Hacker Non Court Seymore, Inc v ThinkIz, Inc

The talk stages a mock arbitration over a fictional joint venture between a century-old eyewear maker and a small AI software startup. Smart glasses and contact lenses built by the startup were disrupted by a flaw in an open-source library, leaving wearers injured and some dead. Opening statements frame the dispute as a question of who carries responsibility for software security, and each side's counsel argues its position.

Witness examinations bring the operational failures into focus. The eyewear company's chief executive admits it had no security officer and relied on a questionnaire to review its vendor. The startup's chief executive describes handing off installation steps without verifying the open-source code, using background checks sourced from LinkedIn that missed a North Korean contractor, and hiring a forensic firm found online. Cross-examination probes whether anyone actually reviewed the code and whether the agreement assigned security duties.

The arbitrator's written decision assigns 70 percent liability to the eyewear company and 30 percent to the startup. The reasoning rests on the larger firm's failure to review the agreement, oversee its partner, and meet its medical-device obligations. The closing discussion covers FDA cybersecurity authority, HIPAA changes and how hardware fail-safe design may matter in court. Practical takeaways include weighing context, potential harm and knowledge, documenting security concerns honestly, avoiding overpromising, and not relying on insurers to cover losses.