UCITA:
Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act

What Is UCITA?

UCITA stand for "Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act". UCITA is a draft state law for contracts relating to software and other forms of computer information. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) drafted this model law. NCCUSL and certain software companies are now urging state legislatures to enact UCITA.

What is NCCUSL?

NCCUSL is the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. It consists of an appointed commissioner from each state. NCCUSL promotes uniformity in state law. First it determines which areas of the law would benefit from uniformity, and then it drafts and recommends the drafted uniform laws to state legislatures for enactment.

What Other Uniform Laws Exist?

The most well known uniform law is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCITA would substitute for and replace some of the consumer protection provisions of the UCC.

How Is The Uniform Law Created?

The NCCUSL creates a drafting committee. This committee holds public meetings to discuss proposals. Then the drafting committee creates the proposed law. Finally, the NCCUSL votes.

How Did UCITA Evolve?

The drafting committee originally proposed a new article to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). This new article was referred to as UCC Article 2B or simply UCC 2B.

The American Law Institute shares, with NCCUSL, the responsibility for the Uniform Commercial Code. Because of significant controversy over imbalance and lack of fairness to software users, the ALI called for "fundamental revisions" in Article 2B because of its treatment of customer rights. When these could not be achieved, the ALI withdrew from the Article 2B process, effectively killing it as a UCC amendment. NCCUSL then renamed UCC2B to UCITA, recast it as a stand-alone act and proceeded on their own. All three of the ALI members of the UCC 2B committee refused an invitation to join the UCITA committee and expressed their opinion that UCITA should not proceed.

(Because ALI has officially "withdrawn" from the UCITA process and because it desires to continue to work with NCCUSL on other aspects of UCC, it is extremely diplomatic in its official discussions of the disagreements, patricularly in documents available on the web. However, you can learn some by reading their official meeting minutes and motions and articles by individuals influential within the ALI.)

Were There Public Hearings?

Yes there were. There were hearings for UCC 2B. Attendance at the open drafting committee meetings was dominated in large part by mass-market software publishers.

For example, InfoWorld says

They are open to participation by all who wish to attend, but as the effort involves hammering out the fine points of law, they are mostly attended by attorneys representing the interested parties. Such a committee worked on UCITA for over a decade. Through most of that time, the software industry was basically by itself at the table with the commissioners, an imbalance that was so obvious that NCCUSL and other legal organizations had to actively seek out and recruit organizations that could represent software customers. . . . Those representatives were unanimous in their frustration in their ability to make any significant changes in the basic philosophy of the draft and in their belief that is dangerously out of balance in favor of large software companies.

When Was UCITA Approved?

First, understand that UCITA has only been approved by the NCCUSL. On 29.Jul.1999 NCCUSL voted 43 to 6 to approve. (Two abstained; remember that there are 51 total because the District of Columbia is included.)

Those voting against were: Alaska, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Utah.

Second, each state must individually vote on the UCITA. The state can (a) adopt it without changes, (b) adopt it with changes or (c) not adopt it at all. The law becomes effective (or not) on a state by state basis.

Third, although NCCUSL did approve it, the "process" was a bit "rushed". Again, quoting from InfoWorld:

The only meeting of the committee (a rump version minus the ALI members who were member of the 2B committee) to take feedback on UCITA was held for just one day immediately prior to the NCCUSL meeting where UCITA was approved. At the time, the first UCITA draft had only been available to interested for a matter of weeks, and opposition groups had scant time to study and respond to a considerable number of changes that had been made since February.

Who Opposes the UCITA?

