The Principles of the Law of Software Contracts: At Odds with Copyright, Consumers, and European Law?

Hannibal Travis
{"title":"The Principles of the Law of Software Contracts: At Odds with Copyright, Consumers, and European Law?","authors":"Hannibal Travis","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1552882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper will describe the drafting history of the Principles of the Law of Software Contracts, with particular attention to the extent of consumer and public-interest group representation in the process. The drafting process, I will argue, did not take adequate stock of problems identified in the late 1990s with proposed Article 2B of the Uniform Commercial Code, and then the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (“UCITA”), including provisions encouraging terms in violation of public policy, that constitute copyright or patent misuse by attempting to prohibit fair use or withdraw material from the public domain, or that are not properly disclosed before the purchase. The difference between the present situation and the 1990s, however, is the much greater importance today of European Community directives on the subject of consumer protection and electronic commerce, particularly given the explosion in e-commerce between the United States and Europe. This paper will analyze whether the Principles do enough to protect the interests of consumers and the public in four key areas: (1) consistency with U.S. federal and state statutory and common law, (2) clear and conspicuous disclosure of all relevant terms and conditions prior to the sale, (3) regulation and prevention of one-sided and unconscionable contract terms, and (4) consistency with European Community and domestic European law. My thesis is that the Principles and the comments thereto appear to sanction conduct that is in tension with the federal Copyright and Patent Acts, the common law of several U.S. states, and the European Community’s directives, especially those on the Legal Protection of Software Programs (1991), Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts (1993), and Protection of Consumers in Respect of Distance Contracts (1997). To that extent, the Principles seem to be an imperfect attempt to unify the law of software contracts, codify best practices, or develop the law in a desirable direction. Finally, the paper will discuss whether and when it is appropriate to harmonize U.S. and E.C. law and public policy.","PeriodicalId":159196,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Warranties (Sub-Topic)","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Warranties (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1552882","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper will describe the drafting history of the Principles of the Law of Software Contracts, with particular attention to the extent of consumer and public-interest group representation in the process. The drafting process, I will argue, did not take adequate stock of problems identified in the late 1990s with proposed Article 2B of the Uniform Commercial Code, and then the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (“UCITA”), including provisions encouraging terms in violation of public policy, that constitute copyright or patent misuse by attempting to prohibit fair use or withdraw material from the public domain, or that are not properly disclosed before the purchase. The difference between the present situation and the 1990s, however, is the much greater importance today of European Community directives on the subject of consumer protection and electronic commerce, particularly given the explosion in e-commerce between the United States and Europe. This paper will analyze whether the Principles do enough to protect the interests of consumers and the public in four key areas: (1) consistency with U.S. federal and state statutory and common law, (2) clear and conspicuous disclosure of all relevant terms and conditions prior to the sale, (3) regulation and prevention of one-sided and unconscionable contract terms, and (4) consistency with European Community and domestic European law. My thesis is that the Principles and the comments thereto appear to sanction conduct that is in tension with the federal Copyright and Patent Acts, the common law of several U.S. states, and the European Community’s directives, especially those on the Legal Protection of Software Programs (1991), Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts (1993), and Protection of Consumers in Respect of Distance Contracts (1997). To that extent, the Principles seem to be an imperfect attempt to unify the law of software contracts, codify best practices, or develop the law in a desirable direction. Finally, the paper will discuss whether and when it is appropriate to harmonize U.S. and E.C. law and public policy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
软件合同的法律原则:与版权、消费者和欧洲法律不一致?
本文将描述《软件合同法原则》的起草历史,特别关注消费者和公共利益团体在这一过程中的代表程度。我认为,起草过程没有充分考虑到20世纪90年代末《统一商法典》第2B条和《统一计算机信息交易法》(“UCITA”)提出的问题,包括鼓励违反公共政策的条款,这些条款通过试图禁止合理使用或从公共领域撤回材料,或在购买前未适当披露,构成对版权或专利的滥用。然而,目前的情况与20世纪90年代的不同之处在于,今天欧共体关于消费者保护和电子商务主题的指令更加重要,特别是考虑到美国和欧洲之间电子商务的爆炸式增长。本文将分析《原则》在以下四个关键领域是否足以保护消费者和公众的利益:(1)与美国联邦和州成文法和普通法的一致性;(2)在销售前明确和明显地披露所有相关条款和条件;(3)监管和防止片面和不合理的合同条款;(4)与欧共体和欧洲国内法的一致性。我的论点是,《原则》及其评论似乎制裁了与联邦《版权法》和《专利法》、美国几个州的普通法和欧洲共同体的指令,特别是《软件程序的法律保护》(1991年)、《消费者合同中的不公平条款》(1993年)和《远程合同中的消费者保护》(1997年)相冲突的行为。在这种程度上,这些原则似乎是一个不完美的尝试,以统一软件合同的法律,编纂最佳实践,或者在一个理想的方向上发展法律。最后,本文将讨论是否以及何时应该协调美国和欧盟的法律和公共政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Principles of the Law of Software Contracts: At Odds with Copyright, Consumers, and European Law?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1