Next up . . . a mandate to force SSH, SSL, et alia to be sessionless.
Heh...insecure for security.
On the other hand, this will give *actual* criminals a much easier time breaking into banks and personal computers . . . so we've got that going for us.
. . . maybe that explains why the vast majority of operators have the encryption turned off?
Typically, there's an exchange to securely establish the *identity* of the device, but the actual datastream is unencrypted.
In the states, if it's even on, the exchange is performed with 64bit keys (instead of 128) AND the first 10 bits are mysteriously set to 0 on all carriers (or at least were as of three years ago) . . . this makes it trivial to crack with a rainbow table type analysis.
Note that the most disturbing part of that article is the fact that the courts didn't have a problem with the FBI doing this--they were only forbidden to do so because it was making OnStar fail during emergency contact.
Think they got that bug worked out during the last two years?
A judge judges the law, at any rate. If the law says that it's law to eat babies every Sunday, a judge aught to do his job and make sure that people get punished appropriately for not eating babies on Sundays. If you don't like it, you'd better seek to change the law!
nonononononono!
A judge is supposed to be the final legal, moral, ethical, and human interpretor/filter of the law. If presented with an immoral law/ruling, s/he should respond with "this is wrong" and not enforce it--whether it be the law, or a biased jury, or whatever.
My God, do you realize that this means that any time a zoning law changes a developer need only to get the backing of the local government to seize a farm or ranch?
What's worse, is that the compensation will need to be only the FMV of the property as-is: in any municipality that has "urban growth boundaries" it is in any city's "best economic interests" to seize any border property and sell it to developers: massive profit, new subdivision and strip-mall == more jobs and more taxes.
I'm thinking about my grandparents and their little retirement property on the coast. It would DEFINITELY be in the comunity's best interests to seize their house and build a hotel-casino.
The ones who will be deciding the fates of propery seizures are also ones who will benefit from it.
This is so wrong.
Am I just paranoid? This seems to be the single worst event in US history.
Take a look at your phone bill: see that "Federal Excice Tax"?
That's a "temporary tax"--to help fund the Spanish-American war. It's been temporary for 107 years now.
I think that war's over, man.
Another good example: income tax. Put in place with a cap of 2.5%. Seems to have gone up since then [so much, that financial advisers are beginning to recommend NOT doing tax deferals (e.g., 401K), because taxes will probably be higher by the time you are a pensioner].
You will have a Gas Tax and a Milage Tax AND a Vehicle-Registration Tax AND a Sales Tax [that already gets retroactively to people who move into the state when they already own a new-ish car].
I had a prof. who used this and multiple choice--and he could compile the result and you were graded down for every mistake you made, syntax or otherwise, including your whitespace formatting.
I wound up being good at the hand-written code, but I disliked it because it seemed so non-applicable. Especially since you may forget to initialise a variable and then have to insert that line amongst code you've already written where there's no room. It was horrible.
But, what he was testing first and foremost was whether or not you planned out your code before you started writing it--a fact that would become painfully obvious if you did not.
Guy I new announced his leaving and immediately received an amazing counter-offer. He decided to leave anyway, later he ran into said boss and asked him about it.
"Oh, if you'd taken it, I would have fired you the next day."
e.g. the offer was just an attempt to screw the employee out of both jobs.
The head-hunter is right. Your company or manager is not your friend and does not care for your well being--except for so much lip service. Part of their job is to invoke confidence and loyalty from you, as an employee. Just remember, doing that is their job--as is keeping costs down and employees in-line.
Look at it this way: if the counter-offer were sincere, then the rest of the employees would initiate the same manoeuvre.
They don't want that.
P.S. I have dealt with TWO managers who were exceptions to this--both were also the most technically competent I've encountered as well. One was run out of the company, and the other jumped-ship after he realised the consequences of restructuring [amazingly, three months later, everything he said has come true].
Re:An issue of generational turnover, how?
on
The Empire Stumbles
·
· Score: 1
Maybe "the kids" are just incapable of generating their own cultural milestones? No. Check out "The Matrix." That would be a much better argument for Katz's to use then "Spider-Man".