The list is large and impressive. It includes:

• The Federal Trade Commission staff
• The Attorneys General of over 20 states
• Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
• Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
• American Society for Quality (ASQ)
• Independent Computer Consultants Association (ICCA)
• Software Engineering Institute (SEI)
• Free Software Foundation (FSF)
• American Committee for Interoperable Systems (ACIS)
• The American Law Institute
• Consumer Project on Technology
• Consumer Federation of America
• Consumers Union
• National Consumer League
• United States Public Interest Research Group
• National Retail Federation
• and more (see the links below)

Some originally believed in the concept and have since "changed their mind". For example, The American Law Institute, which originally cooperated with NCCUSL on the drafting of the uniform law, terminated its sponsorship because it believed the draft to be unbalanced

Not one consumer organization is supporting UCITA.

Who Is Supporting UCITA?

According to Carlyle "Connie" Ring, chairman of the NCCUSL draft committee, UCITA is supported by

• Business Software Alliance (14 members, among those Microsoft Corp, Lotus Development Corp. and Adobe Systems Inc.),
• Software Information Industry Association,
• Silicon Valley Software Industry Coalition
• Computer Software Industry Association.

What Are the UCITA Problems?

UCITA dramatically shifts the balance of existing contract law in favor of software vendors when they contract with businesses and consumers. In particular, UCITA:

• Validates "shrink-wrapped", standard, take-it-or-leave-it licenses
   
• Introduces new uncertainty regarding the duration of the acquirer's right to use the software
   
• Allows software vendors to shut down software, even mission critical software, remotely . . . without going to court first and without court approval.
   
• Allows software vendors to prohibit the transfer of software from one company to another, even in the course of a merger or acquisition and from one person to another, even as a gift
   
• Allows software vendors to avoid liability for damage caused by defects, even if the software vendor knew about the defects and didn't disclose them at the time the software was acquired
   
• Binds companies to license terms in software acquired by employees without authorization.
   
• Allows software vendors to prohibit public criticism of their product.
   
• Allows software vendors to impede the development of innovative products.
   
• Allows software vendors to collect confidential information about business and consumer licensees.
   
• Allows software vendors to disclose contract terms only after the acquirer has paid for the software, binds the acquirer to those terms, and allows the software vendor to change the terms of the contract unilaterally by email.
   
• Click-thru terms and conditions in the software will supersede those of a fully negotiated contract between the acquirer and the software vendor
   
• Allows software vendors to exercise rights over products developed with their software.
   
• Allows vendors to use loopholes to control where legal disputes are adjudicated, moving disputes to the vendor's states and eliminating inexpensive venues close to the acquirer.

Recent Updates

Since this page was originally written, only two states have approved UCITA: Maryland and Virginia. Both approved it with limitations (such as a delay in effective date to allow study.)

In addition, NCCUSL has amended UCITA a teeny, tiny bit to remove one minor provision about vendor self-help for mass marketed software sold to consumers. (See the Computerworld article.)

Notes On Links

The groups of links below are generally organized alphabetically. Within the groups, individual pages are shown.

Some of these sites link back to this UCITA page. I have shown these with a red "donut" that links to their page that links back to me:

In some cases, a page related to one organization may be actually stored on another organization's site. (The is most frequently the case with letters.) In these cases the link is shown in the group that is the author of the letter instead of with the site hosting the page. Such pages are also indicated with a square red symbol:

In addition, some links are shown more than once. For example, Cem Kaner's article entitled "Why Software Quality Professionals Should Actively Oppose the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA)" is shown both under the ACM site, where it is hosted, and under Cem Kaner's site. Such duplicate links are indicated by a black square:

Across the Net

The 2B Guide: One of the premier sites on what used to be UCC 2B and is now called UCITA. This excellent site notes that "revisions to conform The 2BGuide to the newly transformed Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act are ongoing." This site contains boatloads and boatloads of documents and information on this topic.   (www.2bguide.com)

Comments on Software Quality by Watts S. Humphrey: Watts S. Humphrey is a Fellow at the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University and a noted authority on software quality.  (www.2bguide.com/docs/whsq.html)

Affect: Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions: An anti-UCITA coalition of of industry leaders, libraries and consumer organizations opposing UCITA in all states. (Formerly 4CITE.org) (www.affect.ucita.com)

What is UCITA?: The Affect education page. Excellent overview of UCITA and the problems with this law.  (www.affect.ucita.com/what.html)

American Association of Law Libraries (AALL): Founded in 1906, the American Association of Law Libraries has over 4,800 members. It promotes and enhances the value of law libraries to the legal and public communities, fosters the profession of law librarianship, and provides leadership in the field of legal information.  (www.aallnet.org)

American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) Washington Affairs: The Washington Affairs Office monitors legislative, judicial and regulatory activities and represents the views of the AALL to government.  (www.ll.georgetown.edu/aallwash)

Letter Expressing Concern With UCC 2B (27.Mar.1997): Expresses serious concern with early provisions of UCC 2B.  (www.ll.georgetown.edu/aallwash/lt032797.html)

Letter to NCCUSL (08.Oct.1998): Expressing serious concerns. Signed by (1) American Association of Law Libraries, (2) American Library Association, (3) Association of Research Libraries, (4) Special Libraries Association.  (www.arl.org/info/letters/libltr.html) 

Letter to ALI (13.Oct.1998): Expressing serious concerns. Signed by (1) American Association of Law Libraries, (2) American Library Association, (3) Association of Research Libraries, (4) Special Libraries Association.  (www.arl.org/info/letters/Wright_ALI_letter.html) 

Letter to NCCUSL (12Jul.1999): Expressing serious concerns. Signed by (1) American Association of Law Libraries, (2) American Library Association, (3) Association of Research Libraries, (4) Medical Library Association, (5) Special Libraries Association.  (www.arl.org/info/letters/lebrun7.12.html) 

Letter to Joint Commission on Technology and Science (JCOTS) (04.Jan.2000): Signed by members of the Advisory Committee to JCOTS who voted against the motion to recommend UCITA.  (www.ll.georgetown.edu/aallwash/lt010400.html)

American Bar Association (www.abanet.org)

Working Group on Consumer Protection, American Bar Association Business Law Section, Committee on the Law of Cyberspace, Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce, Letter to NCCUSL (10.Jun.1999): Every now and then I just have to use the full name of a group because it is fun.  (ucita_wgcp_19990610_letter)

American Committee for Interoperable Systems (ACIS): ACIS is a membership organization of more than 30 corporations in the computer industry. The organization supports policies and principles of intellectual property law that provide a balance between rewards for innovation and the belief that computer systems developed by different vendors must be able to communicate fully with each other. This ability to communicate is termed interoperabilty, and involves the interchange of information that benefits all computer users. [NB: this site does not appear to have been updated any time recently]   (www.interop.org)

Letter to NCCUSL (13.Jul.1998): Expressing concerns regarding UCC 2B before adoption  (ucita_acis_19980713_letter) 

Letter to NCCUSL (07.Oct.1998): Expressing concerns regarding UCC 2B before adoption.  (ucita_acis_19981007_letter)

Letter to NCCUSL (21.Jun.1999): Expressing concerns regarding UCITA before adoption.  (ucita_acis_19990621_letter) 

Email Clarifying Letter (15.Jul.1999): This email clarifies a characterization of the 21.Jun letter.  (ucita_acis_19990715_email) 

American Law Institute (ALI): The American Law Institute has joint responsibility, together with the NCCUSL, for updates to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).  (www.ali.org)

Memo to ALI Members from Gail Hillebrand (28.Apr.1997): Explains in some detail the objections and problems.  (www.ali.org/ali/hillga.htm) 

Letter to NCCUSL (26.Mar.1998): This letter from Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. (Chair of the ALI) to NCCUSL explains some of the reasons that ALI would not submit UCC 2B to a member vote at the annual meeting in May 1998.  (ucita_ali_19980326_letter)

Memo and Motion (05.May.1998): This memo from Jean Braucher and Peter Linzer discusses some objections to UCC 2B, proposes a resolution opposing UCC 2B and gives a detailed memorandum explaining the reasons.  (www.ali.org/ali/Braucher.htm)

