It is largely uncontroversial that the “creative” effort in a database will be protected by copyright. However, any effort to extend protection to purely factual databases creates difficulties in determining the proper method and scope of protection. This Paper argues that antitrust law can be used to supplement intellectual property law in maintaining the “access-incentive” balance with respect to databases. It starts from the premise that a trend toward “TRIPs-plus” rights in databases, whatever its form, is inevitable. The reason is a simple, but compelling one: business needs shape the law. Various means of database access regulation are explored and contrasted with antitrust law. This Paper concludes that antitrust offers an alternative that more accurately reflects commercial expectations. However, regulators need to be aware of the limitations of applying antitrust law to a regime delicately tuned with pre-existing endogenous checks as well as the effects of their application on innovation by those spurred on the assurance of monopoly profits. In this regard, antitrust law must prove itself to be capable of sophisticated regulation if its interference in the database industry is to be justified.

STLR is proud to present: Regulating Access to Databases Through Antitrust Law: A Missing Perspective in the Database Debate, by Daryl Lim Tze Wei.

In today’s Internet economy, search engines play an increasingly important role in helping consumers locate goods and services.  However, search engines may also allow unauthorized online retailers to misuse trademarks as keywords and metatags in ways that can boost their placement in search engine results and increase online sales. For instance, a person other than a trademark holder may purchase a trademarked word or phrase as a search engine keyword (keyword misuse), or may insert them as hidden HTML code on webpages (metatag misuse). Where a website that misuses trademarks in this manner then offers the trademarked goods or services for sale online without a license from the original producer, consumers may be deceived as to the source of those goods and services, and the value of the trademark might be diminished.

This article proposes that the international trademark law regime, specifically TRIPs, should be revised to prevent keyword and metatag misuse where it is likely to result in unlicensed Internet sales. It suggests that the Internet should be treated like any other market for goods, albeit one that is inherently global.  Thus, unlicensed Internet sales should be considered parallel imports and proscribed just as unlicensed sales would be in any other geographical territory.  It then explores the international trade implications of proscribing these “gray market” sales under TRIPs rather than domestic (E.U. or U.S.) trademark law or transnational law.  Finally, this article provides an economic justification for the proposed change based on the “Bottom of the Pyramid” (BOP) model, and illustrates its positive effects on global welfare, particularly in developing nations.

STLR is proud to present: The Search Engine Economy's Achilles Heel? Addressing Online Parallel Imports Resulting from Keyword and Metatag Misuse, by Manavinder S. Bains.

Morality, an individual's subjective sense of right and wrong, is the biggest influence in shaping law-related behavior. And not surprisingly, both psychologists and legal theorists have begun to explore the links between personal morality and large-scale copyright infringement. But to date, this analysis has not rigorously answered some basic questions. Why do people believe that theft is immoral? And why do so many differentiate theft from infringement?

STLR is proud to present: The Immorality of Theft, the Amorality of Infringement, a Note by Mohsen Manesh.

This Note presents an empirical study of district court opinions that reached the question of obviousness—one of the core requirements for patent validity—in patent suits. The doctrine of obviousness has befuddled courts and litigants since the Supreme Court's 1851 statement that patentable invention requires some nebulous level of “ingenuity and skill.” By the 1970s, frustration with the obviousness doctrine had reached fever pitch, and Congress responded by centralizing patent appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Empirical analyses of obviousness and other patent validity doctrines in the federal court system have generally found that patents are invalidated less often since the Federal Circuit's inception in 1982. These findings have led some scholars to conclude that the Federal Circuit has exerted a strong pro-patent bias in the federal court system and effectively lowered the hurdles of patentability. However, previous studies of obviousness have largely failed to directly compare cases from the pre- and post-Federal Circuit time periods or to consider district courts' use of the obviousness doctrine.

This Note attempts to fill this void in the study of obviousness by comparing all published district court opinions reaching the question of obviousness for two time periods: 1970 through 1975, and 1995 through 2000. This study finds that, consistent with the notion of a pro-patent bias under the Federal Circuit's reign, district courts invalidated patents as obvious far less frequently in the 1990s than in the 1970s. However, this Note proposes that the explanation for this decreasing rate of obviousness is less clear than simply a pro-patent bias in the Federal Circuit.

