I would think that the software companies could head off lawsuits through the EULA; a condition of the license would be to make any security discoveries and fixes automatically property of the software company.
That has been proposed. But many features of the EULA have already been overturned in various jurisdictions. I believe New York State overturned Microsofts "you can only publish a review with our consent to the text" EULA portion.
I would rather do away with the EULA except where the EULA extends
more rights to the
purchaser than copyright law allows. Or where both sides have the ability to negotiate the terms before the sale and they only change afterwards with mutual negotiated consent. The current EULA system is just allowing software companies to write their own copyright law. The current one sided system is not just.
The whole patent system is not working as intended.
Consider
this patent application which was discussed
here briefly once before. Why was it even considered? Any patent referring to "the conical spiritual eye" should
demand a working prototype before even being considered.
Why was Microsoft able to get a patent on part of the iPod interface after the iPod was on the market? Why were they able to patent the FAT file system 20 years after the FAT system was on the market? Why have they been able to patent things that have clear prior art in some cases going back decades?
Why is Microsoft currently able to go around claiming that Linux distributions violate 235 Microsoft patents and demanding payment for that while not having to state what patents are violated and in what way - even when asked publicly?
Why is it that you no longer need to clearly define HOW to implement the patent? Its like getting a patent on "trapping mice" rather than on a specific form of mouse trap.