The document that follows this paragraph is a license agreement. Why do we need such a thing? Well, to be perfectly honest, our lawyers have told us that we need to protect ourselves. We at SOFTWARE COMPANY pride ourselves on our low-key style, but the global nature of the software business means that one lawsuit from one user in a far-flung jurisdiction could put us out of business. It also means that, without this agreement, we might not have protection from people who misuse our software. We do not want to bet our entire company on such possibilities, however unlikely, because we like doing what we do and want to continue to be able to do it. And, so, we require you to read and agree to this license. We think you will find it quite reasonable. Obviously, if you disagree, click “Disagree.” But, don’t just stop there. Let us know. Send some email to SOFTWARE COMPANY EMAIL telling us what you find unacceptable about our license agreement. We can’t promise to change anything, but we will do our best to get back to you.

“In-house lawyers and IT people never have lunch together,” answers Ralph Losey, an attorney specializing in e-discovery at law firm Akerman Senterfitt.

Not only do they often not understand each other, they often don’t like each other. This is not good. Losey says they need to be close partners because each has to understand the needs of the other.

I don’t know if it is just my Texas upbringing, but working together to me always starts with eating together.  I’ve been in offices where everyone is too busy to make it a point to eat lunch together often, and a whole lot gets lost.  Work gets duplicated, people don’t know about potential synergies within the research or work that they are doing within their own department. In an area such as e-discovery, when the costs can be so great when the legal and IT departments don’t work together, it is important to start building connections between the two.

May 2007 Election Report: Findings of the Open Rights Group Election Observation Mission in Scotland and England.

This report gives the findings of ORG’s election observers from the trial projects at e-voting in Scotland and England from May 2007.  For further details, please consult the site.  The conclusions on the Scottish Parliament follow:

The Scottish Parliamentary Ballot
Sixteen Scottish Parliamentary constituencies declared results where the number of spoilt ballots was greater than the winning margin. ORG considers that combining on the same day two elections, using different systems, was a contributory factor to the number of papers rejected. However, based on figures collected, ballots observed during adjudication as well as interviews with candidates, agents and electors, ORG’s view is that the design of the Parliamentary ballot paper was the primary cause of spoilt ballots. Specifically the placement of the regional vote on the left-hand side of the paper ran contrary to voter expectations. This issue was compounded by information posters and instructions from poll workers which often failed to specify that one cross, only, should have been made in each column. Given that many smaller parties stood candidates nearly exclusively in the regional contests, the pattern of voting from previous Scottish Parliamentary elections and the types of spoilt ballots observed; it is ORG’s view that smaller parties were unfairly penalised by the ballot design and associated errors.
The Electoral Commission made an inappropriate use of focus group studies when assessing potential ballot paper designs. The study conducted failed to test any designs with the constituency column on the left-hand side, an oversight the Commission should have corrected before allowing the study to proceed. That the results of the flawed study were presented as key evidence in support of the final Scottish Parliamentary ballot paper printed brings into question the judgement of both the Commission and the Government departments responsible. Both the Commission and the Government ignored advice from the Usability Professionals’ Association in failing to conduct proper testing of the ballot design, as well as of other systems and processes observed in Scotland and England.

J M Schlossberg and K B Malerba, “Tech-Tock: Work in a connected world” New York Law Journal: Labor & Employment 21 May 2007.

Employers increasingly expect their employees to answer emails and respond to calls wherever they are at — shopping, traveling, commuting, at home in the evening, and so on. This results in working beyond the regular 9-5, and employers may be overlooking the possibility of liability for paying for these extra hours (from a US perspective). Employment law is usually not included in most discussions of cyberlaw in academic courses, but maybe this is another area that could be added to the subject — perhaps in a “catch-all” session at the end of the year.

Blog post at Adjunct Law Profs here.

Paper link via Adjunct Law Profs here.

Previous post “Foundation subjects and IP and IT” discussing IT law curricula.

Brown, Abbe E. L. , Guadamuz, Andres L. and Hatcher, Jordan S., “The Impact of Free Trade Agreements on Information Technology Based Business” (April 15, 2007). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=984864

Abstract:
This report considers the Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) and its impact on Information Technology (IT) based businesses. The report summarises the factual background to, and contents of, the agreement, and then reviews those parts of the agreement (or omissions from the agreement) that are relevant to the IT field. IT is of interest both because of its potential importance as a contributor to business (and social) growth, but also because of the lesser international roles accorded to it in comparison with its sister, intellectual property (IP). The IT-related provisions of DR-CAFTA reflect international IT (and IP) controversies. But DR-CAFTA also raises questions of the place of agreements between states, their legal validity and their impact upon international relationships and global development.

The primary objective of this project was to explore the extent to which DR-CAFTA impacts upon IT based businesses; the implications of this; to assess how much these issues, and associated economic and legal questions, had been addressed; and to lay the foundations for further legal and interdisciplinary work. We have not, at this stage, explored all the issues covered and not covered in DR-CAFTA, and arising in respect of other agreements of this nature. Rather, we have sought to introduce the issues, provide preliminary comment, and provide a list of resources for further study. We hope that this will be helpful to those coming to the project from a variety of backgrounds, including different legal specialities.

We have concluded that there are important issues to be developed regarding all free trade agreements and IT. These issues are highlighted in the following sections. In terms of immediate further work, we propose investigating the present and future impact of UDRP provisions in DR-CAFTA countries, and liability of Internet Service Providers (ISPs). We believe that these can raise important questions combining IT, e-commerce, IP, trade, human rights and competition issues; both for DR-CAFTA countries and those contemplating their own agreements. We also consider that there is a need for international and interdisciplinary collaboration for this work to be done, including through empirical research with ISPs and domain name owners. We propose holding an international meeting of experts. As a preliminary step, we are also publishing this report in Spanish.

Progress has been shared on the project blog, http://freetrade.opencontentlaw.org throughout, and we have been delighted with the interest expressed from a variety of corners. We anticipate this report being transformed into a wiki and for further contributions to be developed via web-based. We hope to maintain the project’s momentum through the wiki, and details of this will be posted on the blog.

This project was one of the final activities of Phase 1 of the AHRC Research Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law at the University of Edinburgh (AHRC Research Centre). We are grateful to the AHRC for their support, and look forward to pursuing parts of this work in Phase 2.