tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post3419216368180452176..comments2024-02-10T02:23:08.475-08:00Comments on Paul's Pontifications: What duties to software developers owe to users?Paul Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07353083601285449293noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-41468494267210780122016-12-04T03:06:36.168-08:002016-12-04T03:06:36.168-08:00To me it seems that the relationship between a sof...To me it seems that the relationship between a software developer and a user is more like that between a director of a company and its customers, not its shareholders.<br /><br />Their interests align often enough, but where there is a conflict it's the customers who lose.Dave Turnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08890833080174889786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-17609140757846122562016-12-03T22:53:36.171-08:002016-12-03T22:53:36.171-08:00If you read a few sentences further on the Wikiped...If you read a few sentences further on the Wikipedia page you link, you'll find the following sentence: "In such a relation good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the <i>sole</i> benefit and interest of the one who trusts." (my emphasis) A bit further, you have this: "A fiduciary [...] is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom he owes the duty[...]: such that there must be no conflict of duty between fiduciary and principal, and the fiduciary must not profit from his position as a fiduciary (unless the principal consents)." My understanding is that these are the import of legislated forms of fiduciary duty. I'd be hard pressed to believe that you believe that these sentences describe the relationship between a software developer and an end-user.<br /><br />Being a fiduciary is an extremely strong relationship. Quoting the Cornell site you link: "If an individual breaches the fiduciary duties, he or she would need to account for the ill-gotten profit. His or her beneficiaries are entitled to damages, even if they suffered no harm." Paraphrasing from <a href="http://www.unistudyguides.com/wiki/Breach_of_Fiduciary_Duty" rel="nofollow">http://www.unistudyguides.com/wiki/Breach_of_Fiduciary_Duty</a>: <br /><br />In practical terms, there are two ways a fiduciary can breach its duty: being in a position of a conflict of interest, or making an improper gain from its position. A person is in a position of conflict if "a reasonable man looking at the relevant facts ... would think that there was a <b>real sensible possibility</b> of conflict". Fraud, dishonesty or bad faith are irrelevant. Conflict may arise between duties owed to different principals. An improper gain is <b>any</b> sort of gain and is prohibited, regardless of whether it harmed the principal, whether it was even available to the principal or, whether it actually benefited the principal as well. The only defence available to the fiduciary who has breached its duty is that it did so with the <b>informed consent of the principal</b>. (their emphasis) <br /><br />I think it is clear that this is completely untenable. As an example, you could argue that a software developer marking a bug as WONTFIX because the costs don't outweigh the benefits in adoption/retention would be a breach of fiduciary duty regardless of the bug and regardless if that actually allowed more work to be done improving the product in other ways, unless (presumably all) end-users gave informed consent to make that decision. Also, as far as I can tell, virtually all employed software developers would be in a conflict of interest.<br /><br />I'm not necessarily saying nothing should be done, but the notion of fiduciary duty is extremely unlikely to be the tool you want to achieve your desired ends.Derek Elkinshttp://www.hedonisticlearning.comnoreply@blogger.com