Slashdot Mirror
Bar Association Likely to Oppose UCITA
GroundBounce writes: "Computerworld is reporting that the American Bar Association is likely to vote to oppose UCITA unless it is significantly altered in a pro-consumer manner. This would provide a significant amount of clout to UCITA opponents attempting to get UCITA defeated in state legislatures that are considering it. It's nice to see that more than just a handful of lawyers see the problems with this legislation."
The subscription portion is OPTIONAL? Does anyone have any info on this? All I keep hearing is the doom and gloom rabid anti-M$ robots predicting widespread panic when the mandatory subscription-based OSes roll down the pike, but now this article mentions that it's optional. WTF? Is this correct?
This is just the first I've heard of it being optional. While the anti-m$ bots could be technically correct about the subscription, it's typically just another excuse to dump on MS for most.
1.) Karma Whores 2.) Metamoderation in real life may suck even worse
My inner cynic tells me the main reason why the American Bar Association wants to fight UCITA because of the strict limits of legal liability a vendor has for crappy software (read: almost none). No legal liability, no large legal fees for the trial lawyers.
;)
If they can blow UCITA to hell, I won't complain about their motives
Lawyers? Bad.
Lawyers opposing UCITA? Room spinning... balance gone... confusion rising...
That, or they're afraid that if things get too ugly, we really _will_ kill all the lawyers ;)
As you know, UCITA contains language that can be used to stamp out buyer awareness, specifically prohibiting anything constituting a 'bad review'. As such, it's potentially a very serious violation of 'caveat emptor', or buyer awareness. Even overlooking this, it's transparently obvious that fly-by-night companies and con artists always wish to trick and fool buyers, which also interferes with buyer awareness.
If you think "caveat emptor" means "buyer, sucks to be you", remind me never, ever, EVER to buy anything from _you_ ;) and, I might add, I'm damned grateful that lawyers find it profitable and satisfying to defend consumers _against_ people like that.
Understand?
There is no reason for a group representing lawyers in general to take political stands on issues such as capital punishment, abortion, gun control, etc.; these are not issues which have *any* level of consensus among the members..
I used to be a member; I resigned over the politicization. I agree with some of the positions, and disagree with others.--but I oppose the taking of positions even on the issues I agree with.
Professional organization? Once upon a time. Now it's just another center-left organization that uses a captive base to further apolitical agenda.
Oh, and :
>Every
>time a president goes throug the selection process for a supreme court
>justice, the candates have to get reviewed by the ABA.
Not any more. In the past, the ABA was provided with the names of
nominees in advance of the general public and other organization. It
would rate then "not qualified," "qualified," or "highly qualified."
There was a time when it took this duty seriously, but the last
couple of decades have seen this deteriorate into a political
litmus test. Additionally, this was onlyone piece of information
for Congress.
Now, the ABA remains free to comment, but it has no special status.
>To even
>practice law, you have to pass an ABA exam.
This is just plain nonsense. It's not true, and there is no such
exam. Individual states have bar examinations under the authority
of the state judiciary. In some states this is done in a fairly
direct manner, in others it is delegated entirely to a semi-independent
bar association. The ABA has nothing to do with these. An arm of the ABA
does accredit law schools, however (but this may change, too.)
>The ABA is probably one of
>the most powerfull organizations in the USA. If they want something,
>they get it. Period.
Not hardly. Judges are approved by the Senate over their "not qualified"
rating, particularly when it is recognized as a political rating.
Similarly, judges rated "highly qualified" for taking an activist role on
the ABA's agenda are often rejected by the senate (most often by not
holding a vote)
hawk, esq.
If you're limiting me to MS word processors, absolutely. Word 5.1 beats the tar out of Word 6-present in terms of usability. It actually let you do what *you* wanted to do, instead of what *it* wanted you to do. I stuck with old macs several years past their expiration just to stay with word 5.1. Then I found lyx and dumped the macs for unix.
OK, I think 5.1 was 1992. Fine. Word 4 was a better and more stable product, it just didn't have some of the table features of 5.1. Word 5.1 and Excel 4 marked the end of good products from ms.
(And yes, I bought them both).
hawk
>is a fault in the product.
???
Good heavens, where have *you* ben the last few years???
Class action suits happen wheneve it appears that it would be
expensive enough to defend that legal fees can be milked from the
situation.
