Harvard journal of law & technology最新文献

{"title":"Privacy and the Modern Grid","authors":"S. K. McNeil","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1928254","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1928254","url":null,"abstract":"The modern electrical grid is evolving from an outdated network to a \"smart grid\" system equipped with sophisticated \"smart meters.\" This transition brings with it new threats to privacy. The smart grid's essential innovation is information, and the data that is collected and stored by smart meters can be analyzed to reveal medical conditions, criminal activity, and other information on life within the home. This data is not clearly covered by existing, sector-specific federal privacy statutes. Fully realizing the benefits of the smart grid, however, requires bringing advanced meters into as many homes and businesses as possible. As a result, it is unlikely that consumers will be permitted to opt out of smart meter installation. To secure individual privacy and consumer trust during the deployment of this technology, an individual's smart meter data should be protected from suspicionless access by law enforcement. This paper discusses two potential sources of privacy protections: the courts, through the Fourth Amendment, and Congress, through new federal privacy legislation. It explains why the third party doctrine should not be interpreted to defeat Fourth Amendment protections for an individual's smart meter data. Securing consumer trust, however, may require greater assurance than prognosticating a future Court's ruling can provide. Therefore, this paper also proposes two models for federal legislation to protect individual privacy.","PeriodicalId":81374,"journal":{"name":"Harvard journal of law & technology","volume":"100 1","pages":"199"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76085928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Commercializing Open Source Software: Do Property Rights Still Matter?","authors":"Ronald J. Mann","doi":"10.7916/D8MW2GJ9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8MW2GJ9","url":null,"abstract":"TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. THE LANDSCAPE A. The Proprietary Software Model 1. Formation and Maturation of the Proprietary Software Industry 2. Software Licensing Under Proprietary Models 3. Cross-Licensing: the Proprietary Equilibrium B. The Open Source Development Model 1. The Current State of Open Source: Commercialization 2. Software Products Licenses Under Open Source Models III. MOTIVATIONS FOR THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF OPEN SOURCE A. Open Source as a Viable Business Model 1. Predatory Motive: the \"Kill Microsoft\" Approach 2. Traditional Profit Motive: the Value Chain Approach B. Open Source as a Market Correction IV. THE EFFECT OF COMMERCIALIZED OPEN SOURCE A. Effect on Industry Organization and Innovation B. Effect on Intellectual Property Rights V. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION For several years now, open source software products have been gaining prominence and market share. Yet the products themselves are not as provocative as the way in which they are developed and distributed. Two related features of the open source model are distinctive: the use of collaborative development structures that extend beyond the boundaries of a single firm, and the lack of reliance on intellectual property (\"IP\") rights as a means of appropriating the value of the underlying technologies. Firm-level control of intellectual property is replaced by a complex set of relations, both informal and sometimes contractual, among strategic partners not joined by firm boundaries. I argue here that those relations reflect not coalescence towards industry norms driven solely by superior output, but rather a series of strategic moves and countermoves that have had the effect of opening some markets while closing others, substantially reducing profit margins, and fostering consolidation of a traditionally fragmented industry. I have written elsewhere about the role of intellectual property rights in proprietary models of software development, where intellectual property rights are used (albeit somewhat ineffectively) by firms to exploit the value of their internal research and development (\"R&D\") investments. In that work, I generally reject the idea that the sheer number of patents is creating a thicket that deters innovation, largely because of the evidence of a robust startup market and of investors' lack of concern about patents held by competitors. More generally, I argue that many of the criticisms of software patents fail to account for the potential benefits those patents provide to smaller firms and focus much too heavily on the transaction costs associated with the massive patent portfolios that the larger industry participants have acquired (the so-called \"arms race\" build up). (1) Open source development models work differently. Because open source development proceeds on the premise that no individual or firm will have proprietary control of the software, the firms participating in those development projects might have little need for patents. The co","PeriodicalId":81374,"journal":{"name":"Harvard journal of law & technology","volume":"125 4","pages":"1-47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72459306","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The End of the Experiment: How ICANN's Foray into Global Internet Democracy Failed","authors":"J. Palfrey","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.487644","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.487644","url":null,"abstract":"ICANN's experimentation in running a representative and open corporate decision-making process to manage the domain name system has largely failed. This failure has manifested itself most explicitly by ICANN's retreat from its effort to enable the direct election of a subset of its Board members and, less explicitly, by the extent to which other efforts to engage the Internet user community in the decision-making process have proven ineffective. A systematic review of over 100,000 comments by public participants in ICANN, other inputs that the Board considered, and the Election of 2000 for five ICANN Board members, reveal that ICANN has never fully succeeded in integrating users into the governance model in other than an ad-hoc fashion. Instead, the Board appears largely to have based its decisions upon the recommendations of professional staff and of the powerful Supporting Organizations (SOs), in which users can participate. An Internet user approaching the ICANN process from the outside would have little way to determine how to participate meaningfully in the decision-making process. Three lessons emerge from this study. First, ICANN's failure shines further light upon the need for an overhaul of its governance structure. Second, ICANN should clarify the way in which users can involve themselves in the decision-making process for managing the domain name system, arguably