SPRING 2009
Licensing Intellectual Property
 
Course No.:  9200-705 (&805)-801
Course IDs:  16444, 16445
M, W  4:45 - 6:15 p.m.
Room W-206
Professor Jay Dratler, Jr.
Room 231D (IP Alcove)
(330) 972-7972
dratler@uakron.edu,
jdratler@gmail.com
Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009   Jay Dratler, Jr.   For permission, see CMI.
 

Table of Correspondences between Ohio and Model UETA (1999 Final Act)


Ohio UETA Section Corresponding Model Act Section
None 1 (Short title)
1306.01 2 (Definitions)
1306.02 3 (Scope, exceptions)
1306.03 4 (Prospective application)
1306.04 5 (Use of electronic means)
1306.05 6 (Construction)
1306.06 7 (Legal recognition)
1306.07 8 (Sending of electronic records)
1306.08 9 (Attribution)
1306.09 10 (Change or error)
1306.10 11 (Notarization)
1306.11 12 (Record retention)
1306.12 13 (Evidence)
1306.13 14 (Automated transactions)
1306.14 15 (Sending and receipt)
1306.15 16 (Transferable records)
1306.16 (Consumer protection) None
1306.17 (Commercial reasonableness of security procedure) None
1306.18 (Compliance with security procedure) None
1306.19 (Exemption for consumer transactions) None
1306.22 (Applications to legislature and courts) None
1306.23 (Exemptions to disclosure) None
None 17 (Governmental records)
None 18 (Acceptance of governmental records)
None 19 (Interoperability of governmental records)

Some significant differences:

Ohio's special consumer-protection and commercial reasonableness provisions ( 1306.16 - 1306.19) have no counterpart sin the Model Act.  Neither do Ohio's provisions relating to governmental records, 1306.22 - 1306.23.  Finally, Ohio's provisions have some changes in wording from the model provisions, which are apparently intended to be clarifying but may have substantive effect.  Therefore, the relevant provisions of Ohio's UETA should be compared in detail with the corresponding provisions of the model Act before relying on the official Comments to the latter to interpret Ohio's law.
Back to Top