Look at all the silly complaints leading to class actions, and the
"coupon" based settlements. Those settlements aren't happening
because the corporation is getting away with something; they're
happening because the underlying suit had little chance of winning
(but could state enough to get to an expenive trial [and lose]).
The class lawyers get paid in full in dollars, and people who (in
most cases) had no real injury get coupons causing them to buy more
from the same manufacturor.
Exploding side tanks? yes, they were more likely to ignite than the
other brand of truck--but only half as likely as a passenger car.
Class action lawsuits serve a single group: class action lawyers.
The settlments do not help the victims when there were real injury.
THe *only* example I have of the victims getting made whole is the
first iomega class action, in which the rebates were actually sent
out.
hawk, esq.
Shouldn't that read work on consumers to make them compliant?.
Logi - I can do anything, but not everything.
"Of course, vendors can stop innovating and concentrate on quality. But do you _really_ want to use word processor from 1991? It would be quite reliable after 10 years of testing, but I wouldn't like this tradeoff"
I am not totally unsympathetic to that point of view (how's that for a qualified double negative), but it isn't the whole story from the consumers point of view.
First, I do know quite a few people who use WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS as their word processor, for exactly the reasons you state. It can do just about everything that newer word processors can do and is highly stable.
Second, I am not asking for perfection: I am just asking for a reasonable standard of care. The software industry today is about where the auto industry was in the 1950's, when it argued that there was NO WAY to design steering wheels such that they wouldn't impale the driver in an accident. Not "not injure", mind you, but "not impale", which was a very common result of a collision in those days. Not until the consumer safety zealots started raising cain, filing lawsuits, and getting laws passed did the auto companies discover, that, hey, yeah, it can be done, and it really doesn't cost us more either.
Not perfection - just basic functionality.
sPh
"If vendors are made legally responsible for the reliability/security/usability of their products, the potential for class action suits is immense."
From the perspective of a software purchaser and implementer, that would be TERRIBLE. Why just think - software vendors might have to stop innovating and concentrate on product quality and meeting the standard of warrenty of merchentability. Just like every other producer of goods in the Western world. How awful!! What demanding standards you consumers have - expecting software to actually _work_. Wah waah waaaah.
sPh
I don't know about the validity of his other points but I do know that very few people will take up a lawsuit on account of an unfair law because of the extreme expense involved.
Maybe, dunno. There are very few lawyers standing up against the DMCA. (But there are a few...)
Yeah well, you also don't hear about all the settlements. If you really want a good feel for how much medical malpractice cases _really_ cost, look at the going rates for malpractice insurance. In Philadelphia, it _averages_ in excess of 100k in many fields of medicine. Yes, that's for just ONE physician.
Sure, if the doctor or the hospital is negligent then the doctor and/or hospital should pay. However, be aware that accidents DO happen, many are simply unavoidable. Many of these awards are awarded when there is virtually nothing the doctor or the hospital could reasonably do to prevent them from occurring in the future. As long as this is true, the practice of arbitrarily awarding punitive damages is simply ridiculous. Besides just being unfair to the medical profession, it really HURTS everyone (other than the crooked ambulance chasers and such). Many doctors in Philadelphia, for instance, have been unable to generate the volume to cover the malpractice insurance premiums, forcing them to retire or move out of the city.
The current system is really screwed up. While I will not claim that doctors and hospitals do not make mistakes, these are the exceptions to the rule. The current tort system (if you could call it that) with its unpredictable juries, often poorly educated judges, "professional witnesses", arbitrary awarding of punitive damages, and other things does very little to actually discourage real negligence. Meanwhile it effectively taxes everyone. Because it's so unpredictable, costly (in terms of lawyer fees), and time consuming, the insurers, hospitals, and doctors have no choice but to settle the vast majority of the time. It is a system that is ripe for fraud.
Do you not find those adds on TV just a little ridiculous? "Have you been injured?...." Translation: "Can you concieve of any injury or trauma, no matter how little it has effected you (or whether or not it really happened), that we can play the malpractice lotto with?"
blah
Of course, vendors can stop innovating and concentrate on quality. But do you _really_ want to use word processor from 1991? It would be quite reliable after 10 years of testing, but I wouldn't like this tradeoff.
There has been virtually no innovation in word processing in the last decade.
Squiggly lines under spelling errors aren't innovative. Merging a revision control system with a word processor isn't innovative. Little paperclips that pop up aren't innovative.
