[echopom]

> Software is buggy. Since when does a court accept the uncorroborated report of software, without any other corroborating evidence, and sentence someone?

Former PwC Auditor here , the court accepts evidence from independent IT Auditing company who are qualified to perform an audit on the system and asses the reliability of the system or from the vendor himself who provide proofs that the system he sells is reliable ( testing , certifications etc..)

If you're developer you'll probably agree with me that this approach is of course a "non-sense" because no software was ever created "bug-free" or can be really defined as "reliable".

Yet , that's how the court works : "The vendor says the software has no bugs , thus the court is rejecting the objection of buggy software. The court found you guilty"

I'm sadden by this news because it depicts how much the mixture of "bad software" and "corporate/enterprise software" are tied together and how much it can impact people on their daily life with irreversible impact.

[interestica]

> or from the vendor himself who provide proofs that the system he sells is reliable

It seems that this was the conflict of interest that made Fujitsu's testimony unreliable. They couldn't admit fault without risking the contract. And I'm not sure that relationship was addressed in court for a jury to note.

[failwhaleshark]

What kind of auditor if you don't mind me asking?

And, do you hate Lotus Notes?