Steven M. Geller at [EMAIL PROTECTED],Internet writes:
>Whilst you are certainly entitled to your opinions, you will also want >to
be aware that the type of indemnification clause which you were >commenting
about can certainly be considered as quite ordinary if not >standard in U.S.
contracts.
Actually, I am aware of the frequency with which such abusive
clauses are included in "shrinkwrap agreements" that come with
American software. They are NOT standard in other industries and,
in my opinion, there is no legal or moral excuse for them in
software licences either.
It is reasonable to include a clause limiting one's responsibility
to the direct results of using one's product -- i.e., excluding any
damages resulting from improper use of the product, unforeseeable
conflicts when used in conjunction with untested screensavers or
whatever, or costs of labour for uninstalling and redoing one's data.
It is not reasonable or ethically defensible to put everything on a
"we're exempt from all laws so, buyer, beware" basis when the
buyer cannot possibly make an informed decision about the
product without breaking the shrinkwrap and therefore being
presumed to have consented to the limitations of liability.
I am a perpetual reader of small print and know that not all
American software manufacturers try to pull this stunt on
their unsuspecting customers, but I also know that certain large
corporations with major financial clout have been lobbying to
have U.S. laws changed to accommodate their preferred methods
of bilking the public. However, that being said, even if the U.S.
government caves into that kind of pressure, it would not
invalidate the existing consumer protection laws elsewhere...
which is what this kind of "warranty" is meant to imply.
Actually, I have seen software and hardware which is shipped
with that kind of text in English while the warranty text in
another language spells out a rather different set of conditions.
Anyway, it seems obvious to me that there are people in this
world who will do anything they can get away with. We who
write, edit or translate their documents do not HAVE to aid and
abet dubious business practices, and as consumers we have the
right to complain loudly when somebody sells a product in
which they themselves have so little faith that it will work
as promised.
In short, I don't think we have to accept this nonsense just
because somebody feels like perpetrating it. There is no
legal system I can think of which would allow a car-maker
to sell a car on these terms --"if you get into it, you are
deemed to have accepted that it may not work properly and
you can't get a refund unless we decide you can; if the brakes
don't work and you hit somebody, it's not our problem; if
the gas tank explodes spontaneously and burns you to a
crisp, your heirs can get a refund of the price of the car
but cannot sue us for damages" -- and I see no good reason
why the situation should be any different just because the
article sold has something to do with computers.
And, just as I would not feel right about providing inaccurate
documentation or bogus clauses disclaiming responsibility
for selling that defective car, I feel we who are supposed to
be professionals in the field of documentation have a real
responsibility to the purchasers of the things we document.
Come to think of it, many clients demand that their writers
and translators carry the liability for any defects in the
documentation -- so they can sue US if there are any problems
as regards customer safety, loss of data, etc. -- and the rest
could sue us anyhow if a problem arose...
I sure wouldn't want that responsibility in a case where the client
in question was able to claim that his disclaimer clauses freed him
from any responsibility in the matter! Naturally, you might prefer
to assume the risk on the grounds that it is normal practice in that
particular industry...
Regards,
Judyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
