Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UCITA Hits A Few Speedbumps

Posted by michael on from the do-you-know-how-fast-you-were-going-sir? dept.

mmt writes: "The Los Angeles Times has an interesting article on the past, present and future of the UCITA." Slashdot has covered the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act before. It's interesting to see that some of the brighter purchasing agents have already encountered and rejected attempts to use UCITA in out-of-state contracts. Have you or your company run into a situation where a software company wanted you to buy software under UCITA's rules?

7 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. How can this be reasonable? by rgmoore · · Score: 5

    One question that I've always had about UCITA is how it can possibly be reasonable to manage software sales under any state law, much less try the nonsense approach that MS et. al. are trying under which the sale can be held to be under a state that has no apparent relevance to the sale. If I (a citizen and resident of California) buy software written by Microsoft (a Nevada corporation whose primary place of business is in Washington) through a local store, what in hell do the laws of Virginia or Maryland have to do with it? You could plausibly argue that the sale should be under California law, or less plausibly under Washington or Nevada law, but why should the laws of a state where none of the principles of the sale are involved have any relevance? If anything, this is the clearest possible case of interstate commerce and should be handled by a Federal, not a State law. Any plausible suggestions?

    --

    There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    1. Re:How can this be reasonable? by LHOOQtius_ov_Borg · · Score: 5

      Absolutely... This legislation is an insult to consumers, to the US Constitution, and to the intelligence of those of us in the IT/IS industry who make software purchases (and unfair to consumers who are just coming to grasps with such issues)...

      It is a clear case of interstate commerce that should be regulated by Federal law, in the case where the purchasing occurs accross state borders. If you buy it in a store in California, you should be bound by California laws regarding trade, but the vendor who sold it to you would be bound by Federal law (which doesn't yet exist here) unless the software manufacturer was also in California. Applying the laws of a state in which none of the transaction participants resides is ridiculous, and likely unconstitutional.

      But let's look at some of the other stupidity involved...

      Reveal contract terms AFTER the sale? That certainly sounds like at least failure to disclose terms, if not bait-and-switch (if partial disclosure is used to misleading ends). It violates various consumer protection laws.

      Forbid publication of critical reviews? This sounds like it violates more laws than I could possibly personally know, not to mention at least one constitutional amendment... Forget combatting this through "viral reviews" on the internet, folks, this is a basic civil liberty under attack for the purposes of market manipulation and trade collusion. This kind of supression of freedom of speech, of the press, of public figures (and products) to be freely criticized and lampooned is the most foul of affronts against the the Bill of Rights...

      Avoid fixing software bugs? This sounds like it would violate various consumer protection laws, and probably lead to the passage of "lemon laws" for sofware...

      Forbid resale of used software? Under "license to use" terms this could be done, but it is questionable and certainly runs counter to the current custom of transferrable licenses. It also can be gotten around if licenses can be transferred by free if you give away the license and charge a service fee (something I learned from tech companies themselves... ;-)

      How to combat this?
      1) Write your state legislatures and tell them "no way this will happen here"
      2) Form a class action lawsuit among all the powerful interests opposed to the legislation and take Maryland and any companies tryint to hide behind their laws to the supreme court on constitutional grounds regarding their attempts to usurp interstate commerce and supress the freedom of the press
      3) Reject all sales based on application of UCITA, particularly in states you do not reside in
      4) Join ongoing efforts against it (see below)
      5) Write software makers threatening to stop buying their software if they do not withdraw their support for this
      6) Stop buying their software, anyway, and use more free software...

      To find out more about this odious sack of legislative feces, check out:

      http://www.cpsr.org/program/UCITA/ucita-fact.htm l
      http://www.ieeeusa.org/grassroots/ucita/
      http://www.cptech.org/ecom/ucita/
      http://www.consumerlaw.org/ucita/
      http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ulc_frame.htm

      --
      o/~ we are pissed, we are pissed, we have to resist... o/~ - ec8or
  2. Amazing by rgmoore · · Score: 5

    It's absolutely amazing the nonsense that comes out of these people. A particularly revealing quote from the article:

    Requiring disclosures similar to those for used cars or other hard goods "would create tangible harm through increased costs, litigation and a likely decrease in competition and product choice," wrote the Commerce Coalition, whose members include AOL, Microsoft and Intel.

    IOW they claim that it's too expensive to require them to give consumers honest information about their products. At the same time, they want to be able to put terms into their licenses that would make it impossible for third parties to review their products honestly. So much for being able to make informed purchasing decisions, which any economist will tell you is essential for an effective marketplace. At the same time, they want the right to refuse refunds to consumers who do buy the software and then find out how useless it is.

    --

    There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

  3. An attorney's solution by youngsd · · Score: 5

    I am an attorney, and I do a lot of negotiation over software licenses. I used to always insert a clause that says:

    The Parties hereby agree that this Agreement shall not be governed by the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods.

    Now, that clause says:

    The Parties hereby agree that this Agreement shall not be governed by the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods nor the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act or any implementation thereof.

    I have yet to hear any objection to this language during negotiations. I am hoping this practice of negating UCITA becomes as common as negating the UN convention (i.e. very common).

    -Steve

    --
    Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
  4. Corporate management by mangu · · Score: 5
    No. I haven't been asked to buy software under UCITA rules. But I have been asked to do something that's similar, in a frightening sort of way.

    My company recently enacted a "code of conduct", under which "software piracy" is not allowed. My section manager requested me to "buy a licence" for a Linux server I had installed. No matter how I tried to explain the GPL to him, he wouldn't budge, so I had to order a Linux distro. I hope he's satisfied now.

    1. Re:Corporate management by BlowCat · · Score: 5

      You should have asked your manager to buy the FSF Deluxe Distribution for $5000

  5. Obligatory Slashdot poll - Who is stupidest? by (void*) · · Score: 5
    • Polish judge for taxing free software.
    • French judge for banning Frenchmen from Yahoo Auctions.
    • US legislators for passing UCITA.
    • All of the above.