Press Release, ALI Withdrawing from UCITA: This negotiated joint press release of 07.Apr.1999 by NCCUSL and ALI, announces that UCC 2B is being abandoned, and that NCCUSL will proceed with UCITA without the participation of ALI. Note the diplomatic tone downplaying any disagreements. Note also the the positive comments come from NCCUSL and not from ALI. And remember, the language was negotiated.  (ali.org/ali/pr040799.htm)

The ALI Reporter  (Spr.1999) , "Article 2B Is Withdrawn from UCC and Will Be Promulgated by NCCUSL as Separate Act": An article in the ALI magazine explaining the ALI withdrawal from the UCC 2B process.  (ali.org/ali/r2103%5Fart2b.htm)

Letter, Lance Liebman, Pres (17.Sep.1999): The letter to members of ALI explains some of the continuing tensions between ALI and NCCUSL. One paragraph notes, in part, the disagreement over UCITA.  (ali.org/ali/091799%5Fliebman%5Fltr.htm)

American Library Association (www.ala.org)

Letter to NCCUSL (08.Oct.1998): Expressing serious concerns. Signed by (1) American Association of Law Libraries, (2) American Library Association, (3) Association of Research Libraries, (4) Special Libraries Association.  (www.arl.org/info/letters/libltr.html) 

Letter to ALI (13.Oct.1998): Expressing serious concerns. Signed by (1) American Association of Law Libraries, (2) American Library Association, (3) Association of Research Libraries, (4) Special Libraries Association.  (www.arl.org/info/letters/Wright_ALI_letter.html) 

Letter to NCCUSL (12Jul.1999): Expressing serious concerns. Signed by (1) American Association of Law Libraries, (2) American Library Association, (3) Association of Research Libraries, (4) Medical Library Association, (5) Special Libraries Association.  (www.arl.org/info/letters/lebrun7.12.html) 

American Library Association Washington Office Newsline  (V08, N69, 16.Jul.1999) , "Action Needed: Ask Your State Commissioners to Oppose the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA)"   (www.ala.org/washoff/alawon/alwn8069.html)

American Library Association Washington Office Newsline  (V08, N73, 22.Jul.1999) , "Action Needed: Ask NCCUSL State Commissioners Via Fax To Oppose UCITA"   (www.ala.org/washoff/alawon/alwn8073.html)

American Library Association Washington Office Newsline  (V08, N80, 05.Aug.1999) , "NCCUSL State Commissioners Pass UCITA; Action Now Needed at the State Level"  (www.ala.org/washoff/alawon/alwn8080.html)

UCITA: An overview page at ALA.  (www.ala.org/washoff/look.html)

UCITA: A PDF "brochure" on UCITA. Essentially the same as the previous link.  (www.ala.org/washoff/ucitaogr.pdf)

List of NCCUSL Representatives (www.ala.org/washoff/list.html)

ALA Activity on the Proposed UCITA (www.ala.org/washoff/activity.html)

ALA Cognotes  (15.Jan.2000) , "UCITA: Our Ability to Exercise Fair Use Rights is at Stake": Status report and "call to arms".  (www.ala.org/events/mw2000/cognotes/saturday26.html)

The UCITA and Libraries: An article about the impact of the UCITA and libraries.  (www.ala.org/oitp/copyright/_library.html)

The UCITA and Libraries: A PDF "brochure". Essentially the same as the previous link.  (www.ala.org/washoff/ucitaoitp.pdf)

American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP): ASMP is a trade organization which promotes photographers' rights, educates photographers in better business practices, and produces business publications for photographers. It was founded in 1944 by a handful of the world's leading photojournalists and now has over 5,000 members in 40 chapters nationwide.  (www.asmp.org)

Letter to NCCUSL (14.Jul.1998): Expresses "alarm" and "objection".  (www.asmp.org/publications/library/articles/10.html)

