• Like
Click-Wrap To Cost-Shifting
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Click-Wrap To Cost-Shifting

  • 344 views
Uploaded on

Impact of the rise of computers on contract law & litigation

Impact of the rise of computers on contract law & litigation

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
344
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. From Click-wrap to Cost-shifting: Contracting in the Digital World ICLE Georgia Ann G. Fort August 24, 2012 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
  • 2. BIG DATA in the USA1983: 2million2007: 200million 2
  • 3. BIG DATA in the WORLD 2007: All stored data 295 exabytes – 295 billion gigabytes Created in 2011: 1.8 zettabytes –1.8 trillion gigabytes 3
  • 4. 1.8 zettabytes :200 billion HD movies 4
  • 5. Agenda• The Non-Purchase Transaction: Leases & Licenses• Electronic “Writings”• Internet Jurisdiction• E-discovery Cost-shifting• Evidentiary challenges for electronic documents• Questions 5
  • 6. Agenda• The Non-Purchase Transaction: Leases & Licenses• Electronic Writings• Internet Jurisdiction• E-discovery Cost-shifting• Evidentiary challenges for electronic documents• Questions 6
  • 7. The Rise of the Lease• Very typical for businesses to lease their computer equipment – Tax, ease of financing, other business reasons – Easier to keep up with technology improvements• GA adopted UCC Art. 2A• Implications? 7
  • 8. The Rise of the Lease• Typical three-party transaction: • Supplier • Finance source • End user• Situations where lease could matter: • Product defects • Indemnification for IP infringement • Executing on judgment 8
  • 9. Software Licenses• Why doesn’t anyone sell software? – Copyright first sale doctrine – Trade secrets protection 9
  • 10. Software LicensesHow to establish assent to terms? • “shrink-wrap” license: By installing • “click-wrap” license: By clicking • “browse-wrap” license: By continuing 10
  • 11. Shrink-wrap/Click-wrap often enforceable Key: Evidence of assent Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002) 11
  • 12. Shrink-wrap/Click-wrap Licenses Tracphone Wireless, Inc. v. Zip Wireless Prods., Inc., 716 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (N.D. Ga. 2010) Imageline, Inc. v. Fotolia LLC, 663 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (N.D. Ga. 2009) 12
  • 13. Agenda• The Non-Purchase Transaction: Leases & Licenses• Electronic “Writings”• Internet Jurisdiction• E-discovery Cost-shifting• Evidentiary challenges for electronic documents• Questions 13
  • 14. The Good Old Days . . . 14
  • 15. Electronic “Writings”• In the 21st Century, most contracts are not even “signed” at all.• Will electronic document (fax, email, pdf) satisfy definition of “writing” where the law requires one?• “Beeps & chirps” case: Dept. of Trans. v. Norris, 474 S.E.2d 216 (Ga. App. 1996) 15
  • 16. Electronic “Writings”• Statutory responses: Edocs anti-discrimination – Georgia • Electronic Records and Signatures Act (O.C.G.A. § 10-12-1 et. seq.) (1997) • Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), O.C.G.A. § 10-12-1 et. seq. – Federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act ("ESIGN Act"; codified at 15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq.) 16
  • 17. Electronic “Writings”• Exceptions: wills, trusts, most of the UCC 17
  • 18. Electronic “Writings”• ESIGN Act & UETA: electronic “signature”• No technology standard dictated• Additional support for the click-wrap agreement 18
  • 19. Agenda• The Non-Purchase Transaction: Leases & Licenses• Electronic “Writings”• Internet Jurisdiction• E-discovery Cost-shifting• Evidentiary challenges for electronic documents• Questions 19
  • 20. Internet Jurisdiction: Web Site• Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)• Aero Toy Store v. Grieves, 279 Ga. App. 515 (2006)• Imageline, Inc. v. Fotolia LLC, 663 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (N.D. Ga. 2009) 20
  • 21. Internet Jurisdiction: Email• Object Technologies v. Marlabs, Inc., 246 Ga. App. 202, 202-203 (2000)• Crossing Park Props., LLC v. JDI Fort Lauderdale, LLC, Case No. A12A0201 (Ga. App. June 28, 2012) 21
  • 22. Agenda• The Non-Purchase Transaction: Leases & Licenses• Electronic “Writings”• Internet Jurisdiction• E-discovery Cost-shifting• Evidentiary challenges for electronic documents• Questions 22
  • 23. Big Data + Litigation = Big Money 23
  • 24. E-discovery Cost-shifting• Major corporate litigation, 2009: $ 3 million average • Preservation • Collection • Processing • Production•Who Pays? 24
  • 25. E-discovery Cost-shifting• During discovery, producing party pays• Exceptions – “Not reasonably accessible” data under federal rules – Third party discovery• Law evolving toward cost containment as judges see more cases 25
  • 26. E-discovery Cost-shiftingPost-judgment: treat like copying costs Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54(d)In re Ricoh, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23495 (Fed. Cir. 2011)Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., No. 11-2316, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5511 (3d Cir. Mar. 16, 2012) 26
  • 27. E-discovery Cost-shifting• Caution: Agreements to share, or for each party to pay its own e-discovery expenses, will control• In federal court, consider reserving right in joint preliminary planning report 27
  • 28. Agenda• The Non-Purchase Transaction: Leases & Licenses• Electronic “Writings”• Internet Jurisdiction• E-discovery Cost-shifting• Evidentiary challenges for electronic documents• Questions 28
  • 29. Evidence & E-Docs• Thanks to Big Data, we rely on computer accuracy in daily life• In the courtroom, that’s just not good enough• Checklist: Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Company, 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007)• Highlights: authentication, hearsay, original writings 29
  • 30. Evidence & E-Docs• Most common problem: business records• Capital City Devel., LLC v. Bank of N. Ga., Case No. A12A0414 (Ga. App. July 5, 2012)• Standard Bldg. Co., Inc. v. Wallen Concept Glazing, Inc., 298 Ga. App. 443 (2009)• Crawford v. Dammann, 277 Ga. App. 442 (2006) 30
  • 31. QUESTIONS? 31