I think, perhaps, that "Fight Club" would be more apropos in defining a post-star wars cinematic generation.
Of course, the 1978 release of Star Wars itself represents a complete demarcation from what was film then and what is film now. The level of detail, the technology, etc [though, it was probably inspired by "2001" in turn].
And part of that is monstrous budgets and marketing tie-ins.
The EM pulses of nearby nukes trash computers [better than the nuke trashes people].
If you want to down the entire USAF contingent of these in your hemisphere--simply detonate a ~10MT nuke in the ionosphere and they'll drop like flies hit with Raid.
(Note: the US actually did this as a test w/a 5MT nuke in the '60s--made an aurora borealis that slid across the entire planet, stopped radio communications for most of the world for a few hours, scrambled radar images, and blew out [the much LESS sensitive] computer circuits from California to Japan. After that, they decided it was a bad idea.)
2% layoff, 4% pay cut, no 3% cost-of-living increase [nor again for this year], no 401k match.
That's about 6k$ off of the typical salary--typical American families have about 2k$ in solvency and after six months this has resulted in hardship for the employees with families.
At first, the employees fell for it--but then, the executives took "only" 1/2 of their bonuses. Then we issued our stock dividends anyway [and still at 2x industry average]. And [like temporary taxes] the 4% won't be coming back officially.
Moral is at an all-time low. People are [rightfully] pissed. The better employees are leaving and those who remain are suffering under the strain of picking up the work.
I visited Texas and found my equivalent house listing there for 45K$ [29% of its cost here]--I can see why companies don't need to pay their employees. Everything from gas to dinner was about 1/2 - 2/3 of the price out here . . . and the people were a heck of a lot more pleasant.
That 9$/hr is probably worth about 50k$ out here.
If resources aren't a restriction, I wonder why do business in cost-prohibitive places like SF/PDX/Seattle at all?
The speed of light [or in this case, the electron-impulse] in a typical IC is about 50% of c in a vacuum.
This is quite amazing, since that means about 1.4mm per cycle and the [I don't know what to call it so I'll say: ] mean path through the circuit must be many times that distance.
How the hell do you deal with that?
Re:( Bad for me anyway! ) Re:Bad in Texas as well
on
The Laid-off Techie
·
· Score: 1
The unemployment rate in the "Silicon Forest" [Oregon] is 7.5% -- by far the worst in the Nation. Things are really bad.
I still am employed, but our company [one of the largest software-only in the world] took an across the board 10% cut in wages/etc last November, and will be taking an additional 3% next November.
Most of the folks I know who lost/fled their jobs have been rehired, but we're talking about some seriously qualified folks, so they can be dismissed as end-points.
Interestingly, its revealed some serious flaws in our tax structure. Oregon has ~3M people, and the loss of employment translated into ~800M$ less in tax-revenue [not counting the additional cost of unemployment for 1-in-13 unemployed].
From what I understand of sociology, this translates into a 6-month countdown before a year-long spike in violent crime and suicide rates begins.
Most of the basis of a private action against MS by AOLTW would be on the basis of MS's illegal and anti-competitive actions.
The illegality of MS's actions is something which 'a' government needs to conclude; thus, it makes A LOT of sense to wait for the government action to conclude [which was started how long ago?].
Now, they have an a priori case against MS.
. . . and MS is in a lot of trouble.
If/when AOLTW wins the case, then you'll see real band-wagon action as all the smaller victims of MS go in for their slice.
Says you. Ever watch a locksmith make a key for your car? I have. There's one blank they use for every single make and model. Using a metal file (no high-tech spy mission tools required), a good locksmith can have a key that works your door, trunk and ignition in about 5 minutes. It doesn't matter what kind of car you have, they get "root".
I see your point, but I don't think the analogy [in legal terms] holds. A locksmith can give me a copy of the key which I gave them. Honda [c.f. the case with the early Acuras] is giving a key to my car to another xMillion folks [there were a total of SEVEN keys for the model]--they got in trouble and changed that policy.
