SaaS litigation, software service level agreement, cloud computing lawHow many times have you signed up for a service on-line, scrolled past all the legal jargon, and clicked "I Accept" or "I Agree" without taking the time to actually read the terms and conditions you're agreeing to? 

Admit it.  We all do it.  

But, just as a warning to be careful the next time you're purchasing that new mp3, or more importantly signing your company up for something on-line... those shrink-wrap and click-wrap agreements have been held by the courts to be binding.

Contracting in cloud computing law doesn't necessarily require a signature these days.  An affirmative acceptance of the provisions of a software service level agreement by an authorized agent can be given with a click of a button.

Take the recent trademark infringement case of Appliance Zone, LLC v. Nextag, Inc. for instance.  Although this case was dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction (which, incidentally, was a term of the shrink-wrap agreement that was held by the court to be an effective document) the court discussed some important software litigation surrounding click-through agreements within it.

In essence, if the facts support a claim that a person (a) is authorized to enter into such a contract, and (b) had the intent to enter into it, then they will be held to terms of service they signed up for, including basic contracting terms such as jurisdiction, venue, etc, etc.

The court in this case cited Gallent Ins. Co. v. Isaac in ruling that there was authorized conduct that clearly demonstrated the acceptance of a valid contract by the 19 year old website manager of Appliance Zone who registered the company as a merchant on Nextag's website and clicked "I accept the Nextag Terms of Service" as part of the process.

While the enforceability of a contract can be destroyed with factors that make it unconscionable (such as inequality of bargaining power, or unreasonable or unknown terms) the court did not find those arguments sustainable in this case for a number of reasons, including the fact that clickable acceptance has become commonplace for on-line retail, and the registration process could not have been completed without the click-through acceptance.

The court in this Indiana technology litigation case fell back on Paper Exp., Ltd., Micrometl Corp. v. TranzAct Technologies, Inc. with the "fundamental principle of contract law that a person who signs a contract is presumed to know its terms and consents to be bound by them." 

Next time, before you click "I Accept" make sure you really do.


Indiana Internet Litigation, Indiana Technology CounselSo you've launched your company and hired a web-developer to breathe life into the idea you've poured your heart and soul into developing over the past several months, perhaps even years...

Maybe you never even thought to ask the question, but at the end of the day who actually owns "your" website?  You or the web designer?

Indiana software litigation in a ruling by the Supreme Court of Indiana, Conwell v. Gray Loon Outdoor Marketing Group, points to the fact that hiring a contractor for the development of content and programming of a website is considered a service rather than a purchase of a good.

In this case, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the independent contractor owns the property, while the hiring party owns a non-exclusive and perpetual license to use such property, unless of course, there is an agreement specifying otherwise.

Looking towards prior Indiana technology litigation the Supreme Court applied the definition of an implied non-exclusive license to the development of a website:

An implied non-exclusive license is granted when (i) a person (the licensee) requests the creation of a work; (ii) the creator (the licensor) makes that particular work and delivers it to the licensee; and (iii) the licensor intends that the licensee copy and distribute the work.

This definition applied to the facts surrounding the website development in this particular case ultimately led the court to its conclusion.  

So, expect this to be the case (at least in Indiana) the next time you hire a webdesigner for your next project: upon final payment, the webdesigner owns the property, while you own the right to use it... forever. 

(Unless, of course, you involve technology legal counsel first and negotiate otherwise.)

For an example of a newly developed Indiana-based website check out: GlobalToaster




One aspect of any litigation, be it internet litigation, software litigation, any any other type, is the production of documents in discovery.  Accompanying this necessary procedure is the fear and stomach-wrenching possiblity of the inadvertent production of privileged materials.  Nothing will make an attorney or a client go pale faster than realzing that they've produced to opposinig counsel a correspondence between client and attorney.  The proliferation of electronically stored information (ESI) and e-mail communications between attorney and client makes this an even greater risk.  Additionally, if you have an attorney in house that fills the role of both counsel and business person, the possiblity of an indavertent production of privileged material increases.  

Luckily, FRCP 502(b) protects against this likelihood.  The reality is that these types of production are going to happen, especially when dealing with electronic discovery.  502(b) provide that the disclosure of privileged communication will not operate as a waiver if it is inadverent, the holder of the privilege took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure, and the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error when production occurs.  

"Reasonable steps" is one of those greatly amorphous legal terms that lawmakers love to put in statutes or rules.  What is going to constitute a "reasonable step" is going to be in the eye of the beholder (most likely your judge).   But there are some things that may help you.  Keep some of the following in mind: 
  • limit the number of receipients on communications to counsel to only those that are necessary for the communication
  • If you have an in-house counsel who wears more than one hat, make sure that all e-mail to him in his legal counsel capacity are specifically identifed as such.
  • Only put "privileged" on those e-mails that are truly privileged.  Don't include it on all regular e-mails.
  • Clearly identify e-mails and subject lines to assist in future searches. 
  • Keep a list of attorneys and legal professionals that are utilzedby your company to assist with future searches. 
Keep in mind your reasonableness in determining what steps to take in dealing with electronic discovery.  Whether you are writing your litigation attorney, your securities attorney, your probate attorney, or any other legal counsel, the steps you take now will protect your confidential material in the future.