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."

Comments

Settings

[mfh]

I would like a prefs setting that goes something like:

• Idiot proof : no EULAs needed. I only want freely available stuff.
  
• Some legal crap allowed : we will allow some EULAs if they validate to XYZ standards
• Most legal crap allowed : pretty much anything goes, as long as it validates to some standard or another
• Nearly Wide Open : I will pretend that I only speak pig latin if they catch me on some bogus contractual agreement or copyright infringement. Iay eekspay igpay atinlay!
• Spyware bait : I have "I'm a sucker" tatooed on my forehead. All Nigerians are my friends and I must help them save their fortunes from the evil tyrany of Nigeria!

Before you'd have a real Robolawyer...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they would have to develop a mechanical hand that could pick your pocket.

Do you think it is a good idea?

[darth_MALL]

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?

Re:Do you think it is a good idea?

[WormholeFiend]

I don't think that lawyers themselves understand legalese properly.

Why? In the past, I've been asked to translate various contracts and agreements from English to French, and more often than not, when I talked to the alleged writer, s/he was not able to answer the question(s) I had about weird syntax/grammar that made the text basically nonsensical.

And a lot of them asked me to "keep the nonsensical part" in the resulting translation.

Incompetence or deliberate and dishonest obfuscation?

Re:Do you think it is a good idea?

[eln]

Lawyers drawing up contracts tend to go out of their way to make things as precise as possible. Lawyers hate leaving unintended loopholes, so they bend over backwards to try and make sure they don't happen. This is why there's usually so much redundance in legal filings.

However, in the process of making things as precise as possible, they often make things very difficult to understand, and ironically the stuff they put in to make things very precise may end up not being interpreted as intended, because it's so hard for a third party to understand.

Of course, when a contract stretches into a hundred pages of overly precise legalese, even the lawyer who wrote it might glaze over a little bit while re-reading it, and miss all of the unintentionally misleading or confusing pieces.

There is a movement in the legal profession these days to make things more readable, but try as they might, lawyers still usually get caught up in the overwhelming need for absolute precision, and things end up being unreadable by the average person.

There's also the fact that every time you try to dumb something down to more common language, you risk losing a lot of the nuance of the original language, and can often produce a document that is interpreted very differently than the original, even though the words might technically have the same meanings.

Re:Do you think it is a good idea?

[rubberbando]

I don't think that lawyers themselves understand legalese properly.

I agree. I took a law class in High School. The problem with today's law is it has gotten so complex. Interpeting law is about on the same level as interpeting the christian bible. Anyone can interpet just about anything one way or another. If they need backup, there is always some previous person/case that they could look up showing the same interpetation to help argue their case. However, the other lawyer can do the same thing to show a completely different interpetation to argue their side. In the end, the lawyer that wins is the one who puts the best spin onto their argument to properly sway the judge and/or jury.

And people wonder why most politicians used to be lawyers.. :-/

Re:Do you think it is a good idea?

[torokun]

Lawyers often adhere to specific language because that specific language has been adjudicated to have a specific and desired meaning in a case. So if you stick to that language, you're reasonably assured of the desired interpretation.

However, if you deviate from that language, sometimes a judge might construe it differently that you wish, which could be bad. When you're working for a client, the important thing is getting the desired meaning and result, not the clarity of the documents in question... :)

Infospace already owns this IP

[dfn_deux]

Infospace aquired Millet software in 2000, Millet software had a product called "Privacy Bank" Which did exactly what this article is describing. The only hard part is that it doesn't scale well, because there isn't a text parser on earth good enough to unwrap the intent of the legalese in most EULAs. So either you have to employ an army of well trained EULA readers or get individual sites to submit to a cleanroom EULA with Infospace's language so that the software can know exactly what is allowed/disallowed.

Re:Infospace already owns this IP

[serutan]

Off on a tangent, it's sad to see anyone substitute the term "IP" for "idea," It's sort of like tv people referring to places in the world as "destinations," as if they exist mainly from the travel industry's point of view. Ideas are not property and never have been. People only "hold" patents, trademarks and copyrights, which give them rights temporarily granted by the government. They never "own" anything, which is why people who infringe their rights aren't "stealing" anything. The distinction is important because thinking of ideas as property lets the rights-control industry play the part of the little old lady running after the purse snatcher. The ideas of ownership and theft are deeply ingrained in our culture. Everybody can identify with them. But they just don't apply.

Proper Response

[Cajunator]

Just as long as Robolawyer started his response with : "IANAL, but...."

so will I need another robolawyer

[deathcloset]

to expain the first robolawyer's EULA?

Simpler solution

[LastToKnow]

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.

Re:Simpler solution

[dfn_deux]

a contract is based on language, not intent. Any sort of summary would not be sufficient legal protect against exploiting vunerabilities in the language which create loopholes in favor of either agreeing party.

Re:Perfect for a HAL system

[mfh]

"I am sorry Dave. I cannot allow you to agreee to this agreement."
"Hal...!!! Open the webpage HAL!"
"I'm sorry Dave, it has a Nigerian scam on it."
"Hal!!! It's not a Nigerian scam. It's President Bush's campaign page. I need to read about his views for the big election. Since you wouldn't let me read CNN, this is my next option."
"I'm sorry, Dave, but the answer is still, No."

The obvious question?

[scribblej]

My first thought is, if you have a peice of software "signing" these EULAs for you -- who's bound by the "contract?"

Natrual language parsing is hard enough for humans

[RealAlaskan]

I don't see a browser plugin doing a good job of it.