As to the soft-top Jeep. True: and take a look at how you, as said Jeep owner, are punished for this by your insurance company [with the higher rates]. Of course, one is foolish to put a lot of "faith" into markets . . . .
Along with creating thousands of "hot McDonald's coffee on the crotch"-type lawsuits.
Sadly, there's no known cure for idiots who don't want to take responsibility for their lives . . . however, cases such as these are a rarity. In fact, per-capita law suites are down from their position in the late 19th century. I think we just have enough noise to find any case you want. That, and it's in corporate's best interest to convince folks at large that we need to curb our tendencies/rights to sue.
Can the retailer sue MS? Sure--but, maybe they don't need to. If the cost of using NT is too high [as a liability et al], perhaps it would make more sense to switch to FreeBSD or even LiNUX.
PS. Seen the latest IBM add, WRT the hacking of Cheddar?;)
--cheers
Sorry, I didn't realise I was speaking to some form of self-appointed member of the cognoscenti. Your arrogance is astounding, and certainly not helpful to an intellectual discussion.
Put it this way: if people choose to be idiots--then they get what they deserve. Ethically, if you are "damaged" by an entity, it is your responsibility to do something about it. If you're not willing, then kindly piss off.
Upon another ethical note: "organization pressures . . . manipulation of buyers . . . of public perception"--so, it's OK when these pressures/manipulations are derived from your agenda?
Do not attempt to paint me into the corner as an acolyte to the "rational, working market"--I made no such claim. It is as amateurish manoeuvre upon your part. At no point do I state or imply "perfect information, no network effects, blah blah blah".
You refer to the UCITA, but did you read it. It's merely a pan-state-mandated law--totally superseded by federal jurisdiction, which includes the federal consumer protection statues--not to mentioned that the various state's anti-trust and consumer protection acts are not inhibited by the UCITA.
"UCITA requires computer information transactions to meet . . . common law standards applicable to contracts by expressly providing that contract terms which are "unconscionable" or against public policy are unenforceable" [my emphasis].--Micalyn Harris, October 1999
The NCCUSL Drafting Committee considered suggestions that UCITA mandate broader rights and undisclaimable warranties. They also considered second-level consequences. Broadening rights and warranties by statute would require that computer information be sold at higher prices to cover the cost of the increased risk of making good on warranties which cannot be disclaimed. One foreseeable result is that some applications and other computer information will not be offered because small developers will not be willing to take the additional risk of warranties which cannot be disclaimed. Another foreseeable result is that some applications and other information will not be sold at higher prices in sufficient quantities to be commercially viable, and therefore will not be offered. Providing mass market software would become more costly and riskier, thus making it more difficult for small developers to compete with larger "deep pocket" providers. Reducing the number of small developers who offer mass market computer information will make the industry as a whole less competitive. Thus, mandating broader rights and undisclaimable warranties will result in higher prices, less variety and choice of available software applications and other computer information, and less competition in the computer information industry - all undesirable results for providers, users, and society as a whole. The Drafting Committee's decision to have UCITA remain neutral, rather than mandating broader rights and undisclaimable warranties, is entirely appropriate, even wise, given the foreseeable unintended results of the alternatives--Micalyn Harris, October 1999 [my emphasis]
i.e. it would serve the "dominant, very solvent" competitors at the expense of the smaller shops
The UCITA is about making Licensing legitimate.
WRT to litigation: A second misrepresentation is that UCITA allows licensors to require the licensee to sue in any place in the world, such as Paraguay, in the event of breach. Presumably this is meant to suggest that the licensor can arbitrarily make it impossible for the licensee to sue for its rights. Actually, UCITA invalidates choice of forum clauses if they are unreasonable and unjust. This parallels a standard created by the U.S. Supreme Court and by a respected Restatement of law on this point. It is used by courts to prevent exactly the kind of problem to which you refer - picking a location just to prevent me as licensee from enforcing my rights. Also, as I mentioned above, UCITA allows courts to invalidate unconscionable contract terms. A recent New York court held that a choice of mandatory arbitration in a form contract was unconscionable because the fee was larger than most disputes. This doctrine, which is in UCITA, also prevent the horror story result your note suggests could occur.-- Ray Nimmer July 1999
And, finally, as an excerpt of the dissenting opinion against the infamous Article 2B--the very point the American Law Center makes serves against having such laws.
