Using the Internet depends, in the first instance, on access to the network. The initial emergence of "the Internet" in the early 1990s, from the increasing connectivity of a series of university and government networks alongside private services like America Online, Prodigy, and CompuServe, occurred almost entirely across slow dial-up modem connections over telephone wires. Sufficient for email, Usenet news groups, transferring relatively small files, and later viewing simple web pages, slow transfer made consumption of data rich content infuriating and its provision unprofitable. There was, however, an important compatibility between the Internet architecture and the plain old telephone system. The basic protocols of the Internet treat all information as equal. They do not recognize rich content or poor content, content owned by one person or another. So too, the basic telephone network, because it is regulated as a common carrier by the FCC, was required to treat all these data calls alike. These consistencies meant that in this new medium, unlike in the mass media of the 20th century -- television, cable, and newspapers -- no one had much of an advantage over anyone else in communicating their views to the world. The low bandwidth available also meant that "production value" -- expensive sets and cameras -- that also limited access to the opportunities to speak in traditional mass media, were less important. The result was a substantially more egalitarian communications medium than any that the 19th and 20th century had known, at least for a while and for limited communications applications.

As its name suggests, a business method patent grants to its holder exclusive rights to a particular way of doing business. Until recently, it was widely assumed that business methods were not patentable due to the judicially created "business methods exception" to patentability. As a result, firms enjoyed only limited intellectual property protection against imitation of their business strategies by competitors. To the extent that they managed keep their strategies secret, they could rely on trade secret protection, which prevents competitors from using trade secrets obtained by "improper means." In practice, however, most business strategies could not be effectively concealed, and competitors were thus free to mimic them. The 1998 decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) altered this situation dramatically. The Court did away with the "business methods exception" to patentability and upheld a patent on a software program that was used to make mutual-fund asset allocation calculations. In the wake of that decision, companies have been seeking -- and obtaining -- business method patents at a remarkable pace. It is difficult to determine exactly how many business method patents have been issued, however, as such patents can be classified in a number of different ways. Generally, patent class 705 -- which covers, in part, data processing for business practice -- is considered a good proxy for business method patents, as the majority of such patents are filed under this category (and especially given that methods of doing business online tend fall under this category).[1] The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reports that, in 1998, there were 1340 class 705 patent applications, and 420 such patents were issued. In 2000, applications for business method patents rose dramatically to 7800, with 899 such patents issued. In 2001, applications increased again (8700), but the number of issued patents decreased sharply (433), probably as a result of the USPTO's heightened attention to the "quality" of business method patents. Over the last few years, this trend has continued, with about 6300 class 705 applications each year, and only 500 or so issued annually. Since a large percentage of those patents involve methods of doing business online, they merit our attention. The frenzy over business method patents is by no means confined to the United States. Both the European and Japanese Patent Offices, which together with the United States cover 83% of all patents worldwide as of 2000, similarly recognize some form of the business method patent. However, while the Japanese have embraced the concept (albeit with stricter patentability standards), there remains a strong movement within Europe to reverse earlier policy decisions and eliminate business method patents altogether. Many other countries are in the process of forming their policy toward this new category of patents. Meanwhile, controversy over business method patents in the United States has begun to die down; while the process for obtaining a business method patent was recently made more rigorous, legislative challenges to the availability of such patents have proved unsuccessful. In sum, business method patents are here to stay (at least in the United States), but their availability or character may continue to change.

This semester, we will explore the nuts and bolts of advising and defending Internet-related businesses, organizations and individuals. With the help of practicing cyberlawyers and other outside participants, we will delve into some of the most contested issues involving intellectual property, speech, and privacy on the Net, and the means by which courts and legislatures are asked to take sides and, at times, affect the course of the Internet's evolution.