STLR is proud to present: New Insights on the "Death" of Obviousness: An Empirical Study of District Court Obviousness Opinions, a Note by Sean M. McEldowney.

STLR is proud to present: Deference Overcome: Courts' Invalidation of Patent Claims as Anticipated by Art Considered by the PTO by J. Michael Buchanan.

This paper examines the laws that regulate government use of pen registers (devices that record dialed phone numbers) and "packet sniffers" (the Internet counterpart to the pen register, roughly speaking). Following a review of the basic history and development of the statutory and constitutional law governing privacy in communications, the paper takes a closer look at Title III's use of the concept of "contents" as the touchstone of its privacy scheme, and analyzes the difficulties inherent in that scheme. The paper then considers the state of communications privacy law in light of the Fourth Amendment question, arguing that the seminal Smith decision is constitutionally suspect. A set of proposals are ultimately set forth: sharper statutory language, modest increases in substantive statutory privacy rights, and recognition of constitutional privacy protection in "non-content."

This article compares the regulation of electronic employee monitoring in the European Union, the United States and Canada in an attempt to reconcile conflicting legal standards regarding workplace privacy as they are evolving simultaneously with technological advances. Included is an extensive discussion of the European UnionÕs widely influential privacy directive and its application in the context of electronic employee monitoring, relevant U.S. legislation such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), HIPAA and the ADA, and CanadaÕs newly enacted Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Also included is a detailed comparative analysis of the regulatory approaches to employee privacy taken in these jurisdictions. Drawn from this analysis are fundamental privacy principles which inform employers of the parameters of employee privacy protection where electronic monitoring is a desired management practice. The authors argue that these principles create an equitable paradigm that rightfully protects employee dignity while recognizing legitimate management needs.

Between 1997 and 2002, the number of nanotechnology patents grew by 600%. As of December 2003, there were around 7,000 such patents. None of these patents has been addressed by the Federal Circuit, which means that we can consider the patentability of nanotechnology on a clean slate. This Note seeks to explore how courts should handle nanotechnology patents--before they make binding decisions. In particular, it focuses on the utility requirement for patentability. Conceivably, the current utility standard could create problems for nanotechnology. Nonetheless, this Note argues that utility will not--and should not--be applied in a heightened manner that would make it an insurmountable obstacle to patenting nanotechnology inventions.

This paper reviews the antitrust treatment of patent-pooling and cross-licensing arrangements from E. Bement & Sons v. National Harrow Co., decided in 1902, to the recent Department of Justice business review letters on the MPEG and DVD patent pools. I examine the factors that the courts identified as pertinent to the antitrust outcome and compare them to the competitive factors identified in the DOJ/FTC Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property. Until recently, the competitive relationship of the patents was not a major determinant of the antitrust outcome in most cases. Instead, the courts have focused on restrictive licensing terms that affect downstream prices. I consider the logic of this approach to evaluating antitrust liability. I also propose an approach to evaluating the antitrust risks of arrangements that combine potentially blocking patents.

STLR is proud to present: Antitrust for Patent Pools: A Century of Policy Evolution by Richard J. Gilbert, Professor of Economics and Chair, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.

The Internet's awesome power of interconnectivity has made it by far the fastest growing medium in human history. But, with this new medium of interconnectivity also comes a new vehicle for misconduct. And, unfortunately, the type of misconduct carried out online often goes far beyond mere quantifiable figures. Indeed, policymakers in the twenty-first century are finding online criminal activity to be something that transcends cultural norms, national boundaries, and traditional territorial law enforcement mechanisms. Every day, cyber-predators successfully exploit gaps in the law, test its limits, or hide beneath conflicting definitions of criminal activity. Identity predators abuse lax information-sharing policies to commit identity fraud. Cyberstalkers track their victims online, sending offensive e-mails or menacing messages using Instant Messaging technology. Spammers not only bombard users with unsolicited junk e-mail, but also spread destructive computer viruses within messages that have misleading subject lines. Operating at a tortured pace, the legal systems of the world have only now begun to recognize the realities of the Internet's ubiquitous, unregulated, and borderless realm. Yet, so far, only a patchwork quilt of laws exists to protect users against emerging criminal schemes online. These gaping holes in the law, coupled with the Internet's global setting, have created a new set of vulnerabilities for the Internet community at large. This article tackles the dark arts of cyberspace by examining several key Internet safety policy concerns that remain largely overlooked in the virtual realm, while pressing the need for sound Internet policies that foster economic prosperity and secure a reasonable sense of personal safety.

