Greetings,
As such, I would argue that M$ release of a product with such widely known exploitable vulnerabilities into a the market including customers of any given relay service entity may, indeed, create standing for that service entity to sue M$ on the basis of costs incurred due to M$ negligence and negligent business practices.
Owen
While this is true, license agreements for most software products indicate that the product is expressly sold "as-is", and that you agree explicitly that the manufacturer is not responsible. This would most likely kill any product liability lawsuits, especially because the product performs to specification. Trying to sue Microsoft for producing software with varying levels of security (defaulted to the lowest security level) is like trying to sue an automobile manufacturer because their cars are easy to steal. While it may be possible to seek damages under lemon laws, if the car performs as specified there is little one can say except "damn, that's a stupid way to build a car..." I think the best way to stop the poor security in MS products is to vote with your wallet. I'll grant that sometimes this is impractical, but it is IMHO the only way to guide any software manufacturer to the features and functionalities that consumers truly need. The only problem with this logic is that Microsoft still has a long list of ill-informed and poorly-educated consumers to chew on before they run out of steam. The good news is that *eventually* they will. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Kowalchuk skowalchuk@diamonex.com Diamonex, Incorporated The more pity, that fools may not speak wisely what wise men do foolishly. --------------------------------------------------------------------------