Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site harvard.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!sasaki From: sasaki@harvard.ARPA (Marty Sasaki) Newsgroups: net.ai Subject: liability Message-ID: <89@harvard.ARPA> Date: Sat, 13-Oct-84 04:17:50 EDT Article-I.D.: harvard.89 Posted: Sat Oct 13 04:17:50 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Oct-84 01:47:04 EDT Distribution: net Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard Lines: 19 The world of Data Processing has already solved the kinds of problems outlined in the various articles about the liability of expert systems. Contracts for things like DBMSs always have a clause that specifically says that the company is not liable for any damage to the client even if the problem is obviously the fault of the software. The most that a client can claim is the cost of the software package. This has been tested in court several times and the decision is connected directly with how the contract was written. If the contract was written in a way which truly removed the liability from the software company, then they won, otherwise the client won. The legal issue is one entirely of legalese. This doesn't solve the moral or ethical side though, which is what this group is really discussing. -- Marty Sasaki Havard University Science Center sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp}