Re: scope of UCITA

From: Cem Kaner <kaner[_at_]kaner.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 03:52:48 -0800

On 3/23/2000, T. R. Halvorson <pastel[_at_]btigate.com> wrote:
>
> I have a question about the scope of UCITA that perhaps some of you
> would care to comment on.
>
> It appeared that UCC Article 2B would have covered transfers of less
> than all rights in "information" of nearly any kind. (It was not just
> a software law.) Opposition to 2B came from a variety of quarters, but
> the most effective (by some accounts) was the motion picture industry
> and other allied segments of the entertainment industry. Reading the
> scope provisions, comments, reporters notes, etc. in UCITA, I wonder:
> is the scope of the kinds of information covered by UCITA essentially
> the same as would have been covered 2B, minus only motion pictures and
> other "information" controlled by the quarter of opposition that had
> been most effective against 2B?

Yes, with the newest amendments, you've got it essentially right. However, hard copy books are also out. Electronic books are still in Freelance reporters are out. Tech writers are in. Freelance tech writers are in unless their writing goes into a newspaper in which case they're out unless it's an electronic newspaper that supports a computer program in which case they might be in.

And despite the fancy language, a fair bit of embedded software or embedded-like software is in.

Additionally, manufacturers can opt computers and computer peripherals into UCITA by shrinkwrap, and "computer" is very broadly defined (your cell phone is probably a computer, your PALM certainly is, your DVD player might be, etc.)

---

Cem Kaner, J.D., Ph.D.
P.O. Box 1200, Santa Clara, CA 95052
<kaner[_at_]kaner.com>

http://www.kaner.com/
http://www.badsoftware.com/

Author (with Falk & Nguyen) of TESTING COMPUTER SOFTWARE (2nd Ed, VNR) Author (with David Pels) of BAD SOFTWARE (Wiley, 1998)

This e-mail communication should not be interpreted as legal advice or a legal opinion. The transmission of this e-mail communication does not create an attorney-client relationship between me and you. Do not act or rely upon law-related information in this communication without seeking the advice of an attorney. Finally, nothing in this message should be interpreted as a "digital signature" or "electronic signature" that can create binding commercial transactions. Received on Fri Mar 24 2000 - 11:39:08 GMT