Since software is involved, it is basically impossible for any court to ever judge a company guilty of negligence. There are no standards for software. No lic

Since software is involved, it is basically impossible for any court to ever judge a company guilty of negligence. There are no standards for software. No licensed engineers they could fail to hire, no industry mandated practices they could fail to follow, nothing. Even when Toyota's outrageous negligence killed dozens of people in their 'unintended acceleration' scandal, the actual negligence claims failed. That's very bad, because it is exactly those negligence claims that provide the best motivators to corporate executives when building critical infrastructure. A guilty verdict for negligence when building a bridge or road or similar can easily result in executives in real prison cells. But if a computer is involved, they know they don't need to worry. Their main worry then becomes the potential punitive damages awarded by juries, but that's just a monetary penalty and even those usually aren't larger than what it would cost for them to do things like hire experienced software engineers, give those engineers control over product scheduling, provide them with the tools they need, etc.