Re: VA "drop dead" law

There's been a variety of suggestions proposed including analogies to repossessing cars, mechanics liens, etc., all trying to justify software time bombs. I previously suggested an equity-law analogy, i.e., only if there is no adequate remedy at law, i.e. money damages, should there be a resort to self help.

Going farther back to basics, I recall a law review article we were assigned in law school. I don't recall the author, but it was written by one of the authors/editors of our contracts case book. One of the issues discussed was the reason why we don't allow punitive damages in strictly contractual setting. That is, we do not want to discourage parties from making, and hopefully keeping, promises. The same reason should obtain here.

Why single out software developers/vendors from all others? If their customers don't pay, then they should be required/permitted to resort to all the normal legal remedies available to others dealing in the commercial setting.

Just because the software vendor has the ability to obtain self help is no justification. Moreover, in the case of the repossessed automobile, in which a security interest has been created, the automobile can be sold to help repay the debt. But, the software vendor doesn't have to get the software back to sell it to someone else. (Excuse the crude analogy - but software is like sex - no matter how much you sell it or give it away, you still have an unlimited supply.)

So - under normal contract considerations, there's no justification to permit self help in the form of time bombs. Moreover, because of the extreme effect such could have, far in excess of the amount owed, there should be no justification for time bombs.

               "... CASE tools are like toothbrushes,
             that is, they're not meant to be shared ..."
         Yourdon, "Decline & Fall of the American Programmer"
Bruce M. Bertram                 bmb[_at_]netcom.com                408-739-9062