Cyberlaw Central

The results of the FCC’s wireless spectrum auction are of particular interest to more than just people in the telecom industry, as it will significantly impact how people access the Internet for years to come.

It’s no big surprise that Verizon is the big winner, but I especially enjoyed reading Susan Crawford’s analysis of the issue of what Verizon will do with it entitled “Why Block C Matters.” Susan is an ICANN board member, as well as a law professor at Cardozo Law School. I agree with her that it confirms the existing business model of handheld devices being used to access the Internet.

It also means that we’re going to have to deal with Verizon’s dominance in this segment of the market.

It also means that we’re going to have less options for wireless access than we otherwise would have had if others would’ve won the bidding.

It also means that we’re going to have a company who can bring market pressures to bear to discriminate against other carriers, all while promising in public to have an “open” network.

I wonder if we will someday look back on this day as the day in which the wireless Internet changed.

Since my last post, yesterday I attended the end of the Day 1 sessions and the evening Techshow After Dark event. Today, I attended sessions on e-discovery, disaster planning, using Internet-based collaboration tools, and computer forensics.

The last one was fun, Craig Ball was looking for a volunteer for someone to give him a USB drive that he would forensically analyze. I gave him one of mine that I was pretty sure was uninteresting, and was relieved to see that was the case after Craig was done. Overall, a good session.

I also enjoyed Tom Mighell and Dennis Kennedy’s talk on the collaboration tools. They’ve written a book on it, which I encourage you to check out.

Up now - 60 Tips in 60 Minutes!

[Originally posted by Kevin Thompson at Cyberlaw Central]

The “Laptop Lanes” are finally in place here at Techshow 2008, so I am posting this later than planned. The highlight to me so far has been Marc Rotenberg of Epic’s keynote. Tom Mighell did such a good job with the fireside chat portion of the keynote that I only managed to think of one question to ask.

Other sessions I have attended include records management, document management, and law firm data breaches. The last one is a personal favorite of mine, Dave Ries and John Simek always do a great job putting this one together. In past years they’ve had live demos of intrusions in process, but the hypos this year were esoteric enough to make real examples unwieldy.

I’m back off now to the expo hall, looking forward to the afternoon and evening sessions.

[Originally posted by Kevin Thompson at Cyberlaw Central]

I’ll be heading over to the Hilton for ABA Techshow 2008 Thursday, Friday, and Saturday this week. I am looking forward to catching up with those I’ve met in previous years. If you will be there, please stop me and say hello! I also plan to post somewhat, at least once per day, during the event.

I have enjoyed coming to Techshow as I always learn new things to implement in my practice, as well as to hang out with fellow “geeky lawyers” as my wife would say. It truly is a good event, and it is so nice that it is held here in Chicago.

That aside, I want to point out a must-read post from Dennis Crouch at Patently-O about the blogger formerly known as the Troll Tracker, who has been sued for defamation. Here’s a link to my prior article, which admittedly was written before he unveiled his identity. Dennis provides links to the complaints in his post for those who are so inclined.

[Originally posted by Kevin Thompson at Cyberlaw Central]

Mike Masnick at Techdirt has written the latest in a series of posts which discuss the rationale and basis for what we think of as “Intellectual Property.” It’s a well written series, I’d recommend that you read it. I don’t agree with all he says, but it’s well reasoned.

It’s of particular interest to me because I often counsel people on their creative endeavors who do not know what regime under the umbrella of “intellectual property” their particular endeavor is best, whether it be trademark, copyright, patent, or trade secrets. It’s also interesting because people often think of “cyberlaw” as being the intersection of intellectual property and the Internet, but it really is much more than just that. It’s the application of both new and existing legal principles, whether they be IP or other regulations, to the Internet and other avenues of electronic communications. As more and more businesses go online, it’s rarer that people won’t have some issue that intersects with cyberlaw at one point or another.

Turning back to the article, to me the most important rationale for copyright and patent protection is the protecting the right of the creator to control the use, distribution, or exploitation for their ideas for a limited period of time. Trademark is a slightly different rationale, in that trademarks are tied into a consumer protection rationale and the right to identify the source of particular goods or services to avoid consumer confusion.

So, what rationale do you think is best to apply? Also, what term would you use other than “intellectual property” if you had a choice to do so? Those are certainly interesting questions posed by the article. Food for thought, as they say.