UCITA Committee Disbanded

linuxwrangler writes "As noted in Ed Foster's InfoWorld Gripe Line blog, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws committee on Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act (UCITA) has been disbanded. The UCITA proposal, a darling of the software industry, would have validated shrink-wrap and click-through licenses and legalized "self-help" or remote disabling of software by manufacturers. It's "developers are completely liable for defects...unless overridden by the shrink wrap license" provisions were of grave concern to open-source. The badly flawed proposed legislation was condemned by everyone from Librarians and InfoWorld editors to the American Bar Association, the Federal Trade Commission and Richard Stallman. Only two states (Virginia and Maryland) adopted it while twice that many passed Anti-UCITA laws. Although UCITA is not officially dead, at least it has been taken off life support which certainly qualifies as great news."

Comments

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If your intent was to go from the least important people on this planet to the most

The badly flawed proposed legislation was condemned by everyone from Librarians and InfoWorld editors to the American Bar Association, the Federal Trade Commission and Richard Stallman.

I didn't know Stallman was legislated higher authority than FTC.

Re:Hmmm

[LordLucless]

"If your intent was to go from the least important people on this planet to the most"

Maybe it's just in order of people or organisations whom most slashdotters care about.

Great!

[Lionel Hutts]

This really is great news -- though there were some parts of UCITA that were much less objectionable than those highlighted here, few should mourn the loss of this stinker.

I wonder how the UCITA supporters in Virginia and Maryland will feel about their triumph. It reminds me of the story of the Wazoo land grab scandal of 200 years ago in Georgia, which inspired the Eleventh Amendment: some shifty types bribed a majority of the state legislature to just give away a huge amount of land to them, but, for whatever reason, one innocent legislator went along with the crowd and voted in favor of the scheme.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as good as we might hope. Note that software vendors may just write their EULA's to include a choice-of-law provision that says "This agreement is to be construed according to the laws of the state of Virginia." That would get us all stuck with UCITA even though only 2 of the 50 states enacted it.

Be careful what you sign. If you oppose UCITA, and the choice of law clause indicates Virginia or Maryland, don't sign it.

you are a flaw

[ciaran_o_riordan]

You have defined "important" as meaning legislated highly. That's your call. You must derive a very structured life from this belief :P

--

Re:you are a flaw

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you talking about?
"You" being the submitter? The submitter doesn't even say/type "important". WTF?

<troll>
And your stupid :P?
First things first:
1) Don't be an ass.
2) Make sense.
3) You're not funny and no one's laughing with you.
</troll>

Re:you are a flaw

[ciaran_o_riordan]

> The submitter doesn't even say/type "important"

It's the tenth word of the first sentence they typed.

> WTF?

RTFP!

(the subject line was from another comment, I forgot to change it. Anonymous Coward will get over it I'm sure)

--

Why not front page?

[Cutriss]

Considering the scope and ramifications of UCITA-like bills that had been pushed through in other states, I find it odd that this didn't make front-page news. It's clearly great news, and something we can all breathe a little easier about hearing.

Additionally, Slashdot didn't post anything about Senator Hollings announcing his retirement next year, which is also very good news for the /. community. Surely we can find room to insert this between the SCO stories, right?

Re:Why not front page?

[neitzsche]

I agree - it is so freaking rare to get GOOD news, this really really ought to be on the front page.

Doesn't particularly generate a lot of discussion, but man is it refreshing!

Land schemes and 11th amendment

[OldMiner]

Wazoo land grab sounded interesting. So I did some research. Looks like you were close. It was a Yazoo land fraud. Thanks for pointing it out, though.

And, for the other curious people out there, the eleventh ammendment, as quoted from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.amendmentxi.html:

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Boy, those constitutional law people sure now how to be brief.

Re:Land schemes and 11th amendment

[Lionel Hutts]

Dang it, I knew it sounded like "Yahoo!," but not quite.

My sincerest apologies.

The Eleventh Amendment really did need to be about that long, though, to unambiguously repeal the Constitution's grant of jurisdiction over states. For real wordiness, try the first sentence of (former) Internal Revenue Code sec. 341(e)'s first sentence:

(e)Exceptions to application of section

(1) Sales or exchanges of stock

For purposes of subsection (a)(1), a corporation shall not be considered to be a collapsible corporation with respect to any sale or exchange of stock of the corporation by a shareholder, if, at the time of such sale or exchange, the sum of -

(A)

the net unrealized appreciation in subsection (e) assets of the corporation (as defined in paragraph (5)(A)), plus

(B)

if the shareholder owns more than 5 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation the net unrealized appreciation in assets of the corporation (other than assets described in subparagraph (A)) which would be subsection (e) assets under clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph (5)(A) if the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of such stock, plus

(C)

if the shareholder owns more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation and owns, or at any time during the preceding 3-year period owned, more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock of any other corporation more than 70 percent in value of the assets of which are, or were at any time during which such shareholder owned during such 3-year period more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock, assets similar or related in service or use to assets comprising more than 70 percent in value of the assets of the corporation, the net unrealized appreciation in assets of the corporation (other than assets described in subparagraph (A)) which would be subsection (e) assets under clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph (5)(A) if the determination whether the property, in the hands of such shareholder, would be property gain from the sale or exchange of which would under any provision of this chapter be considered in whole or in part as ordinary income, were made -

(i)

by treating any sale or exchange by such shareholder of stock in such other corporation within the preceding 3-year period (but only if at the time of such sale or exchange the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock in such other corporation) as a sale or exchange by such shareholder of his proportionate share of the assets of such other corporation, and

(ii)

by treating any liquidating sale or exchange of property by such other corporation within such 3-year period (but only if at the time of such sale or exchange the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock in such other corporation) as a sale or exchange by such shareholder of his proportionate share of the property sold or exchanged, does not exceed an amount equal to 15 percent of the net worth of the corporation.

what?

[Anonymous Coward]

why did you put some link to a spam^H^H^H^Hblog, when there was an actual, real news source reporting it?

get the fuck out, blog virus!

Re:first post - w00t! :)

[Anonymous Coward]

no no! you need to mod this down even more! -1 isn't good enough

YRO = Your Rants Online

[sulli]

Bad news = pageviews.
Good news = big snooze.