The case law of software transactions is spotty, and business practices are rapidly changing. In these circumstances, detailed codification is unwise.--Jean Braucher
Current contract and criminal law are sufficient to deal with software vendors [who are not the centre of the universe, by the way].
The UCITA won't protect a software producer from a lack of sales.
Here's an example. The USAF decides to run the new F-88 fighter on WinCE [ok, I'm being silly]. Someone enters a zero in a data field, and it crashes into your house.
You don't sue Microsoft, you sue the USAF--they sue/cancel their contract w/F-88 development contractor, who probably won't use WinCE again.
Thus, MS's punishment for having lousy software is not having it sell.
Of course, if MS has misrepresented their "stability"/"security"--that could be something along the lines of a fraudulent contract. There is plenty of basis for a contractor to go after them [just not a poor citizen].
Plus, even if you can't sue them--you can. Even if it is thrown out, they have to deal with it and it will hurt.
I agree that open-source should be distributable under "free speech"--but, I'm not sure that'll help. After all, Beavis & Butthead were sued for inciting some dumbass kid into burning down his trailer [then said kid had never seen the show].
Slashdot Mirror
Next up . . . a mandate to force SSH, SSL, et alia to be sessionless.
Heh...insecure for security.
On the other hand, this will give *actual* criminals a much easier time breaking into banks and personal computers . . . so we've got that going for us.
. . . maybe that explains why the vast majority of operators have the encryption turned off?
Typically, there's an exchange to securely establish the *identity* of the device, but the actual datastream is unencrypted.
In the states, if it's even on, the exchange is performed with 64bit keys (instead of 128) AND the first 10 bits are mysteriously set to 0 on all carriers (or at least were as of three years ago) . . . this makes it trivial to crack with a rainbow table type analysis.
If you built those, our company would buy them.
Even now, we are *required* to use LCDs, due to the fact that a CRT signal can be reproduced from outside the building.
You mean like the FBI remotely activating the On-Star system and using it to track people and record conversations?
Note that the most disturbing part of that article is the fact that the courts didn't have a problem with the FBI doing this--they were only forbidden to do so because it was making OnStar fail during emergency contact.
Think they got that bug worked out during the last two years?
They already eat their own shit if you don't stop them.
I think you just spawned a whole new movie genre.
A judge judges the law, at any rate. If the law says that it's law to eat babies every Sunday, a judge aught to do his job and make sure that people get punished appropriately for not eating babies on Sundays. If you don't like it, you'd better seek to change the law!
nonononononono!
A judge is supposed to be the final legal, moral, ethical, and human interpretor/filter of the law. If presented with an immoral law/ruling, s/he should respond with "this is wrong" and not enforce it--whether it be the law, or a biased jury, or whatever.
My God, do you realize that this means that any time a zoning law changes a developer need only to get the backing of the local government to seize a farm or ranch?
What's worse, is that the compensation will need to be only the FMV of the property as-is: in any municipality that has "urban growth boundaries" it is in any city's "best economic interests" to seize any border property and sell it to developers: massive profit, new subdivision and strip-mall == more jobs and more taxes.
I'm thinking about my grandparents and their little retirement property on the coast. It would DEFINITELY be in the comunity's best interests to seize their house and build a hotel-casino.
The ones who will be deciding the fates of propery seizures are also ones who will benefit from it.
This is so wrong.
Am I just paranoid? This seems to be the single worst event in US history.
*relative* to Earth, the equation simplifies to:
;-)
relative_mass / relative_radius^2
I.e., 5.9 / 2^2 to 7.5 / 2^2 == 1.48 - 1.88 g
Though, I have to admit that I know of no normally occuring life under those circumstances
No doubt! That is laughable.
Take a look at your phone bill: see that "Federal Excice Tax"?
That's a "temporary tax"--to help fund the Spanish-American war. It's been temporary for 107 years now.