"Cybercrime" is not a rigorously defined concept. For our purposes, consider it to embrace criminal acts that can be accomplished while sitting at a computer keyboard. Such acts include gaining unauthorized access to computer files, disrupting the operation of remote computers with viruses, worms, logic bombs, Trojan horses, and denial of service attacks; distributing and creating child pornography, stealing another's identity; selling contraband, and stalking victims. Cybercrime is cheap to commit (if one has the know-how to do it), hard to detect (if one knows how to erase one's tracks), and often hard to locate in jurisdictional terms, given the geographical indeterminacy of the Net. Our purpose in considering the subject of cybercrime is not to catalog it exhaustively, but rather to raise and consider questions of particular interest that are presented by cyber methodologies of committing crimes. The most interesting questions arise at the points where criminal opportunities presented by the new technologies stretch the bounds of our criminal law.

The commercialization of the Internet has dramatically increased the importance and economic value of domain names. The sets of alphanumeric characters denoting Internet addresses have become a major source of cash, controversy, and case law. Catchy dot-com phrases are splashed across billboards, buses, and Superbowl advertisements. Companies and individuals struggle over the more attractive and memorable of the names, resorting to the courts, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and the private market to settle their disputes. In late 1999, for example, the peak of the dot-com hype, eCompanies reportedly paid $7.5 million for the rights to the "business.com" tag -- the highest price ever to be paid for a domain name. Trademark law has proven to be an awkward device for resolving conflicts over domain names. For example, traditional trademark law allows two non-competing entities to utilize the same mark, as long as there is no likelihood of consumer confusion. However, in cyberspace only one .com domain utilizing the mark can exist. Accordingly, during the past four years, various jurisdictions have been experimenting with new legal systems for addressing such conflicts. The most important such regime is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which provides a quick and relatively inexpensive procedure to settle matters through mandatory arbitration, which registrants agree to when they register domain names. The UDRP allows a party to file a complaint with a pre-approved dispute resolution service provider to assert rights to another party's registered domain name if the name corresponds to the complainant's existing trademark or service mark. Another tool now available to U.S. trademark holders is the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows trademark holders to file suit against parties who allegedly "register, traffic in, or use" domain names identical or confusingly similar to their marks. A recent development that, together with the previous two, may alleviate the need to either pay enormous sums for domain names or to litigate or arbitrate their ownership is the process administered by ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, of adding seven new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), such as .biz, .info and .name to the traditional ones, such as .com, .org and .net. This module describes and evaluates both the old and the new regimes -- and considers the various proposals currently on the table for further reform. We begin with two case studies, intended to whet your appetite. We then review the relevant technology and legal doctrines. Summaries of recent domain-names disputes follow. Finally, we propose some topics for the online discussion forum.

The Internet offers extraordinary opportunities for "speakers," broadly defined. Political candidates, cultural critics, corporate gadflies -- anyone who wants to express an opinion about anything -- can make their thoughts available to a world-wide audience far more easily than has ever been possible before. A large and growing group of Internet participants have seized that opportunity. Some observers find the resultant outpouring of speech exhilarating. They see in it nothing less than the revival of democracy and the restoration of community. Other observers find the amount -- and, above all, the kind of speech -- that the Internet has stimulated offensive or frightening. Pornography, hate speech, lurid threats -- these flourish alongside debates over the future of the Democratic Party and exchanges of views concerning fly fishing in Patagonia. This phenomenon has provoked various efforts to limit the kind of speech in which one may engage on the Internet -- or to develop systems to "filter out" the more offensive material. This module examines some of the legal issues implicated by the increasing bitter struggle between the advocates of "free speech" and the advocates of filtration and control.

The Internet is a vast network that connects many smaller groups of linked computer networks, on and through which information is stored and transmitted. The "interconnected" character of the Internet is one of the things that makes it so popular and powerful in facilitating communication and electronic commerce. However, "interconnectivity" has also given rise to increasing legal controversy and turmoil. Various methods of enhancing or exploiting the web-like structure of the Internet have been attacked as violations of others' intellectual property or other proprietary rights. In this module, we will consider the current status of those controversies. The Case Study explores in some detail one recent case of this general sort. The Readings then examine the histories of some related dimensions of "interconnectivity."

