| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
<Article 54469> reports on a software failure incident where a man was denied a £37 million jackpot at a casino in Austria due to a 'software error' on the fruit machine. The incident occurred at a Casinos Austria AG establishment in Bregenz. The casino operators blamed a glitch in the machine for the error and offered the player a free meal and £60 instead of the jackpot. The player, Behar Merlaku, is planning to launch a lawsuit to force the casino to pay out the prize. The casino's response to the incident and the subsequent legal action indicate a software failure within the organization [54469].
The article also mentions that the incident involving the software failure at the casino in Austria is being closely watched by gaming operators worldwide. This suggests that similar incidents or concerns related to software failures may have occurred at other organizations or within the industry [54469]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to the design phase. The casino bosses attributed the jackpot win to a 'software error' or glitch in the machine's operation. They refused to pay out the jackpot, offering only a free meal and £60 to the player, citing the jackpot amount exceeding the legal limit and blaming the machine for the error. The player, Behar Merlaku, is planning to launch a lawsuit to force the casino to honor the win based on what the machine displayed, indicating a failure introduced during the system development or updates [54469].
(b) The software failure incident is not directly related to the operation phase or misuse of the system. The primary focus of the incident is on the casino's response to the jackpot win, attributing it to a software error and offering a significantly lower payout to the player. There is no indication in the article that the failure was caused by the operation or misuse of the system by the player [54469]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident in the article is attributed to a 'software error' within the system itself. Casino bosses claimed that the jackpot win of £37 million was actually a result of a 'software error' on the fruit machine, leading to the player being offered only £60 and a free meal instead of the jackpot [54469]. The glitch in the machine was blamed by the casino operators when the player tried to claim his prize, indicating an internal system issue that caused the incorrect jackpot notification. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was attributed to a "software error" or "glitch in the machine" by the casino operators, indicating a failure due to non-human actions [54469].
(b) The casino operators blamed the software glitch in the machine for the jackpot error, and the plaintiff's legal team argued that the machine's display of the win justified the claim, suggesting that the failure was not directly caused by human actions [54469]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was attributed to a glitch in the fruit machine's software, as mentioned by the casino operators when the gambler tried to claim his jackpot [54469]. This indicates that the failure originated from a software issue rather than a hardware problem.
(b) The casino operators blamed the jackpot win on a 'software error' when the player tried to claim his prize, indicating that the failure was due to contributing factors originating in the software of the fruit machine [54469]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was non-malicious. The casino bosses attributed the jackpot win to a 'software error' or glitch in the machine, indicating that the failure was not due to malicious intent but rather a technical issue [54469]. The player, Behar Merlaku, believed he was entitled to the jackpot due to what the machine displayed, emphasizing a non-malicious nature of the incident. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
The intent of the software failure incident in the provided article is related to poor_decisions. The casino bosses attributed the failure to pay out the £37 million jackpot to a 'software error' [54469]. The casino operators immediately blamed a glitch in the machine when the gambler made his claim, indicating that the failure was due to factors introduced by poor decisions or actions related to the software system. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was attributed to a 'software error' by casino bosses, leading to the player being denied the £37 million jackpot he thought he had won. The player's lawyers argued that he was entitled to the prize because of what the machine displayed, indicating a failure due to development incompetence or lack of professional competence in ensuring the proper functioning of the slot machine [54469].
(b) The incident was described as a 'glitch in the machine' by the casino operators when the player tried to claim his prize. This suggests that the failure was accidental, as it was not intended for the machine to display the jackpot when it did not meet the required criteria. The casino operators blamed the issue on a technical fault in the software, indicating an accidental failure rather than a deliberate action [54469]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident reported in Article 54469 was temporary. The casino bosses attributed the jackpot win to a 'software error' and blamed a glitch in the machine for the incorrect payout to the player. The player, Behar Merlaku, was initially offered a free meal and £60 instead of the £37 million jackpot he believed he had won due to the software error. The incident led to a lawsuit being filed by the player to force the casino to honor the win, indicating that the failure was temporary and caused by specific circumstances related to the software glitch [54469]. |
| Behaviour |
crash, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the article can be categorized as a crash. The player, Behar Merlaku, experienced a situation where the slot machine displayed a winning jackpot, but the casino refused to pay out the prize, attributing it to a 'software error' [54469].
(b) omission: There is no specific mention of the software failure incident being related to omission in the article.
(c) timing: The software failure incident does not align with a timing issue where the system performs its intended functions but at the wrong time.
(d) value: The software failure incident can be associated with a value issue as the system displayed the incorrect winning amount to the player, leading to a dispute over the prize payout [54469].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit characteristics of a byzantine failure where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions.
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident can be described as a discrepancy between the displayed outcome on the slot machine and the actual prize offered by the casino, leading to a legal dispute over the correct payout [54469]. |