The light bulb was innovative. Radio was innovative. The steam engine was innovative. The atomic bomb was innovative. The cat cracker was innovative.
Word processors on the other hand, have seen normal rate improvements over time.
Anything vaguely innovative in a word processor was due to innovation in computer hardware that made it possible for crappy software to be fast enough to actually use.
You mean -gripping- hand, right? :)
-- Veni, vidi, dormivi
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Have you ever bought something and not understood the legal ramifications behind it?
I did when I bought my first computer that had windows installed.
Of course he has never done anything like that. He's one of those perfectly educated consumers that the free market is dependant on. If you didn't do the research before you bought your computer, that's your fault for being an uneducated consumer. If you didn't know that $INCREDIBLY_COMPLEX_CHEMICAL causes cancer before you bought something that had that chemical in it, that's your own fault again.
Come on, don't you realize that you are supposed to know everything about anything? Anyone that doesn't research before they buy deserves what they get. And who cares if you have no other options. It's good for the enconomy!
-Wintermute
If vendors are made legally responsible for the reliability/security/usability of their products, the potential for class action suits is immense.
:)
Or perhaps the law firms are tired of their Windows PCs crashing and losing data, and figure this is their one chance to get revenge
Blar.
The OS was improperly designed! (Yes I know this can happen with unices...) I mean, sure your memory is protected so that Program A can't mess with Program B's stack, but what about Program A's big_poppa.so being loaded instead of Program B's big_poppa.so and causing troubles? Shouldn't the OS manage all this?
Well, that's how it *should* be...
Wow...I wouldn't want to be an OS Vendor!
Blar.
> I thought that if any states passed it, companies wishing to use UCITA, they could setup their Corp. HQ in one of these states, and everyone would be screwed...
In the USA, the Federal government reserves the right to regulate interstate commerce, so in principle one state cannot force the effects of this kind of legislation onto the citizens of another.
In practice, they are likely to have a bigger legal fund than you are, so the threat is very real.
OTOH, lots of big companies with big legal funds consume software rather than selling it, so they might be willing to throw in a lawyer or two on "our" side if that issue ever comes up in court.
On the, uhm, third or fourth hand (any Moties reading this?), the big companies that consume software will probably have enough clout with the software vendors to buy their software on a contract with more favorable terms than the UCITA offers, essentially selling the rest of us down the river by striking a deal with the devil (if you'll pardon the saturation of metaphors).
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Its adoption is another step toward reversing the earlier equation: now, consumers shall exist to serve business, which shall answer to them only when and as it suits its own interests.
That's why I voted Green in the last election.
I'm not really Green in any deep-dyed sense (though I do recognize that we are quickly converting all our natural resources to garbage in an [almost] closed system, and should give a bit of thought for the future).
But the reason I voted Green was because of the party's ties to consumer interests. Our legislators are going to keep signing off on lobbyist-written legislation until the day some election gives them a scare that they might lose their jobs if they keep on doing it.
(Score -1, Rousing the Rabble) -
I saw the current trend blossoming way back in the '80s, and I still say now what I said then: unbridled corporate power will reduce us to serfdom as surely as the institution of a feudal government would.
It is irony of the finest water that governments sucking up to corporations is now stirring up a new middle-class leftist movement, hardly a decade after the collapse of Soviet communism left many traditional leftist movements without any support.
(Score -1, Nostradamic Pretensions) -
I am beginning to suspect that the next World War will be a Global Civil War, corporate interests vs public interests. The governments of the industrialized nations will generally take the corporatist side, but the governments of many less wealthy nations will nationalize their industries and take the consumerist side, if only to keep from being swallowed up by corporations that are more powerful on the world stage than they are.
Ah, well, there's lots of static on my crystal ball, so maybe things aren't headed in such a dire direction. It should at least be good for the plot of a SF novel, though....
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"Simon Hughes, program manager for worldwide pricing and licensing at Microsoft, said that under the subscription plan, Microsoft software won't use embedded self-help features, such as the ability to turn itself off or lose functionality at the end of a three-year licensing period. The company's goal will be to "work with customers to make them compliant" with the terms of the license. "
Right. That is, until this becomes widespread law, and they say 'but of course we use it, it's totally legal, look at the law'.
Shouldn't that be
caveat vendtor
which means "let the seller beware".