STLR is proud to present: Mastering the Dark Arts of Cyberspace: A Quest for Sound Internet Safety Policies by Harry A. Valetk, Trial Attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, New York City; Chief Legal Officer of Wiredsafety.org, Wiredpatrol.org, and Wiredkids.org; and Adjunct Professor at Bernard M. Baruch College, Zicklin School of Business, CUNY.

Recently, a number of websites run by artists and activist groups such as ®TMark (pronounced "artmark"), Adbusters, and Negativland have sprung up on the Internet to battle corporate goliaths guerrilla style. These cultural activists push the boundaries of intellectual property protection, inviting their members to engage in mass civil disobedience in order to highlight the constrictive and seemingly arbitrary nature of current intellectual property regimes and push for doctrinal change. This paper examines the various projects undertaken by these organizations and the range of tactics utilized by these Internet-based groups in their quest for "cultural dividends." Specifically, this paper discusses the long-term goals and organizational styles, the use of technology to mobilize forces for large-scale international projects, and the strategies these groups employ to skirt the law and protect both themselves and their members from liability for their (often illegal) actions.

STLR is proud to present: How the IP Guerrillas Won: ®TMark, Adbusters, Negativland, and the "Bullying Back" of Creative Freedom and Social Commentary by Giselle Fahimian, 2002 Graduate of Harvard Law School.

Today, for the first time, there are more mobile than landline telephones in the United States. Satellite TV and radio are booming. In addition, public safety organizations and the military depend heavily on wireless systems to do their jobs. All of these technologies, and a host of new innovations, are competing for access to the increasingly crowded electromagnetic spectrum. As a consequence, spectrum policy has taken center stage at the Federal Communications Commission. Seeking to allocate spectrum resources more efficiently, the FCC's Spectrum Policy Task Force recently issued a report that suggests fundamental changes in the way the Commission regulates wireless devices and services. The centerpiece of this report is a proposal to promote more efficient spectrum allocation by improving the way the FCC handles the problem of interference. Interference occurs when the radio signals of one spectrum user degrade equipment performance for another user. As spectrum use grows, so does the problem of interference. The report suggests a useful new tool for measuring interference - the "interference temperature" metric - but concludes that no improvements are needed in the FCC's legal interference standard. The FCC's spectrum policy goals, however, will be difficult to achieve without such improvements. The interference temperature metric may allow the Commission to measure interference more effectively. But it will not determine whether a measured level of interference is too high, too low, or just right in relation to the goal of promoting the efficient use of spectrum resources. This is because metrics need standards if they are to be applied effectively, predictably, and non-arbitrarily. For example, deciding to measure the speed of cars with a miles-per-hour ("MPH") metric does not tell us whether 45 MPH, 55 MPH, or 65 MPH is the right speed limit for a particular road. And deciding to measure interference with the interference temperature metric does not tell us what the permissible interference level should be for a particular spectrum band. To make this determination in a predictable and non-arbitrary way, the FCC needs a permissible interference standard. Surprisingly, the Commission does not currently have an articulated standard for determining permissible interference. Unless the FCC develops such a standard, efficient spectrum allocation, and predictability for corporate, military, and public safety spectrum users will suffer. This will result in less service for consumers, less investment by companies, and less effectiveness for national defense technologies. Part One of this article begins with a spectrum primer, then explains why developing a permissible interference standard is important to the FCC's spectrum policy goals. Part Two analyzes the two most important recent spectrum battles and demonstrates that the Commission has not articulated a workable permissible interference standard. Part Three proposes that the Commission establish such a standard, and suggests a framework that would promote predictability and efficiency.

STLR is proud to present: Can You Hear Me Now? Getting Better Reception from the FCC's Spectrum Policy by R. Paul Margie, Legal Advisor for FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps and Adjunct Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

A policy of "open access" is advanced to counter the market power of cable television systems in video and broadband. While substantial market power exists, economic theory demonstrates that cable operators generally do not have incentives to discriminate against independent providers of Internet access or content, and market data suggest that vertical integration (foreclosing "open access") is efficient. Moreover, historical experience shows that regulation of cable systems, including retail rate controls, leased access, and video dialtone, has proven anti-consumer. "Open access" is similarly likely to suppress, rather than expand, technology deployment, as seen in the lagging competitiveness of the "open" broadband platform (digital subscriber lines) offered by telephone companies. Indeed, common carrier regulation is shown to be a disincentive to investment in advanced telecommunications by observation of cable operator behavior. Cable systems under-allocate spectrum for high-speed network services, a practice that strategically counters the threat of regulatory appropriation implicit in "open access."

