Surely that depends on the nature of the bugs and what is reasonable in the circumstances?<p>However, for software bought at substantial cost, where the nature of the defect is such that the software doesn&#x27;t do what it&#x27;s supposed to, it seems reasonable to me that someone in the supply chain might be on the hook for all or part of the original purchase price if the defect happens within the reasonably expected working lifetime of the software (which might need defining explicitly somewhere for licences that are in principle indefinite, but could certainly run to many years in some cases).<p>Similarly, if the defect causes other damage through negligence, or results in other losses as a consequence of using the software but then not being able to use it any more, it seems reasonable that someone in the supply chain might be on the hook for paying compensation, possibly exceeding the original purchase price in serious cases if that&#x27;s what it takes to make good the damage.<p>I&#x27;m wary of unrealistic laws that assume bug-free software is something we know how to create, and I&#x27;m wary of laws that restrict new business models such as rental&#x2F;SaaS schemes. But right now the system is so heavily one-sided that it&#x27;s silly, with the big businesses making the big name software products generating huge profits while their users sometimes suffer real damage because of defects in those products.