UCITA Debates Trudge Onward

prockcore writes: "CNet is running a story on a debate involving proposed changes to the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA). Changes include altering Opt-in/Opt-out rules, removing limits on public criticism, removing some limits on reverse engineering, among others."

Comments

Re:unfortunately Congress makes the rules

[llywrch]

> The majority of the 50 states do not have significant technology industries and so might be willing to overturn UCITA which
> would benefit computer users.

One item that opened my eyes when I testified against this legislation in 2001 before a committe of the Oregon Legislature, was that the insurance industry was set against it, as well as a number of industries who buy software. And the insurance industry has members in each of the 50 states.

Think of it as big corporation vs. big corporations over profits.

> Unfortunately it is Congress which passed UCITA in the first place.

Err, no: this model legislation, written by a group of lawyers. It is then submitted to each of the 50 states to adopt, modify, or ignore as they see fit. Because it is a ``model", drafted by legal ``experts", most state legislatures are inclined to adopt it unless the local users (both individual & business) raise a stink about it.

Geoff

Re:unfortunately Congress makes the rules

[kallisti]

Congress had nothing to do with UCITA, it was created by an NCCUSL committee. UCITA is part of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is designed so that all states have the same rules when deciding questions of interstate commerce. It is a sort of compromise between state's rights and imposing Federal control. Every state gets to decide if it accepts the code, most of the time it is non-controversial. UCITA was poorly conceived and so got a lot of flak.

Re:What Does This Mean?

[aufait]

How can they limit public criticism? Isn't that a serious violation of the first amendment?

There is no constitutional limit on what clauses a contract can contain.

NDA clauses (I will show you my trace secrets as long as you promise not to tell anyone else) limit "free speech".

Arbitration clauses limit your right to have courts address wrongs.

Covenants (you can buy the house, but you can't put a satellite dish on the roof) limit what you can do with your private property.

Non-compete clauses limit the jobs you can take.

All of the above types of clauses have been upheld by the courts. The courts will only void a clause that violates the norms of society. (You can't sell yourself into slavery.)

Having said all that, I think the no-criticism clauses step accross that line.