Association for Computing Machinery (www.acm.org)

Letter on UCC 2B, Brownstein (07.Oct.1998): Letter from Charles N. Brownstein, Chair, ACM US Public Policy Committee, opposing UCITA.  (www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/usacm-ucc2b-1098.html)

Communications of the ACM  (Jun.1999) , "Melissa's Message": The monthly column from the President of the ACM (Barbara Simons) opposing UCITA.  (www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/p25-simons.pdf)

Letter on UCC 2B, Barbara Simons  (12.Jul.1999): Letter from Barbara Simons opposing UCITA.  (www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/usacm-ucita.html)

Why Software Quality Professionals Should Actively Oppose the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA): by Cem Kaner, PhD, JD  (www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/asq_ucita.html) 

ACM: Copyright and Intellectual Property: Overview and links to UCITA links. Many of these links are also shown above.  (www.acm.org/usacm/copyright)

Association of Research Libraries (ARL): ARL is a not-for-profit membership organization comprising the libraries of North American research institutions and operates as a forum for the exchange of ideas and as an agent for collective.  (www.arl.org)  

ARL: A Bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues and Actions  (#190, Feb.1997) , "New Article of UCC Addresses Licenses": An early bulletin about UCC 2B.  (www.arl.org/newsltr/190/ucc.html)

UCC Article 2B: Some Preliminary Comments on a New Issue for the Library Community (Oakley, 16.Oct.1997): Prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Research Libraries, by Robert L. Oakley, Director of the Law Library and Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. [This version before delivery. See the "proceedings" version next.]  (www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/uccspeech.html)

UCC Article 2B: Some Preliminary Comments on a New Issue for the Library Community (Oakley, 16.Oct.1997): Prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Research Libraries, by Robert L. Oakley, Director of the Law Library and Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. [This version from the proceedings. See the "preparation" copy preceding.]  (www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/131/oakley.html)

UCITA - The Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act: An Update by Robert L. Oakley (13.Oct.1999): Prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Research Libraries, by Robert L. Oakley, Director of the Law Library and Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. [See also earlier presentations at the 1997 meeting above.]  (www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/oakley.htm

Letter to NCCUSL (08.Oct.1998): Expressing serious concerns. Signed by (1) American Association of Law Libraries, (2) American Library Association, (3) Association of Research Libraries, (4) Special Libraries Association.  (www.arl.org/info/letters/libltr.html) 

Letter to ALI (13.Oct.1998): Expressing serious concerns. Signed by (1) American Association of Law Libraries, (2) American Library Association, (3) Association of Research Libraries, (4) Special Libraries Association.  (www.arl.org/info/letters/Wright_ALI_letter.html) 

Letter to NCCUSL (12Jul.1999): Expressing serious concerns. Signed by (1) American Association of Law Libraries, (2) American Library Association, (3) Association of Research Libraries, (4) Medical Library Association, (5) Special Libraries Association.  (www.arl.org/info/letters/lebrun7.12.html) 

A Quick Look at UCITA: A short summary.  (www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/ucita.html)

Licenses and Information Policy: An Update on UCC Article 2B (www.arl.org/newsltr/198/ucc2b.html)

Association of the Bar of the City of New York (www.abcny.org)

Report on UCITA: Explains the conflicts between UCITA and federal copyright laws.  (ucita_nyb_19990621_report.pdf) 

Bad Software: A website with substantial information opposing the UCITA created by Cem Kaner, one of the most ardent opponents of UCITA and author of the book Bad Software. For information about Cem, see the InfoWorld article.  (www.badsoftware.com)

Articles: An extensive link list of articles opposing UCITA.  (www.badsoftware.com/oppose.htm)

Organizations That Have Opposed or Criticized UCITA: A huge list of organizations, including links to published criticisms and opposition statements  (www.badsoftware.com/oppose.htm)

