Always with something interesting and thought provoking to put forth about robots and the law, Ryan Calo is back to open 2014 with more insight. Below in an article excerpted from MASHABLE: The Need to Be Open: U.S. Laws Are Killing the Future of Robotics

But what about in an open world?

MASHABLE?The trouble with open [software] platforms is that they open the manufacturer to a universe of potential lawsuits. If a robot is built to do anything, it can do something bad. If it can run any software, it can run buggy or malicious software. The next killer app could, well, kill someone.

Liability in a closed world is fairly straightforward. A Roomba is supposed to do one thing and do it safely. Say a Roomba causes an injury in the course of vacuuming the floor. Then iRobot generally will be held liable as it built the hardware and wrote or licensed the software. If someone hacks the Roomba and uses it to reenact the video game Frogger on the streets of Austin, Texas (this really happened), or used the Roomba for a baby rodeo [really happened as well], then iRobot can argue product misuse.

But what about in an open world? Open robots have no intended use. The hardware, the operating system and the individual software ? any of which could be responsible for an accident ? might each have a different author. Open-source software could have many authors. But plaintiffs will always sue the deep pockets. And courts could well place the burden on the defendants to sort it out.

I noted earlier that personal computers have been open from the start. They, too, have no dedicated purpose, run third-party software and are extensible (through USB ports). But you wouldn’t sue Microsoft or Dell because Word froze and ate your term paper. But you wouldn’t sue Microsoft or Dell because Word froze and ate your term paper.

It turns out that judges dismissed early cases involving lost or corrupted data on the basis that the volatility of computers was common knowledge. These early precedents congealed over time practically to the point of intuition. Which, I would argue, is a good thing: People might not have gone into the business of making PCs if they could get sued any time something went wrong.

But there is one, key difference between PCs and robots: The damage caused by home computers is intangible. The only casualties are bits. Courts were able to invoke doctrines such as economic loss, which provides that, in the absence of physical injury, a contracting party may recover no more than the value of the contract.

Damage from software is physical, however, when the software can touch you, lawsuits can and do gain traction. Examples include plane crashes based on navigation errors, the delivery excessive levels of radiation in medical tests and ?sudden acceleration? ? a charge that took a team of NASA scientists 10 months to clear Toyota software of fault.

Open robots combine, arguably for the first time, the versatility, complexity and collaborative ecosystem of a PC with potential for physical damage or injury.

The same norms and legal expedients do not necessarily apply. In robotics, no less than in the context of computers or the Internet, the possibility that providers of a platform will be sued for what users do with their products may lead many to reconsider investing in the technology. At a minimum, robotics companies will have an incentive to pursue the slow, manageable route of closing their technology.

Give Us Immunity

What we need is a narrow immunity, akin to what we see in general aviation, firearms and the Internet. In each case, Congress spotted a pattern that threatened an American industry and intervened. Congress immunized the companies that created the product for what consumers or others might do with their product.

For many of the same reasons, we should consider immunizing the manufactures of open robotic platforms for what users do with them ? a kind of (USC: Title 47 ? Chapter 5 ? Subchapter II ? Part I ? §ion; 230 ?) immunity for robotics.

If someone adds a chainsaw to their AVA or downloads a dodgy app for their AR.Drone, it should not be possible to name iRobot or Parrot as a defendant. Otherwise, why would these companies take the chance of opening their products to third party coders?

The time for action is now. We certainly shouldn’t wait to intervene until this young industry is dead or dying, as we did with general aviation. (It was called the General Aviation Revitalization Act for a reason.) Several countries already have a head start in robotics, a higher bar to product liability litigation or both.

The risk of waiting is that, by the time we sort this out, the United States will not be a comparatively serious player in a transformative technology for the first time since the steam engine.

Ryan Calo is a law professor at the University of Washington School of Law and a founding director of the University?s Tech Policy Lab. You can follow Professor Calo on Twitter @rcalo.

Adapted by Calo from his paper Open Robotics:Maryland Law Review.

Excerpted from MASHABLE: The Need to Be Open: U.S. Laws Are Killing the Future of Robotics