Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Were they contracting the company to write code for them, or were they simply licensing an already-existing product?
|
It shouldn't matter much, according to my sister who has been working for some time as a Project Manager or Business Analyst in projects. Even if the technology is licensed out, the company doing the contracting or buying the license has the ability (and right and responsibility) to do a code walkthrough. (Assuming that the contract initiating the licensing is written correctly.)
And I'm with the "Sony is responsible" camp. It's ultimately their product; they are responsible for knowing what goes into it.
To me, it's akin to American brands subcontracting product production in China. The Chinese company acquires materials from other companies, and then said materials turn out to be defective (lead paint in toys, for instance.) Yes, the blame rests with the materials producer. That does not excuse the American contracting company from responsibility, if there's any reasonable expectation that they should have tested their products. (Or even the store selling it, in some cases, which is why you find the sellers sometimes enforcing a recall.)
And it's really irrelevant if the company is Chinese, Estonian, or American - it's just far harder-if-not-impossible to enforce liability internationally.