Pieter Kleve

Creative Commons: A business model for products nobody wants to buy

In this paper the use of Creative Commons (CC) is questioned. That is done by concentrating on the following question: what is CC, in which circumstances is CC useful and what are its drawbacks? Does CC solve any problems or is there a need to change copyright laws and treaties to accommodate this use of copyright?

Re‐engineering dispute resolution in an EDI‐environment

Electronic data interchange (EDI - paperless trading using computer networks) demands different forms of dispute settlement than the traditional jurisdiction, such as courts hearings and arbitration. We argue that the less traditional ways of dispute settlement, known as ADR [Delden, 1988], are more appropriate than (traditional) adjudication. ADR has already been successfully applied a.o. with respect to conflicts arising from failed automation projects. We will, therefore, first evaluate various aspects of the forms of problem solving presently available, in the context of the specific characteristics of automation projects. The very nature of projects undertaken in the automation industry, especially the complexity and the length of the contract, requires that factors such as continuity and the aim of the project are taken into account. Recent developments in automation, like EDI, have resulted in a shift in trading patterns, making the traditional legal instruments appear to be increasingly inadequate. This raises the question of whether national laws are sufficient to provide the conditions necessary for this development, especially considering the border crossing nature of EDI. We will argue in this paper that the legal aspects of EDI cannot be determined effectively by national or international institutions, nor can international treaties provide a legal framework for EDI. It is our opinion that the EDI participants will increasingly tend to draft their own border crossing regulations. As a result of this, we expect that in the near future there will be a shift from an intervening (national) court adjudication to a more autonomously operating (international) business adjudication in which the rules are drafted on the basis of which conflict solving decisions will be made.

Taking Patents Seriously

Do patents make economic sense? This question is as actual today as it was at the time of the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution changed society by introducing new manufactures and processes. The Information Revolution has changed society by introducing new technology and altering our means of communication. However, the questions that troubled the judges in the 18th century are surprisingly similar to those that perplex many judges today. It is contended in this article, that judges and lawyers generally are still struggling with patents because of two issues in particular: what is the legal status of intellectual creations and what are the economic effects of a patent system. In the 18th century, judges struggled to determine how a patent for inventions fitted within the traditional description of property. Today, judges have struggled in a similar way with the legal status of software and whether it can be protected by a patent or only copyright. In the 18th century by no means were all inventions patented; there is a discrepancy between the number of inventions and the number of patents. Nonetheless, it was an age of considerable technological advancement. Today, it is still not clear whether the patent protection of software is always useful either to the inventor himself or to society in general.

Anomalies in Internet Law

Abstract Modern information technology has brought a flood of new possibilities to communicate with other people anywhere in the world and to send each other music, videos, texts and pictures. Rather than just enjoying these new possibilities, many governments, companies and even individuals try to stop others from using these new technologies to their full potential. In response to these new technologies, national governments (as well as the EU) have introduced a confusing system of new rules. Not only are these new rules often ineffective and even contradictory, they in turn create problems. In order to protect intellectual property rights, e.g., they have accepted that the content providers could introduce new technologies that harm the property rights of consumers: the so-called Digital Rights Management systems. When it became apparent, however, that these technologies were not effective, more new rules were introduced, not to solve the problem of the legal protection of intellectual property rights, but to make it illegal to try to circumvent digital rights management techniques. In this paper, an attempt is made to identify the anomalies referred to here, to explain them and to suggest some new ways for governments, firms and individuals to deal with new technologies.

Privatization of public safety: A rational approach

Abstract Discussions on the privatization of safety and security are often marred by the irrationality of the arguments advanced against privatization. It is argued here that a rational approach to the issue leads to the conclusion that the further development of safety and security depends upon privatization. Given that safety and security is inextricably linked to technology and organization, the issue of safety and security is best viewed from an interdisciplinary context. An analysis of those disciplines that together with the law are relevant to safety and security—in particular technology and business administration—shows the importance of increasing rationality and the application of empirical sciences.

The Impact of Monitoring Technology on the Law

This article first provides an overview of technology for monitoring and surveillance. From this overview it will become clear that the use of this type of technology is growing fast. At the same time, questions arise regarding its permissibility, in the light of legal and constitutions rights, such as the right to privacy. These questions are addressed here in the context of wider social developments. A conclusion that is reached is that with the increasing importance and use of surveillance technology, ‘monitoring the surveillors’ will become essential as well.