It's becoming more and more apparent to me that with the threat of
litigation, what you say and how you say it, is coming very important
and very finite.
I went to showing of a Y2k tool called Y2KSOLVR. And of the 3
"experts", one was the vice president of the bank that developed the
software, and another was a lawyer advising clients about Y2k.
The VP mentioned that it was their intention to make their software
"Y2k compliant", but not to "certify" the software as Y2k compliant.
He pointed out that they had cleaned up their software, but when the
next product release went in a few months later, they checked the
updates, and sure enough, 4 modules had Y2k problems....including a
Later, the lawyer started telling everyone that it was very important
to prove that your vendors, and servicers are Y2k compliant, and to
push for certification. And if that wasn't going to happen, to get
"with due diligence", specific and well explained written statements
So, in a nutshell, one is saying "don't give certification", and the
other is saying "get ceritfication from everybody else". (Comment:
Gee, we're all working well together on this, aren't we guys!?!?!).
The impression I'm getting is that "certification" means you're
guranteeing the software as Y2k compliant. And statements of
compliance are statements that you "believe to the best of your
knowledge" that your software is Y2k compliance.
Now, I'm starting to here a new term: Y2k enabled
Does anybody know specifically what this means?
Anybody know of any more legal "mumbo jumbo"?
TEO Computer Technologies Inc.