I think that war's over, man.
Another good example: income tax. Put in place with a cap of 2.5%. Seems to have gone up since then [so much, that financial advisers are beginning to recommend NOT doing tax deferals (e.g., 401K), because taxes will probably be higher by the time you are a pensioner].
You will have a Gas Tax and a Milage Tax AND a Vehicle-Registration Tax AND a Sales Tax [that already gets retroactively to people who move into the state when they already own a new-ish car].
I had a prof. who used this and multiple choice--and he could compile the result and you were graded down for every mistake you made, syntax or otherwise, including your whitespace formatting.
I wound up being good at the hand-written code, but I disliked it because it seemed so non-applicable. Especially since you may forget to initialise a variable and then have to insert that line amongst code you've already written where there's no room. It was horrible.
But, what he was testing first and foremost was whether or not you planned out your code before you started writing it--a fact that would become painfully obvious if you did not.
In that regard, it worked quite well.
Guy I new announced his leaving and immediately received an amazing counter-offer. He decided to leave anyway, later he ran into said boss and asked him about it.
"Oh, if you'd taken it, I would have fired you the next day."
e.g. the offer was just an attempt to screw the employee out of both jobs.
The head-hunter is right. Your company or manager is not your friend and does not care for your well being--except for so much lip service. Part of their job is to invoke confidence and loyalty from you, as an employee. Just remember, doing that is their job--as is keeping costs down and employees in-line.
Look at it this way: if the counter-offer were sincere, then the rest of the employees would initiate the same manoeuvre.
They don't want that.
P.S. I have dealt with TWO managers who were exceptions to this--both were also the most technically competent I've encountered as well. One was run out of the company, and the other jumped-ship after he realised the consequences of restructuring [amazingly, three months later, everything he said has come true].
Yea, but I'm a vi kind of guy...
Then QuickTime VI is player for you!
!rimshot
Maybe "the kids" are just incapable of generating their own cultural milestones? No. Check out "The Matrix." That would be a much better argument for Katz's to use then "Spider-Man".
I think, perhaps, that "Fight Club" would be more apropos in defining a post-star wars cinematic generation.
Of course, the 1978 release of Star Wars itself represents a complete demarcation from what was film then and what is film now. The level of detail, the technology, etc [though, it was probably inspired by "2001" in turn].
And part of that is monstrous budgets and marketing tie-ins.
Yet again, someone [this column] lists the "first modern computer" as ENIAC--yet England and Iowa State University both built predecessors:
Colossus
Atanasoff-Berry Computer
Unfortunately, this is not the case ;)
The EM pulses of nearby nukes trash computers [better than the nuke trashes people].
If you want to down the entire USAF contingent of these in your hemisphere--simply detonate a ~10MT nuke in the ionosphere and they'll drop like flies hit with Raid.
(Note: the US actually did this as a test w/a 5MT nuke in the '60s--made an aurora borealis that slid across the entire planet, stopped radio communications for most of the world for a few hours, scrambled radar images, and blew out [the much LESS sensitive] computer circuits from California to Japan. After that, they decided it was a bad idea.)
Yeah.
'they' wouldn't cut the dividend because 'the stockholders would react negatively'.
But in the long run it will kill us. Definitely not in the best interest of the company--only those who own stock today.
Out in PDX, OR.
2% layoff, 4% pay cut, no 3% cost-of-living increase [nor again for this year], no 401k match.
That's about 6k$ off of the typical salary--typical American families have about 2k$ in solvency and after six months this has resulted in hardship for the employees with families.
At first, the employees fell for it--but then, the executives took "only" 1/2 of their bonuses. Then we issued our stock dividends anyway [and still at 2x industry average]. And [like temporary taxes] the 4% won't be coming back officially.
Moral is at an all-time low. People are [rightfully] pissed. The better employees are leaving and those who remain are suffering under the strain of picking up the work.
All in all, it's not a pretty picture.
I visited Texas and found my equivalent house listing there for 45K$ [29% of its cost here]--I can see why companies don't need to pay their employees. Everything from gas to dinner was about 1/2 - 2/3 of the price out here . . . and the people were a heck of a lot more pleasant.
