Most Americans won’t know the full bite of the Y2K computer bug until the stroke of midnight 2000. For them, whether the date-reading glitch in hardware and software results in minor inconveniences or full-blown calamity remains to be seen.

Pretty ironic then that the only ones who will have a fairly decent clue as to what next Jan. 1 will bring are the hardware and software manufacturers who perpetrated this expensive mess. Legislation working its way through Congress claiming to help resolve Y2K-related legal disputes would severely hamper the ability of consumers and small businesses harmed by the shortsightedness of the computer industry to gain relief through the courts.

The leading contender of several proposals to restrict access to the legal system is the Hatch-Feinstein bill, which was approved last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It would cap punitive damages, establish a 90-day grace period for the responsible companies to fix problems and severely limit the ability of consumers to bring class-action lawsuits.

Backers of this legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, say it is necessary to prevent super-litigation gridlock — a flood of lawsuits hopelessly clogging the court system and running up a ruinous legal bill they conveniently peg at an eye-popping $1 trillion.

While such civic-mindedness is commendable, supporters of this legislation in and out of Congress are taking an awfully cavalier attitude toward the constitutional guarantee that wronged parties should be able to seek redress through the courts. Especially when the wrong has been foretold for so long and the remedy forestalled by nothing more commendable than the desire to increase profits.

The Y2K bug exploded into the popular media and thus the public consciousness only last year, but it’s been written about and discussed within the computer community for nearly two decades. The attitude of the computer industry has been to cross its fingers and hope consumers fix their problem for them by shelling out for expensive upgrades. So far, so good — the running tab to individuals, businesses and government is in the hundreds of millions.

Now, the computer press is chock-full of horror stories, not about Americans shivering in the dark, but of high-profile law firms and their high-priced sharks gearing up for this litigation bonanza. It’s a war-room atmosphere and the tactics include such below-the-belt stuff as product liability claims, officers’ and directors’ liability, breach of contract and warranty claims, fraud and misrepresentation, and insurance claims.

If nothing else, the computer industry has proven itself very adept at shifting blame and rewriting history. It has managed to portray Y2K as some kind of natural disaster that its army of dedicated geeks is valiantly trying to overcome.

Which, of course, it’s not. Computer experts have been warning of the Y2K problem for years, the decision to try to work through it by planned obsolesence was made not by earnest engineers but by CEOs and boards of directors. And it is only in court that those responsible can be called to account.

Sweeping tort reform has never gotten very far in Congress because a majority of lawmakers of both parties eventually recognize the sanctity of access to the courts. This narrowly defined, industry-specific tort reform is moving ahead because a majority of lawmakers are reluctant to stand up to the money and clout of the computer industry. The narrow, specific concern is frivolous lawsuits. The broader concern should be frivolous legislation.