[nonick]

The dangerous precedent I see is Microsoft making justice for itself (with authorization from a judge, but still, when did Microsoft become law-enforcement?). Blaming Microsoft for building "vulnerable software" because someone is targeting their OS with their malware is like blaming Boeing because their planes were used for the 9/11 attacks.

[tremon]

I disagree that's a valid comparison. If the terrorists were able to remotely override Boeing's autopilot from the ground, and use that to steer the planes into the towers, Boeing would absolutely have been blamed, and rightly so.

[rhino369]

Nobody blamed Boeing for not putting locks on their cockpit doors.

The public actually doesn't generally place much blame on manufacturers of hardware for third party manipulation unless the point of the device is security. Nobody expects a car is invulnerable to sabotage.

[nonick]

You could blame Boeing for not taking control of the planes from the ground and prevent the terrorists steering them into the towers.

[quickthrowman]

This isn’t a criminal matter, it’s a civil matter. They filed a lawsuit and convinced a judge their legal position was right, they didn’t do their own vigilante justice.