I could imagine EULAs having a ``metafield'' which would have values like: GPL, BSD, Unknown Proprietary, Not Specified. You could set your browser to click through known, approved licenses. I'm not sure that would be valuable, though; those that are generally known and widely regarded as innocuous are the ones that don't usually hassle you in the first place.

I'd rather see some effort put into enforcing the first sale doctrine, and invalidating EULAs and clickthroughs in court, myself.

You miss the point of P3P - No army needed

[thpr]

The purpose behind P3P is that it really distills the privacy down to a few multiple choice questions. Thus, there isn't a need for an army of readers - the robolawyer could automatically check the answers to the multiple choice questions... after all, those answers are machine readable.

armchair lawyer thoughts

[fred fleenblat]

Here's my thought. Design a click through thing that just blindly accepts any legal agreement without showing it to the user. The name of the program is something like "agree to disagree". This calls into question the validity of any agreement that (a) you weren't shown and (b) did not have direct control over and (c) which you installed something to avoid dealing with.

While the company that presented the agreement will have a record of a URL hit by you with a form with a certain radio button set, when it comes time to deal with a lawsuit it won't stand up in court because the form submission was automated. To make a bizarre metaphor, if I hand a screaming monkey a rubber stamp with my name on it, I am not bound by any contracts the screaming rubber-stamp-wielding monkey accidentally stamps.

Second idea is to publish your personal conditions and email them to the company or include the URL in some form submission. Once you have a situation where your conditions conflict with theirs and the only "signatures" are form submission records, they are going to have a difficult time proving that there was an actual agreement in the legal sense of the word.

Re:armchair lawyer thoughts

[odin53]

To make a bizarre metaphor, if I hand a screaming monkey a rubber stamp with my name on it, I am not bound by any contracts the screaming rubber-stamp-wielding monkey accidentally stamps.

This is wrong. Under contract law we look at whether there is mutual assent objectively; that is, would a reasonable person believe there is mutual assent to the contract? If the other party receives the rubber-stamped contract and reasonably thinks that the monkey-owner agreed to the contract, then the monkey-owner is bound by the contract (assuming all other elements are satisfied). It's not fair to the other party to bear the risk that assent was not given when a reasonable person would have thought the deal was done.

Your "agree to disagree" program for click-wrap licenses isn't really different (in some ways, it's worse, because by using it it seems like you're really trying to get the benefit but avoid the obligations).

Re:Solution to EULAs

[3terrabyte]

NOICE TO READER: Please read this contract carefully. By reading all or any portion of this garcia (6573) * "garcia post" you accept all the terms and conditions of this agreement, including, in particular the limitations on responding negatively. You agree that this agreement is enforcable like any written negotiated agreement signed by you. If you do not agree, do not read this garcia post, or respond to said garcia post. If you acquired this garcia post on tangible media (e.g. HTML) without an opportunity to review this license and you do not accept this agreement, you may obtain a moderation point refund of any amount you originally lost if you: (A) Only post anonymously (B) Apologize in a grandchild post (C) Become another one of garcia's lackeys and start agreeing with him.

Garcia, his multiple accounts, his gullible fans, and most anonymous posts supporting garcia, own all intellectual property in garcia posts. Garcia permits you to respond to garcia posts only in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

1. Definitions. "Garcia" means (a) a loser slashdot entity that feels inadequate with the world and believes that crafting carefully worded garcia posts will make him feel more loved, and less alone in the world. "Garcia post" means (a) long crafted slashdot post geared to gain the most moderation points possible (b) well crafted slashdot post geared to gain the most responses possible. The posts are usually empty of substance and full of invoking words to force immediate reactions. "Garcia response" means (a) a response to your negative response to a garcia post. This will always contain sympathetic cry against your post being an (i) unfair response (ii) childish response (iii) elitist response (iv) quit picking on me. This will always be followed by (a) a call to moderators to correctly moderate your post down as a (i) Troll (ii) Flamebait. "Garcia anonymous response" means garcia is responding anonymously to (a) keep from losing any more precious moderation points (b) pretend he is someone else supporting garcia (c) knows he is losing a cat fight and is defending his noble garcia posts. "Garcia agenda" means (a) as yet undisclosed reason for garcia gathering moderation points and responses like money and favors.

2. Garcia Post License. As long as you comply with the terms of this Garcia Post License Agreement (this "Agreement"), garcia grants you to keep your moderation points, and be a part of a pointless debate with garcia about things he doesn't really care about.

2.1 Subject to the terms of this Agreement, you may respond to garcia for the sole and exclusive purpose of furthering the garcia agenda.

2.1.1 Agreeing with a garcia post. You may agree with garcia without being anonymous. This will make garcia feel good. You may even win moderation points from other garcia accounts, friends of garcia, newbies, or other idiots. If you leave an opening, this may even award you with a quick garcia response that praises you on your common sense in agreeing with him.

2.1.2 Disagreeing with a garcia post (Not Anonymous). You may disagree with garcia without being anonymous. This will quickly be followed by an ever-watching garcia with a garcia response. Garcia responses are quickly followed by moderation points going against your post. You now have less karma than garcia, feel his girth.

2.1.3 Disagreeing with a garcia post (Anonymous). You may disagree with garcia while anonymous. This will quickly be followed by an ever-watching garcia with a garcia response. This will also explain how you are a chicken shit for being anonymous. You will not lose any karma points. However, you are expected to feel whipped by garcia's wit.

2.1.4 Agreeing with a garcia response. Your name is garcia. The the hell are you reading this for?

2.1.5 Disagreeing with a garcia response. You may disagree with a garcia response. This will be quickly followed by an anonymous garcia response. You