Digital Collections @ Suffolk
Not a member yet
8574 research outputs found
Sort by
2019 Suffolk University commencement program, Suffolk Law School
Get PDFSuffolk University commencement programs detail the location, date, order of exercises, academic honors, speakers, administration, graduates, and other related information.https://dc.suffolk.edu/comm/1003/thumbnail.jp
CAS Honors Symposium Program, Fall 2019
Get PDFhttps://dc.suffolk.edu/honorssymposium/1006/thumbnail.jp
License to Hack
Get PDFLegal hackathons are exploding in popularity. “Hacking” is a term often associated with illegal behavior but a hackathon is something different. At a hackathon, lawyers, technologists, data scientists, public interest organizations, law students, and just about anyone who is interested converge in a friendly, time-pressured competition aimed at solving some defined problem. For more than a decade, different industries have looked to hackathons as a source of new ideas. Today, the legal industry uses hackathons to spark creation of innovative tools to chip away at the access to justice crisis and improve the delivery of legal services./= / \u3e/= / \u3eBut often lost in the excitement is a key piece to hackathon success: treatment of the intellectual property. For example, who owns the copyright in software created at a hackathon? What about a new business method? What about the rights to trademark a new design? Most hackathons have some form of a participant agreement, but many outright ignore the “who owns it” question or fail to address it in a careful manner. This is a problem in need of a solution – or at least some concrete guidance./= / \u3e/= / \u3eThis Article explores intellectual property rights in the context of legal hackathons. How intellectual property is approached at the start can impact the success (or not) of creations at the end. Taking rights away from participants risks alienating them and interfering with the collaborative, fun spirit most hackathons embody. Yet giving participants all the marbles may not be preferable either, especially if it disincentivizes organizers to support future development and help a tool survive beyond the hackathon doors. In circumstances where one size doesn’t fit all, this Article discusses pros and cons of varying approaches to intellectual property in hackathon participant agreements. Embodying the hackathon resolve to create something tangible and useful for others, the Article connects readers to an online repository of sample agreements as well as a participant agreement template
The Persistence of Dumb Contracts
Get PDF“Smart contracts” are a hot topic. Presently, smart contracts are mostly evidence of property, like crypto-currencies or mortgages, created and/or transferred on blockchain technology. This is an exploration of the theoretical possibilities of artificial intelligence in a far broader range of complex and heretofore negotiated transactions that occur over time. My goal is to understand what it means to make a contract smarter, i.e. to delegate more and more of the creation, performance, and disposition of legally binding transactions to machine thinking. Moreover, I want to do so from the perspective of one who is neither a true believer in the purported technological singularity to come nor a digital Luddite. There are two primary themes. First, the extent to which complex transactions occurring over time can be embodied in computer programs – the ability of the contracts to be smarter rather than dumber – depends on the extent to which the subject of the transaction becomes not just a social fact, but an institutional reality. The dumb contract is merely a map of an antecedent reality, but the smart one is a real thing in itself. Second, smart rather than dumb contracts will require the translation of often fuzzy legal predicates, otherwise capable of expression in truth-functional logic, into digital proxies expressible in the non-ambiguous discrete units of code. The upshot of these two themes is that, at least until there is some better evidence that a technological singularity will occur, deciding will remain something that is fundamentally different than reasoning by way of logic or code. Hence, for the time being, dumb contracts, ones that leave open the possibility of what Karl Llewellyn called situation sense, will persist
Suffolk University Law School Alumni Magazine, Spring 2019
Get PDFhttps://dc.suffolk.edu/slam/1026/thumbnail.jp
Audible: Contractual Relations between Schools and Their Student-Athletes Are Due for a Reroute
Get PDFSuffolk University Law School Academic Catalog, 2019-2020
Get PDFThis catalog contains information on academic policies, program requirements, and course descriptions for Suffolk University Law School.https://dc.suffolk.edu/suls-catalogs/1072/thumbnail.jp