of solving the problem within their products? Keep in mind that such products are parasites which represent no customer value. Why have the monopolies we normally despise become the norm in the software industry? Or rather, why did we let them dictate a legislation that give them legroom for such behaviour. //per -- Per Heldal [email protected]
|