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.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cody andre who wrote (44438)	4/29/1999 12:20:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

"mites have rights too" --- rallying cry for the ACLU White House Threatens To Veto Y2K Suit Bill (04/28/99, 7:38 p.m. ET) By Reuters WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The White House threatened Wednesday to veto legislation limiting lawsuits against companies stemming from the year 2000 computer bug, saying such a law could undermine readiness by taking pressure off the businesses charged with fixing the problem. The bill, by Senate Commerce Committee chairman John McCain, an Arizona Republican, would delay the filing of year 2000 computer bug lawsuits during a 90-day "cooling-off" period, cap punitive damages, and limit the liability of company executives in millennium bug cases. "The administration's overriding concern is that [the legislation] will not enhance readiness and may, in fact, decrease the incentives organizations have to be ready and assist customers and business partners to be ready for the transition to the next century," the White House's Office of Management and Budget said in a statement. Unless changes were made to the bill, which was co-sponsored by Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, "the attorney general would recommend a veto," the White House said. The millennium bug, often referred to as Y2K for the year 2000, arises because many older computers record dates using only the last two digits of the year. If left uncorrected suchsystems could treat 2000 as 1900, generating errors or system crashes next Jan. 1. Backed by politically powerful computer makers, software companies, banks, and manufacturers, McCain and other Republicans said the bill was needed to avert a flood of lawsuits. According to some estimates litigation costs could add up to $1 trillion. But most Senate Democrats, under pressure from trial lawyers and consumer advocates, said they opposed the bill because it would curb the rights of computer users to sue companies if their systems crash Jan. 1. Specifically, Democrats oppose provisions capping punitive damages at $250,000 for many businesses and limiting the liability of top executives to $100,000. "We want to encourage these key decision makers to be overseeing aggressive year 2000 compliance measures," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "Instead, this bill says to corporate officers and directors: 'Don't worry, be happy.'" The White House complained McCain's measure would protect companies and their top executives, even if they did nothing to fix Y2K-related problems. The Clinton administration also said the bill would change state laws and thereby "raise federalism concerns." McCain defended his bill, saying he had already agreed to change some of the provisions to give more protection to consumers in court. In so doing he won the support of Wyden and a few other Democrats. But the White House and many Senate Democrats said they were not satisfied. They want the caps dropped and are demanding other changes. To secure these changes the White House said it was working with lawmakers on several amendments. OMB said these would encourage companies to fix Y2K problems before they occur next Jan. 1, weed out "frivolous lawsuits," and encourage alternatives to litigation. McCain said these changes threatened to "gut" the bill. Wyden said he was open to amendments to reach a compromise. >>>It's okay for the government to pass laws limiting their own >>>liability to lawsuits but not okay for everyone else.

To: cody andre who wrote (44438)	4/29/1999 12:25:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

I'm not a hunter. But anyone who has looked into it knows that there would be no wild game herds or flocks if the hunter and gun lobbies didn't work hard to protect their managed existence.