Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : TAVA Technologies (TAVA-NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Judge who wrote (15627)	4/28/1998 3:19:00 PM
From: ROBERT H RICHMOND	Respond to of 31646

Cathleen; I,for one, have found your posts meaningful and thought provoking. It can't be a secret to you that there is widespread dislike among the populace for attorneys. Posts such as yours are a way of saying to people that there are attorneys out there who are moral and take pride in there profession. I hope their will be many more posts from you as legal matters relating to y2k arise. rhr

To: Judge who wrote (15627)	4/28/1998 3:23:00 PM
From: david sosiak	Respond to of 31646

I believe the term Y2K ready was coined by MSFT or IBM,basicly this means their programs are ready to become compliant as long as you or the client for that matter are prepared to pay $$$ to fix them.Y2K compliant has a more onerous and legal ramification which I'm sure lawyers will indeed exploit however that's life.Can you imagine the impact Y2K lawsuits will have on stock prices!!!

To: Judge who wrote (15627)	4/28/1998 3:30:00 PM
From: jwk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

Judge -- thanks for the perspective.... appreciate the emphasis on accuracy and responsibility.

To: Judge who wrote (15627)	4/28/1998 5:29:00 PM
From: KLN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 31646

Judge: Well said, from one lawyer to another. I have told Cheryl several times she has a great potential future as an expert witness. Kerry

To: Judge who wrote (15627)	4/28/1998 8:44:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 31646

Re: The Legal Definition of Y2K Compliant... to the Federal Government One of the speakers at the conference in NY, Jacob Pankowski, spoke at length about the what it means to be Y2K compliant. His analysis paper is entitled "The New FAR Rule on Year 2000: Uncertainty Creates Potential Problems for Contractors". It appears in the January 5, 1998 issue of Federal Contracts Report. No lawyer advising about Y2K liability should be without it (gg). Here's the link to the actual FAR Rule. Note that it is recommended language, but, as Pankowski pointed out in his speech, many government agencies have made slight word changes that have significantly changed the meaning, so vendors to the government should insist on language similar to what is recommended here: itpolicy.gsa.gov - Jeff

To: Judge who wrote (15627)	4/28/1998 9:00:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 31646

Re: As pertains to embedded systems, the (shocking) legal definition of "Information Technology"... according to the Federal Government [Note: all italics are as in the original document] 2.101 Definitions Information Technology c) The term information technology does not include-- (1) Any equipment that is acquired by a contractor incidental to a contract; or (2) Any equipment that contains imbedded [sic] information technology that is used as an integral part of the product, but the principal function of which is not the acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information. For example, HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) equipment such as thermostats or temperature control devices, and medical equipment where information technology is integral to its operation, are not information technology. Source: Federal Register, Vol 62, No 236, Tuesday, December 9, 1997, Pg 64915 ===== Why did I say "shocking"? Because, according to Jacob Pankowski, a lawyer specializing in the definition of "Y2K Compliance", the Federal Government can, by definition, legally declare itself Y2K compliant without having fixed faulty chips in a wide variety of devices, such as HVACs! - Jeff