When I first got done reading this article, I just couldn't believe that a reasonable person could ever conceive of such a mind numbingly stupid idea as this. Since it clearly defies all logic, I began to consider what might motivate someone to publicly express this ludicrous opinion. And then it became stunningly obvious: large software companies will be able to protect their programmers by either purchasing insurance, or deploying their fleet of lawyers when the need arises. Whatever additional expense is incurred will simply be passed on to the customer (or possibly recouped from the programmers in the form of lower salaries, fewer benefits, no bonuses, etc.). Problem solved. Of course, there is a fortuitous side effect to a policy such as this: open source programmers will either need purchase expensive liability insurance just to continue doing something that most of them do for free, or simply quit coding.

So, it's pretty obvious that this would be a losing proposition for everyone involved except for very large software companies with deep pockets and an army of lawyers. Customers would almost certainly be required to pay more for shrinked wrapped software, FOSS could be severly crippled, and programmers would suddenly become even more dependent on big corps for employment. Good luck getting that startup off the ground with the added load of crushing liability insurance rates. Sounds to me like this would seriously chill inovation, increase costs to users, and probably drive programmer salaries down. I'm not sure what effect this might have on off-shoring, but I'm betting that it might become even more attractive as it would be difficult (and probably not that financially rewarding) to sue some programmer in India making $10/hr.

And lets not forget that this is all based on the premise that it's even possible to write completely secure (and useful) software. Doesn't the old saying goe something like this: Cheap. Easy to use. Secure. - Choose any two.

Also, the risk/reward ratio for programmers suddenly goes through the roof. Let me get this straight - if I work for a smallish software company, I'm more than likely going to be *personally* at risk of financial ruin in the event of failure, and (unless I'm lucky enough to have my compensation tied to sales) have virtually no chance of a financial windfall in the case of success. Sticks, sticks, and more sticks, but where the FUCK are the carrots?

This whole thing just makes me want to puke. If my car stereo gets stolen, can I get the engineer who designed the door lock to buy me a new one? If my house is burglarized, can I sue the carpenter? If I get mugged walking down the street, can I sue the guy who poured the concrete for the sidewalk?

Which leads me to the conclusion that Howard Schmidt is either a nitwit of titanic magnitude, or simply another corporate shill. Personally, I'm thinking both.