
UCC 2B: What's Wrong and What's Right
Article 2B of the Uniform Commercial Code seeks to enforce the often-ignored boilerplate in shrink- and click-wrap software licenses. The items listed below look at controversial assertions about 2B from the standpoint of many users (What's Wrong) versus a software-industry perspective (What's Right).
Assertion: Publishers can shut down business software--shrink-wrapped or negotiated--without a court order.
What's Wrong
· The mere threat of shutdown can ratchet down a business' negotiating power.
· 15-day shutdown notice to one person leaves room for surprise if he or she misses the notice.
· Difficult to ascertain the risk that shutdowns will result in injury or death.
· No guarantee that publisher can pay damages caused by wrongful software shutoff.
What's Right
· 2B offers more protections in this area than existing court decisions provide.
· Shutdown can only occur if there is a material breach of contract or expiration.
· Publishers need such recourse to collect unpaid fees and prevent piracy.
· Businesses must agree separately to license provisions for shutdown.
Assertion: Software companies can walk away from damages their products inflict on business without informing users about disclaimer until after purchase.
What's Wrong
· Software publishers need not label buggy software "sold as is" and can wait until after sales to present disclaimers.
· Businesses that agree to a disclaimer typically can't recoup support costs to diagnose, remove or recover from faulty software.
· 2B trades users' diminished negotiating power for publisher-dictated terms.
· Damage limitations foster quick-to-market, buggy software.
w 2B doesn't permit capped damages for known but concealed bugs.
What's Right
· Without special liability carve-outs for publishers, software costs will rise, innovation will fall and class-action suits will proliferate.
· Users can refuse post-sale disclaimers and obtain a refund for software.
· Fraud laws may help businesses recover damages for concealed bugs.
· Free-market economies rely on freedom to contract, not such regulation as capped damages for concealed software bugs.
· 2B won't change the law in those states that prohibit warranty disclaimers.
Assertion: 2B ensures that state courts, which favor free-market contract law, will handle most license disputes. In that realm, many public interests (freedom to critique, review, reverse-engineer and transfer products) of intellectual property and other federal laws may be considered unnecessary regulation.
What's Wrong
· Courts regularly enforce contractual restraints on speech.
· Many businesses will honor anticriticism terms to avoid suit.
· 2B uses notes, which may be dropped or never adopted, to clarify what terms are counter to "fundamental public policy"--making it likely this vague phrase will lead to contradictory state rulings.
· Users losing in state courts can only look to expensive, and unlikely, U.S. Supreme Court resolution.
What's Right
· Courts have never limited speech for publicly distributed information, and 2B does nothing to encourage this. Those who argue otherwise are using scare tactics.
· 2B's "fundamental public policy" language provides better guidance for uniform decision-making than exists in the states today.
· 2B's notes recognize intellectual property law, though the text (what is known as the black letter of the law) doesn't.
Assertion: 2B will make it impossible for most companies to transfer huge shrink-wrap software investments upon merger, acquisition or dissolution.
What's Wrong
· Businesses might find it less expensive to strip PCs of shrink-wrap software than invest in lawyers and technicians to renegotiate and isolate licenses.
· Transfer restraints (on software sold anonymously to a mass market) are designed to prevent product reuse rather than protect legitimate interests, such as trade secrets.
What's Right
· 2B trusts the market, not regulation, to arrive at workable contracts.
· Existing state and federal laws allow restrictions on contract transfers for legitimate reasons.
· Several cases say software transfer restrictions are enforceable; however, none say they aren't.
· It's easier to prevent piracy if software isn't reused.
Assertion: 2B greatly increases the odds that restraints on reverse-engineering will be enforced, harming software interoperability.
What's Wrong
· Innovation and interoperability will take a hit as developers avoid engineering efforts considered legitimate today, because they see 2B increasing their risk of being sued.
· Some developers will move to locales outside the United States, where restraints don't exist.
What's Right
· 2B remains neutral on reverse-engineering because the law in this area is unclear--even though 2B opponents claim otherwise.
· Good legislation doesn't enumerate federal rights (even if they are labeled illustrative) because courts might conclude rights are limited to those specified.
Assertion: Software publishers can specify the forum for a legal dispute, reducing the odds that some businesses will ever bring suit.
What's Wrong
· Even large companies may decline to sue a software company if the business is forced to bring suit at a far-flung location to collect minimal damages.
· Unlike consumers of other products, mass-market software users aren't guaranteed a right to bring suit in a local court.
What's Right
· Why waste money deciding on a forum if contracts already specify this?
· Without forum selection, publishers could be forced to litigate in virtually any country or locale, or pay huge legal bills to avoid doing so.
· 2B includes explicit language saying users are protected from unreasonable and unjust forum choices.
Assertion: Mass-market software licenses will be enforceable even though many businesses won't see the terms until after a purchase.
What's Wrong
· Post-sale licenses reduce publishers' incentive to offer competitive support and warranties.
· Click-wrap software need not make license terms available online.
· Federal law (Magnuson-Moss Act) prohibits merchants from avoiding damages by issuing post-purchase disclaimers on goods unfit for ordinary use.
What's Right
· It's convenient for many customers to assent to license terms after a purchase.
· Online publication of terms would require dealers to track thousands of licenses, locking out smaller publishers.
· Online retailers could introduce errors into licensing.
· States already enforce post-sale terms routinely.
|