through the Supporting Organization process. Third, we should look beyond the ICANN model, which has never been the appropriate venue for experimentation in global decision-making, toward new ways to govern the technical architecture of the Internet in an increasingly networked, less clearly bordered world.","PeriodicalId":81374,"journal":{"name":"Harvard journal of law & technology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77191083","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Indirect Liability for Copyright Infringement: An Economic Perspective","authors":"W. Landes, D. Lichtman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.379201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.379201","url":null,"abstract":"When individuals infringe copyright, they often use tools, services, and venues provided by other parties. An enduring legal question asks to what extent those other parties should be held liable for the resulting infringement. For example, should a firm that produces photocopiers be required to compensate authors for any unauthorized copies made on that firm's machines? What about firms that manufacture personal computers or offer Internet access; should they be liable, at least in part, for online music piracy? Modern copyright law addresses these issues through a variety of common law doctrines and statutory provisions. In this essay, we introduce those rules and evaluate them from an economic perspective. In the process, we emphasize that every mechanism for rewarding authors inevitably introduces some form of inefficiency, and thus the only way to determine the proper scope for indirect liability is to weigh its costs and benefits against those associated with other plausible mechanisms for rewarding authors.","PeriodicalId":81374,"journal":{"name":"Harvard journal of law & technology","volume":"75 1","pages":"395"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72915507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Some Economics of Wireless Communications","authors":"Y. Benkler","doi":"10.7551/mitpress/5932.003.0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5932.003.0011","url":null,"abstract":"Imagine that once upon a time the policymakers of the emerging British Empire believed that a nation’s wealth came from the magnitude of its trade with distant nations. In pursuit of this belief, they set up the Imperial Trade Commission, which in turn decided that the way to optimize trade with India was to create the East India Company and give it a monopoly over trade with India. Along came Adam Smith, and classical economists began to understand that planned","PeriodicalId":81374,"journal":{"name":"Harvard journal of law & technology","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85473261","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"FDA regulation of human cloning: usurpation or statesmanship?","authors":"R A Merrill, B J Rose","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":81374,"journal":{"name":"Harvard journal of law & technology","volume":"15 1","pages":"85-148"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"24530554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fair Use Infrastructure for Copyright Management Systems","authors":"D. Burk, Julie E. Cohen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.239731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.239731","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we propose to address the displacement of a particular legal rule, the copyright fair use doctrine, by coded copyright management systems (CMS) rule sets. The fair use doctrine serves a variety of purposes in the current copyright system, including alleviating certain types of market failure, mediating between First Amendment principles of freedom of speech and the copyright system's grant of exclusivity, and facilitating bargaining between copyright holders and potential users. CMS technology addresses only one of these purposes: that of avoiding market failure due to comparatively high transaction costs. Current CMS proposals make no provision for addressing other fair use functions. Similarly, although recent legislation concerning CMS affirms the continued viability of fair use in digital media, it makes no provision for access to CMS-protected works. Thus, the access and use rules encoded within CMS potentially displace the carefully-crafted policies of the copyright legal rule, either by prohibiting unauthorized access and use altogether, or by allowing the copyright owner the technological discretion to constrain the degree of fair use. We argue that the social policies of fair use would be better served by a CMS framework that mimics as closely as possible the fair use access paradigm of published print media: low cost, potentially anonymous access exercised at the user's discretion. After reviewing the options for accommodating fair use within the framework of technological protection, we propose the creation of a \"trusted third party\" CMS infrastructure that includes the Library of Congress. We suggest that as a condition of anti-circumvention protection, copyright holders who choose to encrypt their works for public distribution be required to deposit the key with the Library of Congress. Fair users would gain access by requesting the key from the Library or from a private repository within the network, rather than by presenting a \"fair use license\" to the copyright holder. The identities associated with key requests would be kept legally secure, under legislation similar to current protections for library patronage records. Finally, we review the implications of this proposal, cautioning that it is a second-best alternative to unimpeded fair use access.","PeriodicalId":81374,"journal":{"name":"Harvard journal of law & technology","volume":"87 1","pages":"41-83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83083193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Is there a right to clone? Constitutional challenges to bans on human cloning.","authors":"L B Andrews","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":81374,"journal":{"name":"Harvard journal of law & technology","volume":"11 3","pages":"643-81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"22371698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"DNA: five distinguishing features for policy analysis.","authors":"R M Green, A M Thomas","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":81374,"journal":{"name":"Harvard journal of law & technology","volume":"11 3","pages":"571-91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"22371695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Confused heritage and the absurdity of genetic ownership.","authors":"L M Silver, S R Silver","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":81374,"journal":{"name":"Harvard journal of law & technology","volume":"11 3","pages":"593-618"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"22371696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}