>> While I've been frustrated that not enough is being done fast enough ... I'm happy this bill has dragged on and on. That first draft was BS and too pro big business for my taste.
The first version was mostly the handiwork of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is focused more on issues like product liability, litigation reform, etc., than on Y2K. They have failed year in and year out to get legislation passed addressing those other issues, so when Y2K came along and the IT industry came under the gun, they piggybacked onto the moving train, figuring that they'd be able to get at least a "template" bill that could then be expanded upon in the out years re product liability, etc.
>> Ken, out of curiosity, why is it that we hear that the financial industry has been working on this for years and years ... but I have NEVER heard that IT industry has been working on this for years and years? Was it because so many in IT industry just assumed that everyone would be willing to cough up the bucks for upgrade?? Just curious. PR sure has been lacking on IT end when it comes to Y2K.
When you're standing in the crosshairs of the trial lawyers' guns, it's probably a good idea not to draw undue attention to yourself. ggg. We're doing a helluva lot, much of it pro bono, etc., e.g., with the World Bank, minority businesses, APEC, etc. The IT industry has underwritten a good chunk of the USG's outreach efforts. I could go on.
>> As much as I dislike lawyers generally, and dislike frivilous lawsuits with a passion ... it's difficult to ascertain what truely is "fair" in this situation.
Strip away the lawyers' economic incentives, and this would be a whole new ball game. The original House bill would have required them to get paid based on actual hours worked, and limit their fees to $1000 per hour -- PER HOUR. They, and their Administration allies, screamed bloody murder. The WH finally got engaged on the Y2K legislation on Thursday! They floated proposed language that would have undermined every single limitation built into the bipartisan bill. In effect, it would have all but guaranteed that every case would have had to go to trial, regardless of its merit. Same old game.
The legislation does not prevent parties from filing when they have legitimate reasons to do so. What it DOES do is place the burden of proof on those doing the accusing, i.e., innocent until proven guilty. What a novel concept! No wonder the trial lawyers and their mentors are so upset. ggg.
Ken |
