July 5, 1999
Y2K lawsuit limits play on both sides of debate
By Bob O'Donnell
I don't know about you, but I can't wait until January 1, 2000 finally
rolls around and those of us who are involved with and/or follow the
technology industry can finally get on with our lives. (Which, of course,
is exactly what we will do-with a few New Year's, New Century's or even
New Millennium's resolutions thrown in for good measure.)
In the meantime, however, we're still mired in the issues surrounding
Y2K and, now that we've entered the second half of the year, I'm sure the
situation is just going to get worse. The most recent news development
surrounding the issue surfaced last week, when the US Congress and
President reached a compromise bill that will help shield businesses from
frivolous Y2K-related lawsuits (or even legitimate ones, depending on whom
you ask). Essentially, the bill puts a 90-day cool down period into place
and gives companies the opportunity to fix any Y2K problems that do arise
before they can be sued.
I have to admit that I find the whole issue of Y2K lawsuit protections
kind of odd for several reasons. First, I can't help but be struck by the
apparently enormous amount of effort that the computer industry spent on
this issue. After all, isn't the collective message from the industry
today that everything will be fine and Y2K will be nothing more than an
inconvenience? If that were really true, then why the need for protection?
Logically speaking, this industry-wide CYA effort implies that things may
actually be worse than we've led to believe.
In fact, if I hadn't done some research of my own into the issue, I
might start to get worried that we weren't getting the whole story.
However, I firmly believe that the January 1 rollover (and related dates)
will not be a big issue, and I think the industry is being forthright in
their assertions that everything is going to be OK. I'm equally sure,
however, that many people will read into this recent legal wrangling that
something is badly amiss. This, in turn, could lead to lots of unnecessary
worrying and actions that could lead Y2K into becoming a self-fulfilling
prophecy (a fear I expressed in a previous
column).
My guess is that the much more mundane reality of these actions is that
the computer industry lawyers saw potential loopholes with Y2K and just
wanted them closed to be on the safe side.
Ironically, this news comes not long after some of the bigger names in
the Y2K scare movement-such as Ed Yourdon-have softened their stances and
are now backpedaling from their previous disaster-like predictions. (These
changes are no doubt in an effort to save face as they've come to realize
that the Y2K problem will be under control come January 1.) Others,
however, may see these protections as cover-ups and really run with the
issue, once again, possibly causing havoc (which is the only real problem
that I believe could happen around the rollover).
The bill itself seems to have its head in the right place, if not it's
heart. On the one hand, I have no doubt that there are thousands (if not
millions) of attorneys out there who are/were salivating at getting a
piece of the Y2K pie. So, putting dampers on their efforts is certainly
not a bad thing. At the same time, if it does turn out that some serious
issues occur on and/or near the rollover, then there still needs to be a
way for innocent victims to seek justice. I haven't studied the bill, so I
don't know how far either side had to compromise to reach the point where
they are. Clearly, though, it's going to be a hot legal issue, no matter
what happens with this bill.
©
Copyright 1999, by InfoWorld Publishing Corp., a
subsidiary of IDG Communications, Inc. Reprinted from InfoWorld,
155 Bovet Road, San Mateo, CA 94402. Further reproduction is
prohibited.
