Bad Software: What To Do When Software Fails.


FLASH: MEETING ON UCITA / ARTICLE 2B

Op-Ed on UCITA (Kaner & Pels, available for free use by the press, July 1999). This page is updated by Cem Kaner, hosted by Cem Kaner and David Pels. Summary of objections (Kaner, July 28, 1999).

News: July 29, 1999 --- UCITA PASSES NCCUSL Previous updates

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) voted to promulgate UCITA by a vote of 43 to 6, with 2 states obstaining. The states voting against the bill were Alaska, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Utah.
I reported yesterday that 14 Attorneys General had sent a letter to NCCUSL opposing the bill. Here is the text of that letter. Another 11 co-signed that letter yesterday. Here is the text of the second letter. It is very unusual to have opposition like this to a bill, especially to a bill that was approved by NCCUSL.
With opposition from a very broad coalition, the fight now goes to the states.

We believe that UCITA will

Because of this, we are asking you to write your state's Governor and your state legislators to urge them to vote against this bill.Until we post a replacement, this letter could serve as a model.

UCITA is primarily supported by software publishers, some computer manufacturers, and some banks.

UCITA has been opposed by:

.UCITA has been sharply criticized by the United States’ Federal Trade Commission.

NCCUSL originally wrote UCITA in partnership with the American Law Institute. The ALI called for "fundamental revisions" in UCITA (then called Article 2B) and later withdrew its support and participation in the project (Braucher analysis article) (memo from the former ALI members of the 2B drafting committee).

Please read the background material and then write a letter to the commissioners from your states. We provide a sample letter for people who don’t have time to compose their own.

Background on UCITA

The Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) is a 350-page proposed new law. It will govern all contracts for the development, sale, licensing, maintenance, and support of computer software, plus most contracts for information (such as books) in digital form. Vendors of other products that contain software, such as computers, can also bring their products within the scope of UCITA, rather than Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a law that is much friendlier to consumers and small businesses.

In various forms, UCITA has been under development for about 12 years. For the last four years, it was called Article 2B and was drafted as a proposed amendment to the Uniform Commercial Code.

The strength of UCITA is that it creates a uniform law governing a wide range of transactions. It unifies the laws across the states and it resolves some differences in legal treatment of computer-related services and sales/licensing of packaged software.

The problem with UCITA is that the drafting has been dominated by lobbyists for software publishers. The drafting committee is independent of these companies and is trying in good faith to write a decent bill. But committee members (and its chair) have repeatedly expressed the belief that the bill cannot pass without the support of The Industry, and The Industry (trade association’s lobbyists) has repeatedly threatened to withdraw its support if this or that position was not written into (or kept in) the draft law.

Don’t get us wrong about this. We’ve worked in the software industry (usually as managers) for most of our adult lives. We appreciate NCCUSL's enthusiasm for protecting America's fastest growing industry. But when a legislative drafting committee lets itself be too heavily influenced by a single industry’s lawyers, the result is a law that is just too imbalanced. Over the past four years, we (and many others) repeatedly proposed compromises or alternatives that we believed were win-win solutions. The results were negligible. Look at our detailed analyses of September 1996 (part 1, part 2), October 1997, December 1997, August 1998, October 1998 and November, 1998. The same issues came up year after year, with no genuine progress, year after year.

There are many analyses in the articles, and we encourage you to read them. But to give you a taste, here are just a few examples of the rules under UCITA:

Backers of UCITA insist that it leaves consumers and small businesses with our existing rights, and gives us new ones. But it doesn't. That's why every consumer advocate we know (including Consumers Union and Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on Technology) has called for termination of the UCITA project. A July 9, 1999 analysis by the Federal Trade Commission points out that UCITA allows software companies to place "restrictions on a consumer’s right to sue for a product defect, to use the product, or even to publicly discuss or criticize the product." The analysis concludes, "we question whether it is appropriate to depart from these consumer protection and competition policy principles in a state commercial law statute."

Please write a letter to the commissioners from your states. Your input will be noticed.
 


[ Main | List of Articles | Bad Software | UCC 2B | Law of Software Quality | Digital Signatures | Bookstore | Court Cases | Links | Press Releases | About Us | What's New ]
The articles at this web site are not legal advice. They do not establish a lawyer/client relationship between me and you. I took care to ensure that they were well researched at the time that I wrote them, but the law changes quickly. By the time you read this material, it may be out of date. Also, the laws of the different States are not the same. These discussions might not apply to your circumstances. Please do not take legal action on the basis of what you read here, without consulting your own attorney.
Questions or problems regarding this web site should be directed to Cem Kaner, kaner@kaner.com, P.O. Box 1200, Santa Clara, CA 95052.
Last modified:July 18, 1999. Copyright © 1998, Cem Kaner. All rights reserved.