Hm, in fact they would be better the other
way round. Caveat emptor implies all
liability on the buyer, caveat vendtor
implies liability on the seller.
Ha, teaching Latin in schools does have a point. Honest.
Ok, have to put shitty
text in here to stop
slashdots lame lame filter
s/vendtor/venditor/
I don't have a life (newborn took care of that) and I live in Maryland. Maybe I'll go buy some software, open the celophane wrapper, and return it to Staples, just to see what happens.
Geez, I'm almost bored enough to do that (plus, I don't want to cut the grass:(
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I was thining about this last night. While I'd like to buy some M$ software (so that they could be included in any potential lawsuit) I figured that the store with the most onerous return policy would be Babbage's, but I'm not sure that they sell any M$ stuff.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
(1)
...
But Ray Nimmer, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center and a UCITA drafter, argues that the law has the opposite effect and protects licensees by putting so many restrictions on self-help that the likelihood is that it will never be used.
...and
(2)
Simon Hughes, program manager for worldwide pricing and licensing at Microsoft, said that under the subscription plan, Microsoft software won't use embedded self-help features, such as the ability to turn itself off or lose functionality at the end of a three-year licensing period.
So, why am I not getting fuzzy feelings from these guys?
Professor Nimmers says, don't worry, nobody will use the "self help" (ugggh -- that term is just too Orwellian) provision of the law because they drafted it in a way that renders it effectively useless. If it is useless, then isn't it pointless as well? If it is useful, then won't it be used? Why put it in if it is intended never to be used? If we were to take the professor's statement at face value, it looks awfully like an admission that the law was sloppily drafted. I can only hope he was quoted out of context.
Mr. Hughes says that MS is not going to use "self help" to enforce the expiration of the software licenses, but he fails to say exactly what the nature of the steps MS plans to take to make the customers more "compliant". Technically, Microsoft could sue you if you didn't like the terms of the new license, but still used your expired MS product to get at your data stored in Excel or Word files. Will their license allow people perpetual and legal access to their files?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If you say so. Meanwhile, the ABA operates --as do most organizations with disparate deliberative subcommittees-- within its charter and under its own rules, not the ones you set forth for them.
It seems far more likely that rather than taking a vote at the annual meeting, the motion would be brought to the floor, the jurisdictional problem noted, and then referred to the appropriate section or committee, probably the Computer Law of Business Law folks.
My point was not whether or not, in fact, Insurance Section should propose computer law legislation in lieu of the Computer Law Section or the Business Law Section. Rather, I was pointing out that, in fact, they might not be able to do so -- suggesting that the article's ambitious statement that this vote was imminent seemed, at least to me, uninformed.
The article says the Insurance Section is leading this charge. I wonder whether the Computer Law Section has taken a position, and if so, whether there is some confusion in the craft?
In short, I'm not sure that a position espoused by one section led by an Insurance lawyer is "likely" to be adopted by the ABA, particularly when there are other sections with clear jurisdiction over the subject matter. (I have no idea what the CLS is doing on this point, but given my experience, they are probably mostly the same people who were working the NCCUSL on UCITA in the first place).
Time will tell. I'm just a little surprised the article didn't even notice the issue.
There is also a long tradition in America - inherited from England - of people with lesser power making and enforcing the rule of law and reason on a rational basis. Not always, not in every case, but enough to make a difference. Sometimes. Which is better than many places can claim.
The UICTA is really, really bad law, and even the scum-sucking lawyers can see that it's a headache, and likely to lose in the end because it goes against the general principles of consumer-commercial interactions. Even ambulance-chasing types can see that there's more business in holding software manufacturers subject to the same liabilities as the rest of the known universe than in giving them a blank check to fuck everyone at anytime.
This is a major blow. Maybe, one day, it might even be enough to make a convicted monopolist focus on fixing flaws instead of new ways to screw competitors with dirty tricks, using the consumer as cannon fodder. I saw an article on Tivo in the WSJ that ended up trashing Microsoft because they just pissed off yet another customer with their consumer-screwing practices. When columnists in the WSJ are spending 25% of their column space trashing you in an unrelated story, you've probably overspent your monopoly power.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Really? Do you have a link that specifies their return policy? Every EULA I have says that I have to take it to the place of purchase for a refund if I do not agree with the license.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
If you do, let me know what the results are.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
Since ProCD v. Zeidenberg. Not all courts enforce this view, Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Technology & Software Link, Inc.