That 9$/hr is probably worth about 50k$ out here.
If resources aren't a restriction, I wonder why do business in cost-prohibitive places like SF/PDX/Seattle at all?
I find it easy to believe that the NSA is far ahead of the public in the encryption arms-race
In 1998 Distributed net used ~100000 PCs to break a 56bit DES key.
40 years earlier, the NSA decreed that DES keys should be limited to 56 bits because they were "readily accessible".
Think about it.
need to be able to find out what every human on earth is doing at any point in time.
Except Heisenberg
!RimShot
The speed of light [or in this case, the electron-impulse] in a typical IC is about 50% of c in a vacuum.
This is quite amazing, since that means about 1.4mm per cycle and the [I don't know what to call it so I'll say: ] mean path through the circuit must be many times that distance.
How the hell do you deal with that?
The unemployment rate in the "Silicon Forest" [Oregon] is 7.5% -- by far the worst in the Nation. Things are really bad.
I still am employed, but our company [one of the largest software-only in the world] took an across the board 10% cut in wages/etc last November, and will be taking an additional 3% next November.
Most of the folks I know who lost/fled their jobs have been rehired, but we're talking about some seriously qualified folks, so they can be dismissed as end-points.
Interestingly, its revealed some serious flaws in our tax structure. Oregon has ~3M people, and the loss of employment translated into ~800M$ less in tax-revenue [not counting the additional cost of unemployment for 1-in-13 unemployed].
From what I understand of sociology, this translates into a 6-month countdown before a year-long spike in violent crime and suicide rates begins.
Not quite, I think.
Most of the basis of a private action against MS by AOLTW would be on the basis of MS's illegal and anti-competitive actions.
The illegality of MS's actions is something which 'a' government needs to conclude; thus, it makes A LOT of sense to wait for the government action to conclude [which was started how long ago?].
Now, they have an a priori case against MS.
. . . and MS is in a lot of trouble.
If/when AOLTW wins the case, then you'll see real band-wagon action as all the smaller victims of MS go in for their slice.
--cheers
Says you. Ever watch a locksmith make a key for your car? I have. There's one blank they use for every single make and model. Using a metal file (no high-tech spy mission tools required), a good locksmith can have a key that works your door, trunk and ignition in about 5 minutes. It doesn't matter what kind of car you have, they get "root".
;)
--cheers
I see your point, but I don't think the analogy [in legal terms] holds. A locksmith can give me a copy of the key which I gave them. Honda [c.f. the case with the early Acuras] is giving a key to my car to another xMillion folks [there were a total of SEVEN keys for the model]--they got in trouble and changed that policy.
As to the soft-top Jeep. True: and take a look at how you, as said Jeep owner, are punished for this by your insurance company [with the higher rates]. Of course, one is foolish to put a lot of "faith" into markets . . . .
Along with creating thousands of "hot McDonald's coffee on the crotch"-type lawsuits.
Sadly, there's no known cure for idiots who don't want to take responsibility for their lives . . . however, cases such as these are a rarity. In fact, per-capita law suites are down from their position in the late 19th century. I think we just have enough noise to find any case you want. That, and it's in corporate's best interest to convince folks at large that we need to curb our tendencies/rights to sue.
Can the retailer sue MS? Sure--but, maybe they don't need to. If the cost of using NT is too high [as a liability et al], perhaps it would make more sense to switch to FreeBSD or even LiNUX.
PS. Seen the latest IBM add, WRT the hacking of Cheddar?
Sorry, I didn't realise I was speaking to some form of self-appointed member of the cognoscenti. Your arrogance is astounding, and certainly not helpful to an intellectual discussion.
Put it this way: if people choose to be idiots--then they get what they deserve. Ethically, if you are "damaged" by an entity, it is your responsibility to do something about it. If you're not willing, then kindly piss off.
Upon another ethical note: "organization pressures . . . manipulation of buyers . . . of public perception"--so, it's OK when these pressures/manipulations are derived from your agenda?
