RE: A Bad Law for Bad Software

[Cem Kaner <kaner@kaner.com>]

Several of the objections are laid out in the memo.

The basic objection is that the bill favors large licensors/sellers of
information products, to an extent that goes beyond Article 2 and the
Restatement of Contracts. It validates shrinkwrapped contracts of adhesion,
and almost all of the terms found inside of them. It allows publishers to
place use restrictions on materials (including books) that are driving the
library community wild at the moment. It makes it easy to eliminate
remedies for breach of contract and to make it nearly impossible for a
customer to sue in the event of a breach of contract. And it will interfere
in many ways with competition, favoring large licensors against little
potential competitors.

There is currently a significant split between ALI, which has expressed
many criticisms of 2B, and NCCUSL, which seems to favor it. (For those who
don't know, the "prestigious group" associated with 2B includes the
American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws. Both organizations co-supervise the development of the
UCC.) The ABA is also interestingly split. Out of the Business Law Section,
2B gets strong support. Science & Technology's advisor to 2B has written
memos that strongly criticise those terms that allow sellers/licensors to
include harsh clauses (like warranty disclaimers) in contracts that cannot
be seen until after the customer has paid for the merchandise. And the Law
Practice Mgmt section's advisor recently served as an opposing spokesman to
2B (I was the other one), in a debate at the Business Law Section's annual
meeting.

-- cem kaner

At 09:39 PM 4/30/98 -0500, David E. Y. Sarna wrote:
>Perhaps I missed part of this thread; what is the nature of the
>objection to the work of this prestigious group?
>
>Regards,
>David E. Y. Sarna	david@objectsoftcorp.com
>ObjectSoft Corp. (NASDAQ: OSFT)
>433 Hackensack Ave., Hackensack, NJ 07601 	
>201 343-9100 (voice) 	201 343-0056 (Fax)
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:	Cem Kaner [SMTP:kaner@kaner.com]
>> Sent:	Thursday, April 30, 1998 9:13 PM
>> To:	Multiple recipients of list AM-INFO
>> Subject:	A Bad Law for Bad Software
>> 
>> The Uniform Commercial Code is the dominant commercial law in the US.
>> It is
>> also much of the basis of the Convention for the International Sales
>> of Goods.

_______________________________________________________________________
Cem Kaner, J.D., Ph.D.				       Attorney at Law 
P.O. Box 1200           Santa Clara, CA 95052             408-244-7000
Author (with Falk &  Nguyen) of TESTING COMPUTER SOFTWARE (2nd Ed, VNR)

This e-mail communication should not be interpreted as legal advice 
or a legal opinion.  The transmission of this e-mail communication 
does not create an attorney-client relationship between me and you.
Do not act or rely upon law-related information in this communication 
without seeking the advice of an attorney. Finally, nothing in this
message should be interpreted as a "digital signature" or "electronic
signature" that can create binding commercial transactions.