Re: VA "drop dead" law

Bruce M. Bertram writes:
>
> 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.

There is a compelling logic to this argument if one accepts that the move away from self help is beneficial. In many situations the inability to use self help has only enriched lawyers by making us all pay more for the increased costs of debt collection. Inevitably the costs of debt collection in software cases will find its way into the price of the product. I would rather get software for less knowing that the developer can set time restrictions on my use of the software.

The general movement against self help has many roots - not all of which are relevant to software. For example probibtions on repossession and evictions are often tied to a desire to prevent violent confrontations - usually not an issue with software. Also, some of the self help cases arose from the courts' rather inept attempts to redistribute wealth between "rich" landlords and "poor" tenants - or "powerful" merchants and "powerless" consumers. In many software situations there may be unequal bargaining power but there is not the same pressing social concern for wealth redistribution.

Given the desirability of demonstration periods and the relative effectiveness of self-help in this area I'm not sure what is gained by denying this remedy other than to shift the costs of debt collection. If we assume that most consumers are right and vendors are wrong then this shift would make some sense. But my experience has been just the opposite (though I would not rely on my rather modest sampling).

  Don Berman --  

     +--------------------------------------------------------+
     |  Donald H. Berman            |          (617) 373-3346 |
     |  Richardson Professor of Law |     FAX: (617) 373-8793 |
     |  Northeastern University     | Internet:               |
     |  School of Law               |      berman[_at_]ccs.neu.edu |
     |  400 Huntington Ave.         |                         |
     |  Boston, MA 02115            |                         |
     +--------------------------------------------------------+