Why Software Quality Professionals Should Actively Oppose the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA): by Cem Kaner, PhD, JD  (www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/asq_ucita.html) 

Consumer Issues and Article 2B: An excellent analysis by Cem Kaner (Bad Software) and Todd Paglia (Consumer Project on Technology) of the consumer issues in UCC 2B. It includes a May 1998 addition addressing some of the claims that "significant concessions" were made for consumers.  (www.badsoftware.com/alidec97.htm) 

Privacy Problems in Article 2B: An article from 1996 about the significant privacy problems in the proposed UCC 2B. These sections were ultimately removed but this paper is an excellent example of what was proposed!  (www.badsoftware.com/privacy.htm)

Software QA Magazine  (1997) , "The Impossibility of Complete Testing": Cem Kaner's article. Of particular importance to the casual reader are the introduction section and a section near the back called "Back to the Legal Stuff".  (www.kaner.com/imposs.htm) 

Bad Software , " Chapter 1: Read This First": A excerpt from Cem Kaner's book Bad Software, explaining how to obtain a refund for bad software. It explains some of the UCC rejection rules, including the "perfect tender rule".  (www.badsoftware.com/chapter1.htm)

Proposed Article 2B: Problems from the Customer's View, Part 1 (1996): An early detailed analysis of consumer issues from Cem Kaner.  (www.badsoftware.com/uccpart1.htm)

Proposed Article 2B: Problems from the Customer's View, Part 2 (1996): An early detailed analysis of consumer issues from Cem Kaner.  (www.badsoftware.com/uccpart2.htm)

Article 2B is Fundamentally Unfair to Mass-Market Software Customers (Oct 1997): Another of Cem Kaner's lengthy, detailed and thorough articles on the problems with UCC 2B.  (www.badsoftware.com/ali.htm)

Memo to NCCUSL on UCC 2B (08.Oct.1998): Cem Kaner's details shows how many problems existed in UCC 2B.  (www.badsoftware.com/kanerncc.htm)

Consumer Concerns About Article 2B (Aug.1998): Circulated at the ABA Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.  (www.badsoftware.com/abba1998.htm)

Article 2B - Report from the November 13-15, 1998 Meeting: Cem Kaner's notes about the meeting drafting committee. Released in contrast to the official press releases. If you want to understand some of the frustration of those working to make UCC 2B a workable solution, read this document.  (www.badsoftware.com/uccnov98.htm)

Letter to FTC on Ecommerce Rules (30.Apr.1999): Cem Kaner's letter to the FTC on their proposed ecommerce rules includes some discussion of the impacts of UCITA.  (www.ftc.gov/bcp/icpw/comments/kaner.htm)

Why Writers Should Actively Oppose the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) (19.Jun.1999): Another excellent analysis by Cem Kaner.  (www.nwu.org/pic/ucita2.htm) 

Bad Software --- Who Is Liable?: Delivered as an invited address at the American Society for Quality's Annual Quality Congress Philadelphia, May 1998 as as the keynote address to the Quality Assurance Institute Regional Conference, Seattle, June 1998. In one of my favorite passages, Cem Kaner notes: ". . . most (in my experience, all) software companies ship software with bugs that were found during testing but not fixed."  (www.badsoftware.com/asqcirc.htm)

Article 2B and Software Customer Dissatisfaction (27.May.1997): Prepared for the UCC Article 2B Drafting Committee.  (www.badsoftware.com/stats.htm)

Restricting Competition in the Software Industry: Impact of the Pending Revisions to the Uniform Commercial Code (Nov.1997): Presented to the Appraising Microsoft conference, Washington, D.C., November, 1997.  (www.badsoftware.com/nader.htm)

Not Quite Terrible Enough Software (18.Mar.1997): Presented at the Software Engineering Process Group (SEPG) 97 Conference, San Jose, California, 18.Mar.1997. This paper is slightly modified from the paper Cem Kaner handed out, in order to include some remarks that he added while speaking at the conference.  (www.badsoftware.com/sepg.htm)

