Computer Law Commons^™

A Government Of Laws Not Of Precedents 1776-1876: The Google Challenge To Common Law Myth, James Maxeiner

All Faculty Scholarship

The United States, it is said, is a common law country. The genius of American common law, according to American jurists, is its flexibility in adapting to change and in developing new causes of action. Courts make law even as they apply it. This permits them better to do justice and effectuate public policy in individual cases, say American jurists.

Not all Americans are convinced of the virtues of this American common law method. Many in the public protest, we want judges that apply and do not make law. American jurists discount these protests as criticisms of naive laymen. They …

Unlocked And Loaded: Government Censorship Of 3d-Printed Firearms And A Proposal For More Reasonable Regulation Of 3d-Printed Goods, Danton L. Bryans

Indiana Law Journal

This Comment analyzes the regulations in place on 3D-printed firearms and proposes a new standard for regulating 3D-printed goods. Part I provides a brief primer on 3D printing and 3D-printed firearms. Part II turns to the events surrounding Defense Distributed’s creation of the world’s first 3D-printed firearm and the subsequent government censorship of the corresponding CAD files. Part III discusses the regulations affecting 3D-printed firearms and why these regulations are ill-suited for CAD files and 3D-printed goods. Part IV analyzes the implications of treating CAD files and 3D-printed goods as equivalents of traditional goods. Finally, Part V offers a proposal …

Silencing The Call To Arms: A Shift Away From Cyber Attacks As Warfare, Ryan Patterson

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Cyberspace has developed into an indispensable aspect of modern society, but not without risk. Cyber attacks have increased in frequency, with many states declaring cyber operations a priority in what has been called the newest domain of warfare. But what rules govern? The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare suggests existent laws of war are sufficient to govern cyber activities; however, the Tallinn Manual ignores fundamental problems and unique differences between cyber attacks and kinetic attacks. This Article argues that several crucial impediments frustrate placing cyber attacks within the current umbra of warfare, chiefly the problems …

Small Data Surveillance V. Big Data Cybersurveillance, Margaret Hu

Faculty Publications

This Article highlights some of the critical distinctions between small data surveillance and big data cybersurveillance as methods of intelligence gathering. Specifically, in the intelligence context, it appears that "collect-it-all" tools in a big data world can now potentially facilitate the construction, by the intelligence community, of other individuals' digital avatars. The digital avatar can be understood as a virtual representation of our digital selves and may serve as a potential proxy for an actual person. This construction may be enabled through processes such as the data fusion of biometric and biographic data, or the digital data fusion of the …

No. 9 - Cybersecurity And National Defense: Building A Public-Private Partnership, Rebecca H. White, C. Donald Johnson, Loch K. Johnson, Quentin E. Hodgson, Jamil Jaffer, Clete D. Johnson, Victoria Woodbine, Timothy L. Meyer, Adam Golodner, Barry Hensley, Andrea Matwyshyn, Jacob Olcott

Occasional Papers Series

Organized and sponsored by the Dean Rusk Center for International Law and Policy, Cybersecurity and National Defense: Building a Public-Private Partnership was a daylong conference exploring issues related to the national security dimensions of cyber attacks as well as the role of the private sector in addressing cybersecurity risks. The overarching theme was the scope of public-private collaboration in addressing cybersecurity risks and the potential for future cooperation between government and the private sector. Clete D. Johnson, Chief Counsel for Cybersecurity at the Federal Communications Commission gave a lunchtime address on the FCC’s approach to communications security in the Internet …

Masthead

Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law

No abstract provided.

Back Matter

Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law

No abstract provided.

Front Matter

Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law

No abstract provided.

Toward A "Digital Transfer Doctrine"? The First Sale Doctrine In The Digital Era, Sarah Reis

Northwestern University Law Review

The first sale doctrine in copyright law allows a person who owns a copy of a copyrighted work to sell, lend, or give away the copy to someone else. An owner of a copy of a copyrighted work can take advantage of the first sale doctrine, but a licensee cannot. In today’s digital environment, people are increasingly purchasing digital music files and e-books instead of CDs and physical books. Customers often mistakenly believe they become owners of the digital content they purchase when in actuality they merely become licensees most of the time. Licensing agreements impose use restrictions on digital …

Installation Failure: How The Predominant Purpose Test Has Perpetuated Software’S Uncertain Legal Status Under The Uniform Commercial Code, Spencer Gottlieb

Michigan Law Review

Courts have struggled to uniformly classify software as a good or a service and have consequently failed to apply a consistent body of law in that domain. Instead, courts have relied on the predominant purpose test to determine whether the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) or common law should apply to a given software contract. This test, designed for traditional goods and services that do not share software’s complexity or rapid advancement, has perpetuated the uncertainty surrounding software’s legal status. This Note proposes that courts adopt the substantial software test as an alternative to the predominant purpose test. Under this proposal, …

Comment With The Copyright Office Regarding A Proposed Exemption Under 17 U.S.C. Section 1201 For Software Security Research (Class 25), Candice Hoke

Law Faculty Reports and Comments

Professor Candice Hoke, Cleveland State University, and others (Douglas W. Jones, University of Iowa; Professor Deirdre Mulligan, University of California, Berkeley; Professor Vern Paxson, University of California, Berkeley;Professor Pamela Samuelson, University of California, Berkeley; Bruce Schneier Erik Stallman, Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT); comment addressing Proposed Class 25: Software Security Research and an exemption for software security research in order to promote the active research and testing efforts necessary to keep pace with evolving cybersecurity risks. Software and related access controls are increasingly embedded in a wide range of systems, from consumer goods to medical devices to infrastructure to …

Leveraging Predictive Policing Algorithms To Restore Fourth Amendment Protections In High-Crime Areas In A Post-Wardlow World, Kelly K. Koss

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Rapid technological changes have led to an explosion in Big Data collection and analysis through complex computerized algorithms. Law enforcement has not been immune to these technological developments. Many local police departments are now using highly advanced predictive policing technologies to predict when and where crime will occur in their communities, and to allocate crime-fighting resources based on these predictions.