STLR is proud to present: The Political Economy of Cable "Open Access" by Thomas W. Hazlett, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, and Senior Research Associate, Columbia Institute of Tele-Information, and George Bittlingmayer, Wagnon Distinguished Professor of Finance, School of Business, University of Kansas.

This paper provides a brief review of the law of patent infringement damages and applies this law to various situations involving infringement of research tool patents, which are patents to materials and methods that can be used to make discoveries. The discussion focuses on the appropriate measure of damages for acts of infringement that result in discoveries profitable for the infringers, and especially on damages awards of royalties on the infringers' profits from these discoveries, known as reach through royalties. It concludes that in order to satisfy one of the broad goals of the patent system -- to encourage innovation -- different liabilities should be imposed depending on whether the patented research tools have broad, intermediate, or narrow ranges of use. Thus, while acts of infringement against research tool patents with narrower ranges of use may result in liability including reach through royalties, infringement of research tool patents with broader ranges of use should not. This paper analyzes the effects that reach through royalties awards could have on the licensing and use of research tools, and suggests several ways in which trial courts might avoid creating damages awards precedents that would discourage the use of research tools to advance biomedical technology.

STLR is proud to present: Damages for Infringement of Research Tool Patents: The Reasonableness of Reach Through Royalties by Michael J. Stimson, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP.

The Supreme Court's decision in Festo removes some of the rigidity of the Federal Circuit's "complete bar" approach to the doctrine of equivalents, but difficulties remain for biotechnology patent holders. The Court explicitly allows for the application of prosecution history estoppel to claims amended in response to enablement rejections and not just those amended to avoid prior art. Due to the uncertainty regarding enablement for nucleotide and amino acid sequences, applications in the field of biotechnology are virtually guaranteed to be amended during prosecution. Consequently, the Festo decision places an undue burden on applicants in the field of biotechnology: to specifically claim every possible variant of a nucleotide or amino acid sequence or risk finding out in court that minor non-functional substitutions in the claimed sequence were foreseeable, and therefore not covered by the doctrine of equivalents.

STLR is proud to present: The Doctrine of Equivalents After Festo: A Disparate Impact on Biotechnological Inventions? by Edward R. Ergenzinger Jr. and W. Murray Spruill, Alston & Bird LLP.

A victim of computer virus infection may bring legal action under a negligence theory against entities such as web site operators and other providers and distributors of infected software. Proof of specific negligence is simple in cases involving a familiar virus strain that could have been prevented cost-effectively. However, in cases involving complex and novel strains, and where lapses in compliance with the non-durable component of anti-viral precautions leave no evidentiary trace, such direct proof may be impossible. This article develops a theory of circumstantial evidence, based on the doctrine res ipsa loquitur, aimed at alleviating a virus victim's burden of proof. Res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence based on the mere occurrence of an accident and the circumstances surrounding it, and does not require proof of specific negligence.

The analytical core of the article consists of two components. First, a probabilistic analysis of the res ipsa doctrine identifies the factors that make a strong res ipsa case. Second, an analysis based on (a) the computer science of the structure, operation and detection of computer viruses, and (b) the economics and law surrounding virus detection and elimination, establishes that a malfunction resulting from computer virus infection typically constitutes a strong res ipsa case. Indeed, the res ipsa inference of negligence is particularly strong in cases of infected mission-critical software, such as components of the national critical information infrastructure. In contrast, under this analysis, a general computer malfunction would present a weak res ipsa case. A final section addresses aspects of damages, including a model of damages and analysis of the economic loss rule in the computer virus context.

STLR is proud to present: Virus Ex Machina: Res Ipsa Loquitur by Meiring de Villiers, Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University.