Hence, the reason software manufactorers are pushing UCITA which resolves all the legal ambiguity in the software manufactorer's favor.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
Take your pick of any software retailer, Best Buy, K-mart, Office Depot, etc. They all have the same return policy. No refunds on opened software. They will allow trade-ins for the same title if the product is defective.
I know that I spent a half-hour (that is not an exaggeration) arguing with the clerks and managers at Best Buy each time I asked for a refund on an opened software package. (For the record, neither refund request was due to a disagreement over the license.)
I only got a refund the first time because because the floppies were corrupted and would not let me install the software. I originally agreed to a "trade-in" except they had no other copies of the software and none of their other stores in the area had copies. Yes, the manager did call other stories to see if they had a copy of it.
The second time was because I could not install the software on my computer at all due to the installation program of the software. A trade-in would not have been any value since any trade-ins would also not install. A had a print-out of an email from the vendor telling me to take it back for a refund. After a long arguement, the manager finally relented telling the clerk, "Give him back his money. That company will refund the money to us."
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
You are neglicting the fact that it is not possible to read the EULA without first buying the package, opening the package, and reading the EULA. And, every software retail store I have seen has a no-refund policy if the software package has been opened. The software manufactorers will tell you to take it back to the store even though the manufactorers know the store's refund policy. Seems to border on fraud to me.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
No. UCITA makes "click-wrap" valid contracts. It does not make "Shrink-wrap" valid contracts.
Under the original version of UCITA, the customer had a Right-to-Return on any software that he did not agree with the license. However, it was a right that could be waived. When Maryland passed it, it said that the consumer could not waive this right. However, I haven't seen any changes to the posted stores refund policy yet.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
I read the whole article, and all the /. comments. One Question:
What the heck is UCITA?
no, it means lawyers think there will be a bigger market for thier mothers without UCITA.
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
lawyers do bad things
we tell them we hate them and don't trust them
lawyers do good things
we tell them we hate them and don't trust them
do we all sound like total shits or what?
why should any entity pay any attention to us in the future if we act like this?
---
Not only is Maskirovka wrong about this in general (the ABA nominee review has always been a friendly agreement, not a law), he's wrong about this in specific (Dubya told the ABA to piss off 3 months ago). Here's a CNN analysis.
I can see how Maskirovka might qualify as "Interesting", but ... Moderators should NEVER use +1: Insightful unless they know for a fact that the statement is TRUE.
>>To even
>>practice law, you have to pass an ABA exam.
>
>This is just plain nonsense. It's not true, and
>there is no such exam. Individual states have
>bar examinations under the authority of the
>state judiciary. In some states this is done in
>a fairly direct manner, in others it is
>delegated entirely to a semi-independent bar
>association. The ABA has nothing to do with
>these. An arm of the ABA does accredit law
>schools, however (but this may change, too.)
One caveat, in almost all states, in order to even take the bar exam you need to have graduated from an ABA accredited law school.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
The only widely recognized right you have when you buy a product is the right for it to work as specified
Unfortunately, that's one right that doesn't seem to be recognized with respect to software. Almost all EULAs have a clause stating something to the effect of "We don't warrant this software to be any good for anything at all. Not even if you just want to use the box as a paperweight or the CD as a drink coaster. Nothing. Nada. All your cash are belong to us."
One day maybe this will change (it eventually happened to the automobile industry), and we'll start to see the end of crappy software
Of course, vendors can stop innovating and concentrate on quality. But do you _really_ want to use word processor from 1991? It would be quite reliable after 10 years of testing, but I wouldn't like this tradeoff.
Does this mean that all lawyers are not evil scum sucking leech's that will sell there mother for a nickel?
What's next microsoft admit's linux is a good thing
Hmm, anyone know the tempeture in heck at the moment?
guvf vf zl fvt
Not so--it's just been the custom for the last 50 years or so. President Bush has done away with that procedure, for better or for worse. There are only two real qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice: (1) you get nominated by the President, and (2) you get confirmed by the Senate. In practice, of course, you need to be an experienced judge, but that isn't a legal requirement.
To even practice law, you have to pass an ABA exam.
Again, not so. You must (usually--WI does things differently) pass a bar exam, which is created by the committee of bar examiners of the state in which you wish to practice. The ABA has no connection whatsoever to the bar examination process, though they do accredit law schools.
