'IBM hit by Y2K suit
asked in the TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) Q&A Forum
IBM hit by Y2K suit By Lisa M. Bowman 12/22/98 07:53:00 PM
excite.com
/news/19981222/2178905.inp
Firm that sued Microsoft last week seeks class-action status in IBM suit.
IBM Corp. is the latest major company to find itself in the cross hairs of a Y2K liability fight.
Oakbrook, Ill., gynecologist Mario C. Yu has filed suit seeking class-action status on behalf of those
who bought bundled software and hardware products from IBM (NYSE:IBM) and Raleigh,
N.C.-based Medic Computer Systems Inc. -- specifically IBM's RISC 6000 computer running AIX
4.1 and version 7.0 of Medic's software. Medic makes products that track patient appointments and
test results. The suit -- filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois -- claims health
care providers could experience significant problems that could harm patients as a result of the
non-compliant products. Attorneys called the problems related to the so-called Millennium Bug a
"potential time bomb."
According to the suit, Yu bought the products on Dec. 10, 1996, and had them installed in 1997 for a
total of $19,336. Yu did not become aware of a potential Y2K problem until November 1998, and two
weeks ago, he was notified that he could have the problem fixed -- for $2,410, the suit claims.
Seeking injunction
Yu is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and is asking a judge for an injunction requiring the
company to notify all licensees of pending problems and issue a patch. According to the suit, about
60,000 health care providers use Medic's software, but it's unclear how many of those use it on an IBM
machine. Neither IBM nor Medic officials were immediately available for comment.
Yu is being represented by Chicago-based Gold & Rosenfeld and Gogel, Phillips & Garcia. Last week,
the firms filed suit against Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT) on behalf of a Naperville, Ill., consultant,
claiming that its FoxPro development tool isn't Y2K compliant.
Companies increasingly fearful
Companies are becoming increasingly fearful of Year 2000 litigation, as the problem date looms closer.
Because many older systems read only the last two digits of the date, some may read "2000" as "1900"
and malfunction. During a meeting with analysts earlier this year, Microsoft warned that upcoming Y2K
suits could affect the company's stock in the coming quarters. Meanwhile, another medical company last
week settled a Y2K suit filed against it. Medical Manager agreed to provide a Y2K-compliant upgrade
for free to the plaintiffs.
And a high-profile Y2K contract dispute was settled Monday, when retailer J.Baker dropped its claim
against Andersen Consulting involving a non-compliant system the consulting firm had recommended
nearly 10 years ago.
=====================================================================
guess this will be happening more and more, especially after 12/31/98.
Mike ==================================
-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), December 23, 1998
Answers
You know, it's really the suit itself that is troubling - I don't like the fact that somebody had to sue, but I
know it happens.
Rather - consider that this is one application in one industry (health care) from one vender - on a
product (health care, and billing too?) that is highly date dependent - for a fairly recent product release
by a big company - and 60,000 small companies are affected.
It's starting......
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 23, 1998.
Sorry - "it's not really the lawsuit that's ...."
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 23, 1998.
I don't know about IBM and its software, but I do know Microsoft products. Microsoft sucks. I hope
someone is able to stick it big to Microsoft and make it stick.
There is NO EXCUSE for a company like Microsoft, putting out basic products like operating systems,
word processors, spreadsheets, and databases to not have at least the basic date function stuff squared
away. They have had years to do it. And they haven't. All they have is lame potentially incompatible
"windowing" of two-digit dates (assumes two digit dates before some arbitrary "pivot" date is 21st
century, and the rest 20th century) for various products.
Microsoft spends more time trying to figure out how to kill the competition than in getting its stuff to
work smoothly and reliably. They add more "features" (featuritis) before they even get the old features
straightened out. Anyone that has tried to use Access for more than anything than what you might find in
"Access for Dummies" knows what I'm talking about.
-- Poffed (POd@microsoftsucks.com), December 23, 1998.
Anybody want to join me in a class action against the bottom feeding scumbag Lawyers in this country
who are exacerbating the y2k calamity with their phoney legalise and shackles on full disclosure. They
sure are *NOT* part of the solution.
Case in point, Mr. and Mrs. prez.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 23, 1998.
Robert, I agree. I think this was a calculated move to be one of the first on the books before the "wave"
really hits and the bottleneck breaks the system.
I'm truly worried about how any company, regardless of size, will manage to work through y2k when
litigation threatens their very existance. What is the incentive to continue if it means that you'll be out of
business because of legal exposure?
Yep, it's starting...
Let the march begin.
Mike ===============================================================
-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), December 23, 1998.
Contribute an answer to "IBM hit by Y2K suit"
greenspun.com |
