[CLUE-Talk] HP to Protect Customers from Linux Claims

[Kirk Rafferty]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 09:20:57PM +0000, Dennis J Perkins wrote:
> Define indemnity.  Will a court and judge agree with your definition of 
> indemnity or agree with the customer who is suing you over it?

Hmm, I don't think I made my point very clear.  I'm not saying that
I think indemnity is right or wrong.  I'm saying that if the market
demands indemnity, then somebody should (and did) stand up and offer it.
Not because it's right or wrong, but because that's what the market
demands.  This is why the RIAA won't stop filesharing...the market demands
it.

(Please don't take this argument to it's ridiculous extremes...I realize
that even thought the market seems to demand Britney Spears and InSync,
nobody should have ever actually stepped in to fill that demand.)

So to answer your question, I suppose if I were running HP, I'd get a bunch
of bean-counters to tell me where on the indemnity scale we could offer
it, and still maintain a reasonable amount of risk.  On the far left, you
have complete indemnification--HP will provide you with a lawyer and soak
up any cost you would have incurred.  On the far right, HP will refund
whatever you paid for the copy of Linux you bought from them, and no more.
Somewhere in between the two extremes is the point where indemnification
is worth the risk and still makes customers happy.

(For the record, I don't really care if HP offers indemnity.  SCO didn't
change my Linux plans one iota, and HP's indemnity doesn't affect me at
all, since I don't run any HP servers or have any HP support contracts.)

> For that matter, can you offer indemnity
> for something you don't produce?  Aren't they simply installing another
> company's product?

Sure, why not?  It's basically insurance.  State Farm doesn't manufacture
my car, but they'll go to court for me if they need to, even if it's
Ford's fault.

-k