The ABA is far from the most powerful organization in the country. However, their opposition to UCITA will probably help us out.
No, it squelches litigation because it removes liability from software vendors. The ABA has one, and ONLY one purpose: to drive up laywer salaries. That's why they make the Bar Exam a pain in the ass restrict supply of new lawyers), that's why they donate 99% of campaign contributions to Democrats (the tobacco lawsuits were one of the biggest windfalls for lawyers, ever), and that's why they're opposing the UCITA.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Ah, so that's why the lawyers are opposing it!
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
There's a well-researched series of articles re: the prohibition of heroin (and case for legalisation) at Guardian Unlimited.
Here's the opening paragraphs:
"The only one who agrees with me is the blood sucking Lawyer"
Well, it seems that lawyers CAN be good guys. They're still to be regarded with suspicion, though.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
Of course, heroin is that bad, although it doesn't exactly make people's muscles work better...
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
I would like to add a historical note to this that may, or may not be relevant.
When the Hearst collective and their various lackeys were railroading through anti-Marijuana legislation so many years ago, the only person who came up to speak against it was a representative of the American Medical Association, who pointed out the many medical uses of Marijuana, and the lack of any serious side effects.
Congress chose not to listen to him, and passed the legislation anyway. And the next two or three generations of doctors grew up believing that marijuana was the devil's weed.
the point being:
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Those damn lawyers are nothing but a bunch
of tree-hugging liberals!
Oh wait, they're doing something for consumers?
Never mind....
Anonymous posts are filtered.
hmmm.... market forces....
so vague...
Have you ever bought something and not
understood the legal ramifications behind it?
I did when I bought my first computer that
had windows installed.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
If it is a really unfair law, I would wager
there would be plenty of lawyers willing
to take the case on contingency.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
You state that if the law is too one sided, then
that is a recipe for fewer lawsuits. You offer
no proof. I can very easily claim the _opposite_
is true. The more unfair (one-sided)a law is,
the more people will fight it (more lawsuits).
Then you say that the ABA wants the law to have
maximum ambiguity. You once again offer no proof.
However, using your reasoning it would be safe to
say that programmers only want other programmers
to write buggy code. That way they are kept in
business.
I won't comment on your shots at
1) Democrats
2) Trial Lawyers
3) Patient bill of rights.
Hopefully you will be able to reason these
arguments out a little more after having
given them a little thought.
goodbye.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
I'm normally not given to eeeevil conspiracy theories, but the ABA is not a pro-consumer group. It's a pro-lawyer group. If a law is too one sided, either on the consumer side OR the corporate side, then that's a recipe for fewer lawsuits. What the ABA wants is for laws to be maximized to have the most ambiguity possible, so that lawyers have to go into court to get rulings.
Some of the time, this actually works to keep things balanced, but it often also is a bad thing. Like, the current Patient Bill of Rights going through Congress where the Trial Lawyers via the Democrats are trying to push up the "medical lottery" limits (aka HMO lawsuit limits). [Not that I don't think patients shouldn't be able to sue medical practitioners, by the way, but...]
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Oops?
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
Why wouldn't there be a slashdot like
system for bills and all the politians that
put forward that bill. That way there can be quick
statistical analysis of who should really be
replaced, so that they really represent people
who elected them not the corporations who fitted
election campaingn bill, for sake of who they
do write legislations.
I mean just hire for each state a dept of 10 ppl
each so they will place the information on to
computer database, that would probably be web accessible.
Everything will be translated into simple talk
but each person in govenrment that has ability
to change laws will have identification.
As pattern analysis can be done and procorporate
anti-people rights heads can be snapped.
just 2c
UCITA means customers can't sue their suppliers which means no fees for the lawyers. Like David Boise really defended Napster out of his belief in it.
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
you obviously didn't read all the comments, look up :)
----------
www.shockthemonkey.org
Photos.
But anytime the lawyers are on your side opposing something you oppose - well, it sure makes me nervous!
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
Yes, this is off the initial topic, but the arbitration that is currently ocurring is, quite frankly, ominous and disturbing.
While the wheels of the tort law machine are fuxx0red, arbitration is not much better.
If you had a problem with your employer, say Wal-Mart not approving your compensation for on the job injuries, you could be forced, depending on contract, to use an arbitrator that hears several hundred cases a year for your erstwhile employer. Or is from the state of the company, or.... The result of this is that the lawsuits still occur--only the lawsuit attempts to get the arbitration agreement overturned. Once that happens, then a second lawsuit must be brought in order to receive redress from the company for whatever offence they may have committed.
So instead of one trip to the lawyer's, you either have a) Trip to the arbitrator (a lawyer) or b) 2 trips to the lawyer--one to overturn the arbitration agreement, and if successful, another to bring a lawsuit against the company in question. And this hurts the financial prospects of lawyers how? And is supposed to eliminate lawsuits? Heh. good one.
Not to mention the fact that one of the parties has much more power than the other and can contractually guarantee a friendly venue and the other party can't. This, in no uncertain terms, sucks.
Protege Posterioram Tuam
It's interesting to compare this turgid model law with the proactive consumer legislation of more than three decades ago. Then, in the wake of groundbreaking work such as Nader's, we agreed as a society that the consumer must be served, protected, and ultimately given the power of redress when bilked, injured, or otherwise harmed by business. We seemed to understand the premise of the old warning, caveat emptor.
Today, we are inclined otherwise: UCITA, along with movements to limit tort liability, is a philosophical realignment so profound it makes one tremulous about the eagerness to forfeit personal dignity for the benefit of mega-wealthy companies. Its adoption is another step toward reversing the earlier equation: now, consumers shall exist to serve business, which shall answer to them only when and as it suits its own interests. Our new motto, venditor emptor, says that the proper order of things is Microsoft first, you second. Sign here, suckers.
We need to ask ourselves how we've lost something essential, which, for want of a better word, let's call spine. And let us see whether, if we still have what it takes as a free people, we can get it back.
So your point is invalid. Microsoft will refund purchases from a retailer for 30 days.
we agreed as a society that the consumer must be served, protected
And then in the next sentence:
We seemed to understand the premise of the old warning, caveat emptor.
You just completely contradicted yourself.
If you think about it, everything we do is in self interest, and the ABA (of which I have a family member affilation) is not unlike any entity representing the needs/wants of its constituents. It is, however, rare when self-serving organizations like the ABA and the ABA do things that could have the side-effect of helping the common man, not simply their own stakeholders.
...good. You use the example of manadatory arbitration as an example of a "good thing" when in actuality such a decision limits the rights of an individual. You may assume that discrimination and sexual harassment either do not exist or are not important. Congratulations, your likely not a victim of either.
The problem with these types of corporate-favoring lawsuits is that to enact them, you must belive the current judicial system is flawed and that any time a corporation is found guilty justice has not been served. I need not remind that those who feel this way are not in the courtrooms that make these decisions. Also, how often does Joe Taxpayer wake up and think "Gee, its terrible that I can sue a corporation that causes me harm."
You make it sound like ABA support for mandatory arbitration was an act of 'preserving "basic rights of consumers"' but clearly this is an example of the opposite. Civil lawyers may lose the opportunity to generate revenue but I can assure you corporate lawyers gain a _huge_ opportunity in return. The latter, self-serving reason is where the ABA's loyalty rests. Which is, of course, self interest.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
In Portugal the bar association has appeared in the last year as critic to the government in fields like justice and education. Is this normal in other countries ?
For those unfamiliar with the ABA, not all attorneys are members of the ABA. In fact, most attorneys generally do not belong to the ABA because of the organization's political views. For instance, the ABA opposes the death penalty.
Understanding ABA membership does not include a majority of the attorneys in US and state bars, in which membership is mandatory, do, then it would have been much more significant if each state bar took a position on the subject. However, such action would be extremely unlikely.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
The ABA claims they want to make UCITA respect the rights of the customers. What rights? The only widely recognized right you have when you buy a product is the right for it to work as specified. If the consumer knows ahead of time that a software oackage uses UCITA, and buys it anyway, how does that violate the rights of the consumer? If people don't like it, they'll switch to other products that don't use it. Let market forces do their thing.
Even if windows uses UCITA, that isn't the end of the world. People will just switch oses. I doubt they'll use Linux, but perhaps the x86 version of MacOS X when it's released.
I'm the stranger...posting to
If new states don't pass it, is there any chance of getting it revoked in the states that already pass it?
I thought that if any states passed it, companies wishing to use UCITA, they could setup their Corp. HQ in one of these states, and everyone would be screwed...
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com