4 ms·
> This could set a potentially dangerous legal precedent. Microsoft are arguing that the malware operation damages Microsoft's brand, instead of putting the fau
by rlpb 6y ago
> This could set a potentially dangerous legal precedent. Microsoft are arguing that the malware operation damages Microsoft's brand, instead of putting the fault onto themselves for making vulnerable software.
I think both can be true. Even if you think Microsoft should be held legally culpable for making vulnerable software, I don't think that should be a "get out of jail free" card for someone exploiting it.
I therefore don't see how agreeing that Microsoft is being harmed by malware authors could possibly result in a legal precedent exonerating them from legal liability over vulnerable software. Courts consider what is presented to them and their rulings tend to be narrow.
- Nextgrid 6y agoTo be clear, I am absolutely not arguing that malware authors should get impunity - we have other laws such as the CFAA that should be used to punish this activity. I am also not saying that software developers should automatically be liable for bugs or security vulnerabilities in their products. My concern is that such a precedent would then allow software developers to sue on brand damage grounds even in non-malicious cases such as merely documenting an exploit or publishing a proof of concept (designed to test the vulnerability on your own infrastructure), in which case even "mens rea" would not apply since technically documentation/PoC code is intended to let others know about the vulnerability (so they can protect themselves, but that does technically damage the brand, although rightfully in this case).
- kenjackson 6y agoI'd expect this to be narrowly interpreted. I don't think any precedent would extend the ways you suggest.