Do not attempt to paint me into the corner as an acolyte to the "rational, working market"--I made no such claim. It is as amateurish manoeuvre upon your part. At no point do I state or imply "perfect information, no network effects, blah blah blah".
You refer to the UCITA, but did you read it. It's merely a pan-state-mandated law--totally superseded by federal jurisdiction, which includes the federal consumer protection statues--not to mentioned that the various state's anti-trust and consumer protection acts are not inhibited by the UCITA.
"UCITA requires computer information transactions to meet . . . common law standards applicable to contracts by expressly providing that contract terms which are "unconscionable" or against public policy are unenforceable" [my emphasis].--Micalyn Harris, October 1999
The NCCUSL Drafting Committee considered suggestions that UCITA mandate broader rights and undisclaimable warranties. They also considered second-level consequences. Broadening rights and warranties by statute would require that computer information be sold at higher prices to cover the cost of the increased risk of making good on warranties which cannot be disclaimed. One foreseeable result is that some applications and other computer information will not be offered because small developers will not be willing to take the additional risk of warranties which cannot be disclaimed. Another foreseeable result is that some applications and other information will not be sold at higher prices in sufficient quantities to be commercially viable, and therefore will not be offered. Providing mass market software would become more costly and riskier, thus making it more difficult for small developers to compete with larger "deep pocket" providers. Reducing the number of small developers who offer mass market computer information will make the industry as a whole less competitive. Thus, mandating broader rights and undisclaimable warranties will result in higher prices, less variety and choice of available software applications and other computer information, and less competition in the computer information industry - all undesirable results for providers, users, and society as a whole. The Drafting Committee's decision to have UCITA remain neutral, rather than mandating broader rights and undisclaimable warranties, is entirely appropriate, even wise, given the foreseeable unintended results of the alternatives--Micalyn Harris, October 1999 [my emphasis]
i.e. it would serve the "dominant, very solvent" competitors at the expense of the smaller shops
The UCITA is about making Licensing legitimate.
WRT to litigation:
A second misrepresentation is that UCITA allows licensors to require the licensee to sue in any place in the world, such as Paraguay, in the event of breach. Presumably this is meant to suggest that the licensor can arbitrarily make it impossible for the licensee to sue for its rights. Actually, UCITA invalidates choice of forum clauses if they are unreasonable and unjust. This parallels a standard created by the U.S. Supreme Court and by a respected Restatement of law on this point. It is used by courts to prevent exactly the kind of problem to which you refer - picking a location just to prevent me as licensee from enforcing my rights. Also, as I mentioned above, UCITA allows courts to invalidate unconscionable contract terms. A recent New York court held that a choice of mandatory arbitration in a form contract was unconscionable because the fee was larger than most disputes. This doctrine, which is in UCITA, also prevent the horror story result your note suggests could occur.-- Ray Nimmer July 1999
And, finally, as an excerpt of the dissenting opinion against the infamous Article 2B--the very point the American Law Center makes serves against having such laws.
The case law of software transactions is spotty, and business practices are rapidly changing. In these circumstances, detailed codification is unwise.--Jean Braucher
Current contract and criminal law are sufficient to deal with software vendors [who are not the centre of the universe, by the way].
The UCITA won't protect a software producer from a lack of sales.
Here's an example. The USAF decides to run the new F-88 fighter on WinCE [ok, I'm being silly]. Someone enters a zero in a data field, and it crashes into your house.
You don't sue Microsoft, you sue the USAF--they sue/cancel their contract w/F-88 development contractor, who probably won't use WinCE again.
Thus, MS's punishment for having lousy software is not having it sell.
Of course, if MS has misrepresented their "stability"/"security"--that could be something along the lines of a fraudulent contract. There is plenty of basis for a contractor to go after them [just not a poor citizen].
Plus, even if you can't sue them--you can. Even if it is thrown out, they have to deal with it and it will hurt.
I agree that open-source should be distributable under "free speech"--but, I'm not sure that'll help. After all, Beavis & Butthead were sued for inciting some dumbass kid into burning down his trailer [then said kid had never seen the show].