Liability for Bad Software and Support (03.Oct.1996): A paper presented to the Software Support Professionals Association Executive Briefing, San Diego, October 3, 1996 and to the Software Support Conference East, March 12, 1997.  (www.badsoftware.com/support1.htm)

Remedies Provisions of Article 2B (10.Dec.1996): A memo for the 10-12.Jan.1997 meeting of the Article 2B Drafting Committee.  (www.badsoftware.com/uccrem.htm)

Software Negligence and Testing Coverage (1995): Portions of this paper were originally published in Software QA, Vol. 2, #2  (www.badsoftware.com/coverage.htm)

Liability for Defective Documentation (1995): Originally published in Software QA, Volume 2, #3, 1995.  (www.badsoftware.com/baddocs.htm)

Quality Cost Analysis: Benefits and Risks (1996): Published in Software QA, Volume 3, #1, 1996.  (www.badsoftware.com/qualcost.htm)

Uniform Commercial Code Article 2B: A New Law of Software Quality (1996): First published in Software QA, Volume 3, #2, 1996.  (www.badsoftware.com/uccsqa.htm)

Better Business Bureau (www.bbb.org)

Better Business Bureaus Release 1995 Data: . . . Computer Sales/Services Hit Top 10 Complaint List For First Time: Complaints on computer sales/services hit the top ten (#8) for the first time ever. Complaints over computer problems even outnumbered complaints relating to notorious used car sales (#12). This raises important questions about UCITA. Should the law allow software publishers to insulate themselves from almost all damages (other than a refund) for putting defective software on the market? Shouldn't software publishers at the very least have some additional responsibility beyond a refund if they knowingly put defective products on the market that cause serious damage to some consumers?  (www.bbb.org/alerts/inquiry.asp)

C. Scott Ananian (www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/~cananian)

Anti-UCITA Resource Page: Links to UCITA information on the net.  (www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/~cananian/UCITA)

Caterpillar, Inc.  (www.caterpillar.com)

Caterpillar Opposes UCITA (29.Jul.1999): Press release.  (ucita_cat_19990729_release) 

CNET News.com  (www.news.com)

CNET News.com  (23.Apr.1997) , "Shrink-wrapping the social contract": "By loading this week's column, you may have unwittingly entered into a binding legal agreement with the devil." This column explains why.  (www.news.com/Perspectives/mw/mw4_23_97a.html)

CNN  (12.Jul.1999) , "Opponents blast proposed U.S. software law"   (www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9907/12/ucita.idg/index.html)

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility: CPSR is a public-interest alliance of computer scientists and others concerned about the impact of computer technology on society.  (cpsr.org)

UCITA Fact Sheet: A good overview of the law and why CPSR opposes it. Includes a sample letter you can use to write your state legislators.  (cpsr.org/program/UCITA/ucita-fact.html)

Sample Letter to Legislator: A sample letter you can use as a model to write your legislator.  (cpsr.org/program/UCITA/ucita-letter.html)

Richard Barry's Letter: The letter Richard Barry (Mid-Atlantic Director of CPSR) wrote to several northern Virginia legislators.  (www.cpsr.org/program/UCITA/barry_ucita.html)

Proposed Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA): Objections from the Consumer Prospective: This article by Jean Braucher, Roger Henderson Professor at Law at the University of Arizona, provides an excellent analysis of the law and how it affects the consumer. It lists the key flaws then provides a section by section analysis.  (www.cpsr.org/program/UCITA/braucher.html)

UCITA and the States: A status report for each state currently involved with UCITA.  (cpsr.org/program/UCITA/ucitastates.html)

Computerworld  (09.Aug.2000) , " UCITA Group Backs Off Provision in Software Licensing Law — Somewhat": Discusses the recent change in UCITA by the NCCUSL. (www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO48357%2C00.html)