The dramatic rise of the high-tech sector of the economy in the 1980s and 1990s created new challenges for antitrust law, in large part because many high-tech markets are networks. Some scholars argue that networks should receive greater antitrust scrutiny, while others maintain that concerns about networks are exaggerated. Those who argue for greater scrutiny believe that network economic effects give networks unique opportunities for predatory behavior. Ties, exclusive contracts, the exclusion from essential facilities, and predatory pricing are all mechanisms that may exclude competition in network markets. Network competition, however, also provides unique pro-competitive justifications for these same business practices. The challenges present in distinguishing anti-competitive from pro-competitive behavior are nowhere more evident than in United States v. Microsoft Corp. Microsoft was found guilty of predatory conduct toward its potential rivals, Netscape and Sun Microsystems, through exclusive contracts, ties, and incompatibilities. This article details the unique opportunities that networks create for both predatory and pro-competitive practices. The article then applies this analysis to the Microsoft case. The author concludes that the government did not present a coherent case of network predation. The author next develops affirmative defenses for some of Microsoft's controversial business practices, premised on the existence of network effects in the market for operating systems. He concludes that pro-competitive motivations potentially explain many Microsoft practices.

STLR is proud to present: Network Effects and Antitrust Law: Predation, Affirmative Defenses, and the Case of U.S. v. Microsoft by Max Schanzenbach, Class of 2001, Yale Law School, Ph.D. expected, 2002 (Yale, Economics).

Recent trends reveal the search by companies for a legal hook to prevent the unauthorized copying of information posted on websites. Especially troublesome to those who struggle against this unwanted copying of website information are software robots, small programs that automatically and rapidly search, copy, and retrieve information from websites. In the center of this controversy are metasites, websites that display prices for a variety of vendors. Metasites function by implementing shopbots, which extract pricing data from other vendors' websites. Technological mechanisms have proved unsuccessful in blocking shopbots, and in response, websites have asserted a variety of legal claims. While recent cases illustrate the use of the trespass to chattels doctrine to block searches by data robots, the applicability of this common law doctrine remains uncertain. However, dicta in two recent trespass to chattels cases suggest that contract law may provide a less demanding legal method of preventing the search of websites by data robots. Specifically, through the use of clickwrap agreements, websites could potentially prevent the extraction of data by robots. If blocking collection of pricing data is as simple as posting an online contract, the question arises whether this end result is desirable and legally viable. According to this article, robot restriction contracts are legally enforceable and economically beneficial. At the same time, however, public policy encourages development of a technical standard serving as a fair use exception to such contracts.

STLR is proud to present: Spiders and Crawlers and Bots, Oh My: The Economic Efficiency and Public Policy of Online Contracts that Restrict Data Collection by Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Class of 2002, Georgetown University Law Center.

This article argues that new technologies (such as spread spectrum and ultra-wideband) make the idea of divisible allocations of the spectrum obsolete. Thus, we should consider regulating the spectrum, at least for some frequency bands, as a "common pool regime," in which local communities of spectrum users would decide what rules and allocations governed local spectrum usage, and in which at least some areas of the spectrum would be open to all users on an equal basis. To support the feasibility of such a regime, the author draws extensively on the vast literature -- anthropological, sociological, political, and game-theoretic -- that describes the workings and characteristics of successful commons throughout the world. The conclusion is that a common pool regime would not only be feasible, but might be the most efficient property allocation system for a great deal of the electromagnetic spectrum.

STLR is proud to present: Replacing Spectrum Auctions with a Spectrum Commons by Stuart Buck, Hughes & Luce LLP, Dallas, Texas.

The post-sale market in copyrighted works, so vital to any copyright regime aimed at securing the widest possible dissemination of material, has been sharply curtailed. The proliferation of mass-market licenses reserving title in the copyright holder has placed an ever-increasing number of works outside the protective reach of § 109 of the Copyright Act (the first sale doctrine, which protects the property rights of alienation and trade by extinguishing the copyright holder's right to control further dissemination of his work following a lawful "first sale"). Even when a consumer manages to acquire lawful ownership of a copy of copyrighted work, § 109(b), which exempts certain categories of works from the first sale privilege, might forbid him to lend it to another. Worse still, he might be denied access to the copy by technological protection measures, the circumvention of which is forbidden under § 1201 of the Copyright Act. Even if he were to lawfully acquire both access and ownership, §109 would not permit him to distribute or display his copy over the Internet because digital transmissions involve the unauthorized creation and distribution of a second-generation copy. Striving to restore potency to the first sale doctrine and to avert copyright dystopia, this paper proposes three amendments to § 109. Proposed §§ 109(f) and 109(g) are the twin provisions of a digital first sale doctrine that authorizes the digital transmission of copyrighted works. These proposed sections should be incorporated into the existing Copyright Act once the appropriate automated copyright management system technology becomes widely commercially available. Proposed § 109(h), the proprietary right of access provision, would resolve the paradox of ownership without access but its present enactment would be premature.

