The law makes people nervous. It’s intimidating and creates a negative impression. When I mention I’m a technology lawyer at industry events, it usually elicits a facial reaction somewhere between a blank stare and a perturbed, cynical frown. It’s as if the two words, “technology” and “lawyer,” don’t belong together, at least not as an occupational term. Many technologists, developers and CEOs of all things World Wide Web can’t seem to wrap their brilliant cerebral wiring around the concept, concluding that the restrictive hubris of law has no place in the free flow of information, in the engagement of ideas and methods, or in the business models of web-based monetization, whether its iPad apps or crowdsourced, real-time Q&As.
To the contrary, my genius friends, the law has everything to do with technology, and in particular, the expansion of technology. In 500 B.C., the Greek city of Sybaris, located in what is now southern Italy, postulated that inventors should have the right to a year-long patent, with exclusive rights to profits derived from such ‘refinements.’ In 1449, King Henry VI granted the first patent with a license of twenty years to John of Utynam for introducing the making of colored glass to England. In the Web 3.0 environment, U.S. courts have ruled that service providers such as Facebook, Twitter or YouTube are not liable for the consequences stemming from user-posted content, whether the postings violate trademarks or express a call to commit unlawful acts.
These are necessary postures. Without law, no developer could protect their work and build a viable business without fear of having their ideas stolen and copied wholesale. Beyond proprietary protection, the law provides the practical framework through which technologies can be applied with maximum utility. This is no more apparent than in biotechnology, an emerging industry that seeks to integrate the biological with synthetic, machine-based elements to harness natural resources more effectively in the technology, engineering and medicine industries. Recently, scientists announced that algae may prove to be a viable fuel source, which, if mass manufactured, could become a formidable substitute in the petroleum market. The intersection of fuel-producing bacterium and business opportunities presents several novel legal questions: who has rights to bacteria? How far should the law go in designating specific methods and processes in algae conversion as proprietary? Are there multiple ways to convert algae so a market monopoly can be prevented to the benefit of consumers? Or better yet, what methods can be standardized in order for multiple competitors to flourish, similar to ExxonMobil, British Petroleum and Chevron?
The law posits such questions and more. It demands both in theory and application, the appropriate response to unfair practices while mediating non-aligned, if not conflicting, goals between parties looking to form a contractual relationship. Even starry-eyed startups need some legal advice when it comes to those pesky Series A financing rounds.
In its most abstract, the law is no more than custom memorialized for purposes of expediency and predictability. As human beings, we require some semblance of standardization that can enable us to focus on our ambitions. Without the law, we would be left to our own devices, each individual negotiating their terms without any mechanisms to enforce, deter or protect. I argue that the law is as necessary to the advancement of technology as the very iterations of software and hardware development that contribute to it; a basic ingredient that, if disregarded, will render the technology unworkable. For those who find the law distant and intimidating, know that the law can be in your favor. To the technologists at industry events, next time I mention my profession, breathe a sigh of relief. I’m on your side.