Consumer Federation of America: A consumer advocacy, educational and membership organization comprised of over 260 organizations with a combined membership of over 50 million people.  (www.consumerfed.org)

Letter from Consumer Groups Opposing UCC 2B (10.Nov.1998): Signed for (1) Consumer Federation of America, (2) Consumer Project on Technology, (3) National Consumers League, (4) U.S. Public Interest Research Group. (ucita_con_19981110_letter.htm) 

Consumer Project on Technology (www.cptech.org)

General UCC 2B Page: CPT's general UCC 2B page.  (www.cptech.org/ucc)

Email from Jonathan Band to Todd Paglia (05.Nov.1996): Jonathan Band, a partner with the D. C. branch of Morrison & Foerster, discusses the possible ramifications of shrinkwrap provisions.  (www.cptech.org/ucc/jband.html)

Letter by Todd Paglia (10.Nov.1996): The letter comments on the November 1996 draft of UCC 2B. Useful for seeing what didn't change through the process.  (www.cptech.org/ucc/novucc.html)

Handout to Telecommunications Policy Roundtable (05.Feb.1997): This version is modified and expanded from the original. It provides an overview with an emphasis on shrinkwrap licenses.  (www.cptech.org/ucc/hand1.html)

Letter from Ralph Nader to Bill Gates (31.Mar.1997): Expresses Ralph Nader's "concern" and encourages Bill Gates to support changes. [See also Todd Paglia's related letter on 08.May.1997.]  (www.cptech.org/ucc/nader.html)

Letter by Todd J. Paglia (09.Apr.1997): Comments on the March 1997 UCC 2B draft.  (www.cptech.org/ucc/april97.html)

Memo from Gail Hillebrand (09.Apr.1997): Expresses concern that consumers and other small users are disadvantaged by the draft.  (www.cptech.org/ucc/cucomm.html) 

Letter by Todd Paglia to Software Publishers Association (SPA) (08.May.1997): Ralph Nader wrote a letter to Bill Gates. Then the SPA wrote Ralph Nader a letter responding and circulated their response at a UCC 2B meeting. This letter is a response to the SPA letter. [See also the letter to Bill Gates on 31.Mar.1997.]  (www.cptech.org/ucc/reply.html)

Letter from Todd J. Paglia (30.May.1997): An analysis of Section 402.  (www.cptech.org/ucc/may97.html)

Letter from Ralph Nader (18.Jul.1997): A letter to "express great concern".  (www.cptech.org/ucc/nader2.html)

Memo, Todd Paglia to ALI on UCC 2B (10.Mar.1998): Detailed analysis of many of the defects of UCC 2B, most of which were not corrected in UCITA.  (www.cptech.org/ucc/ali3-10.html)

Letter from Consumer Groups Opposing UCC 2B (10.Nov.1998): Signed for (1) Consumer Federation of America, (2) Consumer Project on Technology, (3) National Consumers League, (4) U.S. Public Interest Research Group. (ucita_con_19981110_letter.htm) 

Consumer Issues and Article 2B: An excellent analysis by Cem Kaner (Bad Software) and Todd Paglia (Consumer Project on Technology) of the consumer issues in UCC 2B. It includes a May 1998 addition addressing some of the claims that "significant concessions" were made for consumers.  (www.badsoftware.com/alidec97.htm) 

Consumers Union: Established in 1936, Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, is an independent, nonprofit testing and information organization serving only consumers. They are a comprehensive source for unbiased advice about products and services, personal finance, health and nutrition, and other consumer concerns. Their income is derived solely from the sale of Consumer Reports and our other services, and from noncommercial contributions, grants, and fees. Cem Kaner says "CU has been the hardest-working consumer organization opposing UCITA."  (www.consumersunion.org)

Memo from Gail Hillebrand (09.Apr.1997): Expresses concern that consumers and other small users are disadvantaged by the draft.  (www.cptech.org/ucc/cucomm.html)