This course examines current legal, political, and technical struggles for control/ownership of the global Internet and its content. The course will draw upon a growing body of cyberlaw cases and commentary, class members' research, and participation by invited guests, including lobbyists, politicians, journalists, and scholars from the HLS faculty and elsewhere. Course themes include the interaction between emerging Internet self-governance regimes and rule by traditional sovereigns; the expression of conflicting interests of commercial and individual Internet speakers/broadcasters; new modes of control over widely distributed intellectual property ("privication"); and the potential for market giants and other architects of Internet technologies to constrain behavior online in ways governments find difficult to assimilate. Classroom discussion of these topics will be augmented by online discussion software through which students will have one-on-one exchanges about issues in the course. No specialized technical expertise or prerequisite required, but students should be prepared to use and experiment with new technologies as part of their coursework and participation.

This course examines current legal, political, and technical struggles for control/ownership of the global Internet and its content. The course will draw upon a growing body of cyberlaw cases and commentary, class members' research, and participation by invited guests, including lobbyists, politicians, journalists, and scholars from the HLS faculty and elsewhere. Course themes include the interaction between emerging Internet self-governance regimes and rule by traditional sovereigns; the expression of conflicting interests of commercial and individual Internet speakers/broadcasters; new modes of control over widely distributed intellectual property ("privication"); and the potential for market giants and other architects of Internet technologies to constrain behavior online in ways governments find difficult to assimilate. Classroom discussion of these topics will be augmented by online discussion software through which students will have one-on-one exchanges about issues in the course. There are no technical or substantive prerequisites, but students should be prepared to use and experiment with new technologies as part of their coursework and participation. An extra tech review session-both for use of the Internet adjunct to the class, and to help understand the technology underlying the substantive policy issues-will be scheduled to go over some architectural basics of the Net. This will be a 3-credit course (2 classroom credits + 1 non-classroom credit). This reflects an Internet-driven "question exchange" that will be a weekly part of the course assignments, plus a 15-page paper due at the end of the course. The course's 3 credits alone do not satisfy the Written Work Requirement but additional credit for the Written Work Requirement may be available. Students interested in writing their third-year paper in conjunction with this course should contact the instructor. The course may occasionally meet contemporaneously with MIT's "Ethics and Law on the Electronic Frontier." Such meetings will be during the course's regular time slot, but may meet in Ames Courtroom or on the MIT campus.

This course examines current legal, political, and technical struggles for control/ownership of the global Internet and its content. The course will draw upon a growing body of cyberlaw cases and commentary, class members' research, and participation by invited guests, including lobbyists, politicians, journalists, and scholars from the HLS faculty and elsewhere. Course themes include the interaction between emerging Internet self-governance regimes and rule by traditional sovereigns; the expression of conflicting interests of commercial and individual Internet speakers/broadcasters; new modes of control over widely distributed intellectual property ("privication"); and the potential for market giants and other architects of Internet technologies to constrain behavior online in ways governments find difficult to assimilate. There are no technical or substantive prerequisites, but students should be prepared to use and experiment with new technologies as part of their coursework and participation. This will be a 3-credit course (2 classroom credits + 1 non-classroom credit). Students interested in writing their third-year paper in conjunction with this course should contact the instructor.

At its core, jurisdiction is about the boundaries of a sovereign's exercise of its power. What are reasonable constraints on its reach, such that faraway or otherwise unconnected people and institutions can be called to account by the sovereign? Closely related are concepts of choice of law - exactly which sovereign's law to apply to a situation that spans multiple jurisdictions - and venue, which determines the physical location in which the parties are best served to settle their dispute. The global nature of the internet - both its global reach and its perceived "boundaryless" architecture - presents a host of jurisdictional complexities for any sovereign seeking to define and / or enforce laws regulating its use. What are the proper boundaries of a sovereign's reach on the internet and how can these boundaries be implemented in practice? In exploring this issue, this module first reviews the basics of jurisdiction. Next, it describes the unique "boundarylessness" of the internet and recent technical efforts to circumvent this architectural characteristic. Finally, we discuss various perspectives on the optimal extent of "local" jurisdiction over the internet.

