Souces Liability Law and Software Development Ravi Belani, Charles Donovan, Howard Loo, & Jessen Yu SOFTWARE PRODUCT LIABILITY: UNDERSTANDING AND MINIMIZING THE RISKS By Lawrence B. Levy and Suzanne Y. Bell Software Product Liability CWE/SANS Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors Series by Jane Chong Is there really a global 'IT debt' of $500 billion? Consumer guarantee law may extend to software under EU plans EC wants software makers held liable for code

What’s Wrong With the Arguments For More Programmer Liability ARGUMENTARGUMENT CONTRARYCONTRARY EXAMPLEEXAMPLE “The importance of innovation in applications goes beyond its role in fostering economic growth. The Internet, as a general-purpose technology... creates value by enabling users to do the things they want or need to do. Applications are the tools that let users realize this value. For example, the Internet’s political, social or cultural potential—its potential to improve democratic discourse, to facilitate political organization and action, or to provide a decentralized environment for social and cultural interaction in which anyone can participate—is tightly linked to applications that help individuals, groups or organizations do more things or do them more efficiently, and not just in economic contexts but also in social, cultural or political contexts.” - Barbara van van Schewick [Internet Architecture and Innovation] Conclusion – Software development as a whole is much too precious and fragile to be litigated on by our federal government at this point in time. There are software injustices out there but as of today (DEC 2013) there aren’t any proposed policies that get it just right so as to keep the cost of developing software reasonable and fix these injustices. A “Green Paper on EU Consumer Laws” was endorsed by a Resolution passed by the European Parliament that asks whether or not software and data should be included in the protection of consumer goods which in the US is covered by the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Software developing is like car manufacturing in the 1960s. It needs regulations setting “best practices” as a standard for safety/security. Many in the law profession claim that there are holes that needs to be filled with federal legislation because cases that could have been prevented could have been thrown out. Making torts include financial damages or Poking holes in End User License Agreements have been suggested. Software is much too fluid to be defined as either a good or service. Until very specific language that is accepted by the programming community is proposed there isn’t much hope of making a law that will be both reasonably productive and fair. Life and limb are not always at risk and when they are, considering the fast evolution of technology, an evolving industry standard should be used over a standard written in legislative stone. There is a need to “poke holes” in End User License Agreements however the states are already doing that. Courts have ignored EULAs however there still isn’t a good standard method for throwing them out that could be adopted by the whole country. Variables like the price of the software vs. the price of its upkeep and updates have been used to decide whether or not the software transaction was a good or service. Also the amount that the software was customized can be used to decide if it was a good or service. Different laws apply to goods than to services DO-17C8 for Aeronautical Software by volunteers Guidance for Medical Device Software by the FDA Internet Standards by the W3C. Courts throwing out EULA because: Unacceptable per the UCC. They claimed you agreed to it just by buying the product