Generally, the standard common law and a state’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) apply to Internet transactions, although these laws do not fit comfortably with the new medium. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State laws is in the process of rewriting Article 2 of the UCC to apply to "virtual contracts" entered into on the Internet. The full text of the proposed "Internet Commercial Code", as well as Ralph Nader’s objections to the anti-consumer provisions of the proposed Code, set out in his letter to Bill Gates, are both available online.

Yes. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that RAM is a "tangible medium" for copyright purposes and that downloading from a central hard drive into RAM violates the Copyright act.

Generally not. The Copyright Act excludes from protection "ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles and discoveries." Courts deem "method of operation" to include utilitarian operating systems.

Agreements for contractor and employment services should include provisions for protection of the owner’s proprietary rights and confidentiality. In the case of software development services any agreement should make clear that the services call for providing the employer "works made for hire," otherwise the developer may lay claim to ownership of the product.

No. Not unless they are aware of the infringing use. Internet service providers of "mere conduit" services, and of private or real-time electronic communications including email and chat rooms, are liable for the infringing acts of the users only if: (1) They have actual knowledge of the infringing activity; and (2) fail to act within a reasonable time.

Generally, yes. All that is required is some sort of unambiguous manifestation of the mutual assent of the parties to enter into a binding contract. This can be done through any electronic medium or otherwise. The Statute of Frauds, however, requires a signed writing under certain circumstances.

In California you can. A California Court of Appeal held in August of 1997 that California courts have personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in suits involving virtual contracts entered into by email. The court found sufficient "minimum contacts" with California, due to the "speed and ease" of email, to require out-of-state parties to appear and defend themselves in California. Communications by postal mail and telephone do not impose the same requirement.

The materials presented are not provided in the course of any attorney-client relationship, may not reflect the most current legal developments, and do not constitute legal advice. Readers are urged to contact the Law Offices of Shelley Liberto or other legal counsel to obtain adequate research and analysis of any particular legal issue before initiating any action or implementing any decision.