Falsehoods programmers believe about laws and courts usually boil down to incorrectly thinking that it's impossible to prove intent.
If you did find a bug, then society needs to patch it. And that's to desirable outcome.
The undesirable outcome is that someone sends a ninja into your house at 3am to manually patch the bug.
For example, there's a widely known bug in the definition of "legal tender". It doesn't vary based on the size of payment to be tendered, so in a sense, you're entitled to pay a $10,000 bill in the form of 250,000 quarters unless you've specifically agreed otherwise. Every once in a while someone tries to exploit this (recently: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/30/us/coins-lawsuit-payment-...), but judges can and do simply declare the exploit to be in bad faith and make them knock it off. (As any third party arbitrator would do.)
" ...coins are legal tender for payment of amounts which are limited as follows:
not exceeding 20c if 1c and/or 2c coins are offered (these coins have been withdrawn from circulation, but are still legal tender);
not exceeding $5 if any combination of 5c, 10c, 20c and 50c coins are offered; and
not exceeding 10 times the face value of the coin if $1 or $2 coins are offered.It's clean, simple, and effective. And an entity can choose to accept the coins anyway if they wanted to, it just doesn't oblige them to accept them.
(.. Short of finding a note that 'I OJFord declare that I intend to [do something I'm later accused of] signed [etc.]' I mean .)
During the discovery phase of a legal case the court will order inspections, evidence to be produced, depositions, expert reports, etc. Somewhere in there is an arrangement of facts that signifies some kind of intent behind an action.
The same way you prove anything else in a legal case, by sufficient evidence to convince the trier of fact that it is sufficiently likely to be true ("sufficiently likely" depending on the applicable standard of proof, which varies based on the context which creates the need for proof.)
Legal proof (even to criminal conviction standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and even moreso to the standards used for civil liability and other purposes) isn't logical proof.
Sorry, even if I agree with you, the lawyers for the owners that have proven to be litigious in the past aren't going to stop and consider that line of thought when it's up to a judge and/or jury to decide that and I can't afford the legal bill.