The Internet is at once a constructive and disruptive technology. As more and more of our lives move online, we are faced with opportunities to do new and amazing things. Concurrently, we encounter problems that no one anticipated as we collectively built the internet as we know it today. This seminar will consider some of the most intriguing of the issues to which the advent of the internet has given and continues to give rise. It will focus on a cluster of topics about which any computer user likely knows a good deal already: spam, spyware, peer-to-peer file sharing, personal privacy, and e-commerce. It will also venture into a few issues-like blogging, RSS (Really Simple Syndication), social software, and internet filtering-that may be less familiar. The internet and the practice of law are both increasingly global in nature, so the seminar will take special care to delve into basic topics in international law. A specific series of laws, regulations and policies related to online activities continues to evolve. In particular, the seminar will focus on the law of intellectual property related to the Internet-whether the IP relates to code, commercial data, music or other content-which has broad and complex application for anyone using the internet in the current multi-jurisdictional world. We'll consider who makes the laws in an environment that crosses national borders by its very nature and where enforcement is an extremely tricky matter. We will imagine what these new technologies might do to culture in the United States and to other cultures throughout the world, particularly those in developing countries. Participants should be willing to experiment with new information technologies in a learning environment.

Professors Lessig and Zittrain will teach a research seminar on the Microsoft case. The seminar will meet at least once a week, beginning the week of 9/21. It will review the proceedings leading up to the present antitrust action, and then shadow the current trial. We will collect transcripts from the case, which will be assigned each week, as well as other readings to be determined. In addition to the ultimate question of liability, we will consider whether there are special issues that cyberspace raises for antitrust. The most significant requirement of the course will be classroom participation; a short paper at the end will be required.

This resource is a playlist containing pointers to other resources. This will be a collection of information and resources for Beowulf.

Most Internet content today is "served" from a central system that takes requests from a user's "client." Typically, the user asks for access to information or other data; the requested content is then "pushed" from the central system to the user. In this model, the various visitors to a given web site do not interact. By contrast, peer-to-peer technology (commonly known as "P2P") creates conversations among individual personal computers (PCs). In this respect, P2P systems resemble an affiliate network where information (rather than referrals) is passed between many people. This module examines the legal and policy implications of P2P technology. Is it beneficial or pernicious? Is it legal or illegal? Which, if any, of the participants in the new networks should be liable to the owners of the copyrights in material that is transmitted and reproduced without permission?

Though it brings us many benefits, the march of technology makes an encompassing surveillance network seem almost inevitable, and radically changes our expectations of privacy. We owe many of the expectations of privacy we used to enjoy to a combination of immature technology and insufficient manpower to monitor us. But these protective inefficiencies are giving way to technologies of data processing and digital surveillance that will change our beliefs about privacy. We are widely tracked by public surveillance cameras, our credit-card transactions, our passes through the fast-lanes at toll booths, and our cell phone calls to name only a few of the data points that could be assembled about our lives. Each year brings more sensitive and widespread sensing devices, including cameras, microphones, and, potentially, biological sensors, all increasingly connected through efficient networks to ever more powerful data processing and storage technologies. Cameras are spreading like kudzu -- in toll plazas, on public streets, and in public parks. We welcome them as crime-fighters, even as they eliminate our ability to move through the world untracked. Face and voice recognition software may soon permit image data from surveillance cameras to be cross-referenced to profiles of each person observed. To get a hint of the future, enter your street address at globexplorer.com. You will see a satellite picture nearly good enough to show a car parked in your driveway, or in mine. Better resolution is coming soon. We are moving toward a transparent society in which our actions and transactions are followed, our lives tracked and documented, by folks we neither know nor trust; each of us a star in our own Truman Show. Ad RFIDs and see that our children will live in a surveillance network.

This resource is a playlist containing pointers to many other resources. It is a presentation and discussion exploring the following questions: What is Web 2.0, and what are some examples? What are folksonomies and what's so special about tagging? What kinds of disabilities are reinforced, and what new disabilities emerge with the adoption of the Web 2.0 philosophy? What is the role of UDL and what is the niche for CAST in Web 2.0?