Although predictive policing technology has an array of the potential uses, the scope of this Note is limited to addressing how the statistical outputs from these technologies can be used to restore eroded Fourth Amendment rights in alleged high-crime areas. …

Balance And Team Production, Kelli A. Alces

Seattle University Law Review

For decades, those holding the shareholder primacy view that the purpose of a corporation is to earn a profit for its shareholders have been debating with those who believe that corporations exist to serve broader societal interests. Adolph Berle and Merrick Dodd began the conversation over eighty years ago, and it continues today, with voices at various places along a spectrum of possible corporate purposes participating. Unfortunately, over time, the various sides of the debate have begun to talk past each other rather than engage with each other and have lost sight of whatever common ground they may be able …

The Boundaries Of "Team" Production Of Corporate Governance, Anthony J. Casey, M. Todd Henderson

Seattle University Law Review

We examine the cooperative production of corporate governance. We explain that this production does not occur exclusively within a “team” or “firm.” Rather, several aspects of corporate governance are quintessentially market products. Like Blair and Stout, we view the shareholder as but one of many stakeholders in a corporation. Where we depart from their analysis is in our view of the boundaries of a firm. We suggest that they overweight the intrafirm production of control. Focusing on the primacy of a board of directors, Blair and Stout posit a hierarchical team that governs the economic enterprise. We observe, however, that …

The Team Production Model As A Paradigm, Brian R. Cheffins

Seattle University Law Review

Margaret Blair and Lynn Stout suggested a few years after the publication of their 1999 Virginia Law Review article, A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law, that their team production model was poised to emerge as part of a new corporate law “paradigm.” In so doing, they specifically invoked Thomas Kuhn’s well-known analysis of scientific revolutions. This Article revisits Blair and Stout’s team production theory by offering a critique of their claim that their model is destined to become a new corporate law paradigm in the Kuhnian sense. In so doing the Article draws upon key corporate law theories and …

Testing The Normative Desirability Of The Mediating Hierarch, Zachary J. Gubler

Seattle University Law Review

In their influential article, A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law, Professors Margaret Blair and Lynn Stout explained how corporate law might be viewed as an attempt at solving what is known as the team production problem. At its core, this problem has to do with the opportunistic behavior that arises when multiple economic actors make investments—whether of labor, capital, or otherwise—in a business venture where these investments are said to be “firm specific” because they cannot be easily withdrawn and redeployed in other projects. The problem is how to construct a governance regime that will create incentives for the …

Team Production & The Multinational Enterprise, Virginia Harper Ho

Seattle University Law Review

Margaret Blair and Lynn Stout’s path-breaking article, A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law, advances a dual thesis: first, that team production theory does a better job than its competitors (in particular, principal–agent theory) of explaining the advantages of the public corporation and key features of corporate law; and second, that, as a matter of corporate law, corporate boards are charged with advancing the collective interest of all the contributors to the corporate enterprise rather than the shareholders’ interests alone. Its central insight is that the role of the independent, or insulated, corporate board is to serve as a “mediating …

Hostile Takeovers And Overreliance, Anthony Niblett

Seattle University Law Review

Commentators have argued that employees should be compensated in the event of a hostile takeover; otherwise, the threat of such a takeover will fail to incentivize firm-specific investments by employees. Such deferred compensation is analogous to the payment of damages following a breach of contract. The analogous breach, here, is the breach of an implicit contract between management and employees. Employees trusted management to compensate them for firm-specific investments not explicitly contracted for. This Article uses a familiar result from the contract law literature: There is no measure of damages for breach of contract that can generate both efficient breach …

Buying Teams, Andres Sawicki

Seattle University Law Review

The Sixth Annual Berle Symposium reflects on Margaret Blair and Lynn Stout’s classic article: A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law. Blair and Stout recast the modern law of public corporations through the lens of the team production theory of the firm. Here, I apply Blair and Stout’s insights—emphasizing the value of team production, independent monitors, and intellectual property rights—to a novel corporate transaction structure: the acqui-hire. In an acqui-hire, a publicly owned technology firm wants to add a start-up’s engineers. Instead of simply hiring them, though, it buys the start-up, discards most of its assets, and retains the start-up’s …

Team Production And Securities Laws, Urska Velikonja

Seattle University Law Review

In the seminal paper that this symposium celebrates, A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law, Margaret Blair and Lynn Stout made two related points. First, that Delaware law does not require shareholder primacy in public corporations. Rather, the broad deference afforded to the decisions of predominantly independent corporate boards of directors is consistent with a contrary theory, that of team production, or, as they call it, “the mediating hierarch” theory. The fundamental role of the board of directors is to mediate between the interests of various stakeholders that contribute to the corporation’s output. As a result, Delaware courts have repeatedly …