STLR is proud to present: Preserving the Aftermarket in Copyrighted Works: Thoughts on Adapting the First Sale Doctrine to the Emerging Techological Landscape by Justin Graham, Class of 2001, Duke University School of Law.

This article presents four cyberspace speech controversies that involve hostile environment harassment law. The author uses these examples to draw two conclusions. First, in most of the controversies, the result should largely be driven not by the medium, but by relatively medium- independent underlying free speech principles. Second, in a system built on precedent and on litigation by many plaintiffs in many courts, speech restrictions accrete over time, with each victory for restriction laying the groundwork for broader restrictions in the future. This tendency can, of course, be resisted--but it ought not be ignored.

STLR is proud to present: Freedom of Speech, Cyberspace, and Harassment Law by Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law, UCLA Law School.

The Article is dedicated to what is currently one of the most contested topics of cyberlaw: the proposition that software should be "open." After briefly describing the nature of software and how intellectual property law presently applies to software, the Article points to an ostensible inconsistency in the application of copyright law to software that might be responsible for legal academia's favorable reaction to the open source movement. Thereafter, the Article critically evaluates a number of policy reasons for affording software various types of legal protection, including those developed by Larry Lessig in his works on cyberlaw. Its conclusion is that any move towards more openness would be highly undesirable from the perspective of society, as it would destroy the market-based incentive structure that currently encourages software producers to develop code that consumers find attractive. Finally, drawing on two widespread theories of intellectual property law -- the utilitarian incentive theory and the Lockean labor-desert theory -- the Article shows that the perceived inconsistencies identified earlier are in fact no inconsistencies at all and that there is hence no compelling reason why the current legal framework should change.

STLR is proud to present: A New Paradigm in Intellectual Property Law? The Case Against Open Sources by Mathias Strasser, LL.M., Harvard Law School 1999; Dr. Iur., Vienna University School of Law 1997; Mag. Iur., Vienna University School of Law 1996.

As the Internet demonstrates its financial potential, computer-savvy lawyers have begun to cash in on the cyberspace trend, offering Web sites that provide legal advice via e-mail, online discussion groups moderated by lawyers, and even live one-on-one chat with an attorney. These ventures raise many ethical issues, including the limits of allowed attorney advertising and the unintended creation of attorney-client relationships.

This article outlines the different legal services available on the Web and examines the ethical issues these projects raise and how states are trying to regulate them. It concludes that attorney chat rooms, in particular, pose a problem of prohibited client solicitation, and state bar associations should clarify whether their anti-solicitation rules extend to private chat rooms as well as public chat rooms. Moreover, Internet legal advice services may give rise to unintended attorney-client relationships because users often have a reasonable expectation that they are consulting a lawyer in a professional capacity. Finally, bar associations should pay special attention to fee-based services, as users will more likely expect a continuing relationship if they pay.

STLR is proud to present: Hanging a Shingle on the Information Superhighway: Legal Advice on the Internet and the Problems of Prohibited Client Solicitation and Unintended Attorney-Client Relationships by Darren Franklin, Class of 2000, Stanford Law School.

STLR is proud to present: Altered States: Electronic Commerce and Owning the Means of Value Exchange by Robert D. Fram, Shareholder, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, Margaret Jane Radin, of counsel, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, and Professor of Law, Stanford Law School, and Thomas P. Brown, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe.

Posted 10/99

STLR proudly presents: Invoking Law as a Basis for Identity in Cyberspace by Philip Giordano, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Washington, D.C.

STLR proudly presents a major new contribution to this debate: Detours on the Information Superhighway: The Erosion of Evidentiary Privileges in Cyberspace and Beyond by Thomas F. O'Neil III, Kevin P. Gallagher and Jonathon L. Nevett, MCI Communications Corporation, Washington, D.C.