Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eosp1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!robison From: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) Newsgroups: net.ai Subject: Re: Liability Message-ID: <1181@eosp1.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 18:29:38 EDT Article-I.D.: eosp1.1181 Posted: Tue Oct 16 18:29:38 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Oct-84 06:35:17 EDT References: <12818@sri-arpa.UUCP> <58300003@uo-vax1.UUCP> Reply-To: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton Lines: 29 [I'm not a lawyer but I think that:] The contract terms of sale for an expert system should also be a factor in determining the systems liability. I imagine that the vendor of an expert system would include a strong statement that recommendations of the system must be interpreted by the customer in every case to determine reasonability, with the final determination being the sole responsibility of the customer. The vendor would probably restrict carefully the area of expertise that in which the system could be trusted, and might void even those recommendations as soon as a customer "customized" his machine. Finally, the vendor would also state that he was not liable for any legal problems arising out of recommendations by the system. It is possible that in a competitive market, some vendors would not be able to sell a system with such restrictions, but this is routinely done for most types of software. In some cases, the courts will void such [lack of] warranties, and hold the vendor responsible; in other cases, the vendor's restrictions will stand. When the vendor is able to limit his liability, he might still be responsbile for problems arising due to vendor negligence, or the failure of the product to perform in a way that any sensible person would think was a reasonable minimum of capability. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison