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."

Comments

Motivated by self interest

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ;)

Re:Motivated by self interest

[sllort]

No legal liability, no large legal fees for the trial lawyers.

I realize that we, the readers of slashdot, have a lot of pent-up cynicism towards lawyers. But I think that it's hard to say that their every move is dictated by financial gain. Look at the Supreme Court's recent decision that mandatory workplace arbitration is legal.
For those of you not familiar with the decision, it basically says that employers can force you to sign a special agreement before you come to work for a company, and that agreement says that you cannot sue them, but instead must enter a binding "arbitration process", where an "arbiter" that they choose decides whether you have a legitimate complaint or not.

Obviously, this is going to cut down on the number of lawsuits by employees against employers, since it will become illegal to do so in a few years after all employers have made "arbitration agreements" part of their hiring procedure. We will be spared those tiresome lawsuits about racial discrimination and sexual harassment - it will be illegal to sue your employer over that crap!

Obviously this decision isn't in the best interest of the lawyers who make their living suing people in civil court. Yet it was fully supported by the American Bar Assosciation! Because they had our best interests at heart. Personally, I hate it when someone sues my company for "gender bias" or whatever, and cuts into my hard earned stock options, and I'm glad that this decision will protect my company's assets from being raided by our legal system.

In short, the ABA isn't always out to make money. Sometimes they're looking out for our best interest! Their press release clearly states that they are interested in preserving "basic rights of consumers". Personally, I am inclined to believe them.

Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

UCITA? Bad.

Lawyers? Bad.

Lawyers opposing UCITA? Room spinning... balance gone... confusion rising...

A historical note

[Glowing Fish]

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:

• Professional associations often do the mature, responsible, right thing.
• And that it often doesn't matter, since even the professional associations don't have the weight to throw around that large industry does.

Re:A historical note

[Maskirovka]

And that it often doesn't matter, since even the professional associations don't have the weight to throw around that large industry does.
ABA==Professional Association

Though I don't have any statistics on it, my guess is that the ABA represents more money and more 'political capital' than many industry organizations. The ABA is the industry association for lawyers. Every time a president goes throug the selection process for a supreme court justice, the candates have to get reviewed by the ABA. To even practice law, you have to pass an ABA exam. The ABA is probably one of the most powerfull organizations in the USA. If they want something, they get it. Period.
Maskirovka

It's good, but let's not be naive

[Reality Master 101]

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...]

--

UCITA: road to hell paved with business "rights"

[Voltaire99]

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.