Slashdot Mirror
Robolawyer to Handle Clickwraps?
adelord writes "Recently Wired published an essay by Mark D. Rasch describing the need for a 'browser-based automaton that could be adjusted to match your tolerance for legal mumbo jumbo' to help the user navigate the torrent of user agreements most of us click through without reading. Is this a job for Google Labs, and if not, who else would write the software for it? Do you think it is a good idea? While the legal exposure from writing software that partially fills the role of a lawyer could be enormous, I sure that it would have an ironclad user agreement that I would simply click through in my excitement to use it."
Hmmmm. If they end up with a product that works as hit-and-miss as Babelfish, wouldn't that jeopordize the correct translation of legalese? Are you still bound to the original mumbo-jumbo if you only understood a flawed translation? Doesn't seem feasable. Why not just dumb down the actual legal language?
Dont agree to them. Simplest way to deal with EULAs. They offer you a contract, you decline it. Optionally you can offer a more reasonable contract to them, perhaps as detailed in the SVLA. The GPL is pretty much the only EULA I agree to these days.
While the fact that legal documents have a very set structure and certain terms are required to be used a certain way in certain documents would help the "robolawyer" parse the documents, when you start getting into jurisdiction changes, differing court judgments on certain clauses, as well as potential legal liability for bad judgment calls made by the "robolawyer," you might just be better off with a Magic 8-Ball.
Of course, the same would apply to an actual lawyer nowadays, but the Magic 8-Ball is less likely to countersue you into oblivion.
RomSteady - I came, I saw, I tested. GamerTag: RomSteady / http://www.romsteady.net
This is ridiculous, michael. Why even post this crap. Legal "mumbo-jumbo" exists to protect someone, and is therefore of ultimate importance to be kept AS IS. Changing it with some automated software to "simplify it" is altering the terms of the agreement, which I'm sure wouldn't fly AT ALL in a court of law in nearly any jurisdiction world-wide. How is this "news for nerds, stuff that matters"? This most certainly DOES NOT matter.
I'd prefer it if we just required companies to add summaries to their legal aggreements. Like a little bit at the top that says thing like
* You're not allowed to re-sell this software
* We can use our update feature to install whatever we want on your computer
* Your soul belongs to us
Followed by all the legal mumbo jumbo required to make it all hold up in a court.
My first thought is, if you have a peice of software "signing" these EULAs for you -- who's bound by the "contract?"
...especially for any attorney or layperson who lent their talents to the software for translating EULAs. The big question is whether it would be the equivalent of the practice of law. Additionally, would a service like this be the equivalent of beginning an attorney-client relationship between the end-user and the people who helped create and distribute the software?
Quite honestly, I don't know. Like most issues where IT and the law merge, it's a murky area at best. The U.S. legal system is woefully inadequately equipped to handle complex IT litigation, largely because our judges aren't necessarily the most computer-savvy folks on the planet. I've always been a big advocate of creating a separate court system for IT issues, similar to how there are separate patent courts.
At any rate, it just sounds like hassle waiting to happen.
"I do not regret the things I have done, but those that I did not do."
EULAs and clickthroughs will not be invalidated in court as long as they are reasonable. The courts consider "reasonable" the ability for you not to use the software (or return it within a short period of time).
The case you are recalling (where the court explicitly defined what it thinks is reasonable) is probably Blizzard v. bnetd where the EULA preventing reverse engineering (among other things). The EULA was held up as a valid contract. There was no "first sale" involved at all per the above situation with software being licensed.
This was the notion behind P3P. Also see Agent: I dont think it means, what you think it means.
Abstract
As the deployment of computer agents that act on behalf of users grow, so do questions regarding the legitimacy and legal standing of computer based agreements. I note the use of the terms "agents" and "proxy" in the technical discipline and argue that a more explicit understanding of these terms is necessary to properly address the convergence of technical and legal issues related to electronic commerce. Unfortunately, much of the legal literature on the question of computer agency is preoccupied with concepts of intelligence, consideration, and intention within a computer program; this is because these concepts are found in law. However, these concepts are premature in a technical context -- regardless of hand-waiving about artificial intelligence. I provide a simple technical explanation of computer agents and proxies, as well as a brief etymology of those terms in the technical context. I conclude by pointing out some problems of making automated agreements on the Web in hopes that this small contribution will permit legal analysis to focus on pressing issues of the day.
Well, that is your ignorance shining through. I might think that programmers make code needlessly complex so that the average person can't understand them, but that doesn't mean it's true. I'm sure it is much more comforting to think they are intentionally making it difficult to understand, instead of that you are not competent enough to understand it.
I wish lawyers would strive for accuracy instead of precision.