Laws are more often than not an annoyance, despite their aim to improve the legal framework in any given field. Free Software (AKA "Open Source") has thrieved despite the absence of any legal recognition by the law, if not in spite of rules that clearly are shaped around proprietary software. In many jurisdictions it has passed the enforceability test. So, no laws seem necessary to make it work. Yet, can some legal principle be put forward, and included in some laws, to help?

"I mean, we all know that major labels are supposed to be venal masters of hiding money from artists, but they’re also supposed to be good at it, right? This figure wasn’t insulting because it was so small, it was insulting because it was so stupid."

"I just read the most plausible of law review papers suggesting the potential for protection of a private space within social network sites (SNS). Fellow UNC grad student Woodrow Hartzog proposes the use of Promissory Estoppel as a means to protect self-disclosure in online communities. It would create a type of contract or agreement between users of a site whereby a protection would exist for information disclosed in that community or site. If someone else shares the disclosed, private information, with a few caveats, they can be held accountable."

"I have signed up for multiple GA accounts and never took the time to read the TOS until now. Like any legal document, it’s dry and at times full of legalese and formality. Here’s what you need to know…in plain English (emphasis and italicized comments are mine):"

"If there is no signed written agreement, then the work isn’t for hire, and you start out with all the rights. If there is a written agreement, it should be entered into before you create the work. Beware of after-the-fact attempts to take away your rights by calling the work “for hire,” for example by sending you a check whose endorsement line says that your signature is your agreement that the work was for hire."

"Why work-for-hire is hurting the creative industry"

"Oddly, certain kinds of workers in Massachusetts cannot be shackled by noncompetes: doctors, social workers, and broadcasters among them. But why should a TV anchor be allowed to jump from one station to another, while we make an EMC engineer take a year of unpaid leave before he can form a new company? How does that benefit our economy? My biggest concern is that new legislation only requires noncompetes to be “reasonable,’’ rather than nixing them entirely. To ensure that we get there, individual employees will have to dive in to this debate - rather than leaving it to big companies who know how to lobby. And CEOs who are willing to think about the good of the state’s economy - beyond their own firm’s desire to avoid spawning potential rivals - should speak up."

"American law does not similarly protect the moral rights of its authors. In fact, it has a legal convention called "work-for-hire" that is to moral rights what peonage is to citizenship. If you sign a contract with a "work-for-hire" clause, you agree that what you've written is a thing without any more integrity than a lump of coal, and that the purchaser can do whatever he wants to it, editorially, without any need to consult you, and that no matter how much or under what circumstances the work is republished, you have no rights to demand further payment. In my opinion, work-for-hire contracts are disreputable acts of force majeure on the part of publishers. Nonetheless, it is almost impossible for a novice writer to avoid signing them, and in the last few years, it has been difficult even for established writers to avoid them..."

"With cost plus a fixed fee, the client signs a contract for the $60,000 plus the cost of construction, which is priced at the builder’s actual out-of-pocket cost. Whether the house costs $350,000 or $500,000, the client still pays $60,000 for the builder’s overhead and profit.

The advantages are obvious. If the cost exceeds the estimate, the builder isn’t making a fatter fee. Getting the job done and moving on to another one will be to his advantage. However, the builder will not be taking such a bath that he is likely to walk off the job or go bankrupt, a real risk for smaller builders."

"[WorldCat rep] insists that "OCLC welcomes collaboration with Open Library", which seems a funny way of putting it. As I said last time, they've played hardball: trying to cut off our funding, hurt our reputation, and pressure libraries not to cooperate. When we tried to make a deal with them, they dragged their feet for months, pretended to come to terms, and then had their lawyers send us an "agreement" to sign that would require we take all OCLC-related records off our site."

"ICANN recently has wanted to make a lot of changes to its standard Registrar Accreditation Agreement. It found that it was was constrained by an even earlier version of the consensus policy process idea, and has found this frustrating. So it wants the flexibility to make changes without going through a policy process, and it’s (initially) saying that although those changes can be overridden in some ways they will automatically become effective if they are *not* overridden."

"Correcting Inventorship: An issued patent is presumed to name the correct inventors. Thus, an inventorship challenge must bring "clear and convincing evidence" that the newly surfaced inventor "contributed to the conception of the claimed invention." "Simply reducing to practice that which has been conceived by others is insufficient for co-inventorship." Under the clear and convincing standard, the inventorship challenge "must be corroborated by independent evidence.""

"The firm figured that they'd do what they could within the strict terms of the initial contract and then pick up extra time through massive overestimation on change requests."