Unconscionability 2.0 and the IP Boilerplate: A Revised Doctrine of Unconscionability for the Information Age

Amit Elazari Bar On

摘要

In the information age, where fewer goods and more innovations are produced, intellectual property law has become the most crucial governing system. Yet, rather than evolving to fit its purpose, it has seemingly devolved—standard form contracts, governing countless creations, have formed an alternative de facto intellectual property regime. The law governing the information society is often prescribed not by legislators or courts, but rather by private entities, using technology and contracts to regulate much of the creative discourse. The same phenomena persist in other emerging areas of information law, such as data protection and cybersecurity laws. This Article offers a new analytical perspective on private ordering in intellectual property (IP) focusing on the rise of IP boilerplate, the standard form contracts that regulate innovations and creations. It distinguishes between contracts drafted by the initial owners of the IP (such as End-User-License-Agreements (EULAs)) and contracts drafted by nonowners (such as platforms' terms of use), and highlights the ascendancy of the latter in the user-generated content era. In this era, the drafter of the contract owns nothing, yet seeks to regulate the layman adherent's creations, and sometimes even to redefine the contours of the public domain. Private ordering is expanding its governing role in IP, creating new problems and undermining the rights that legislators bestow on creators and users. While scholars often discuss the problems caused by IP boilerplate, solutions are left wanting. Inter-doctrinal solutions have been unjustly overlooked. IP scholars reject general contract doctrines as ill equipped. Contracts scholars discard IP considerations, perpetuating consumerist perspectives. This dichotomy, deepened by the preemption doctrine, has led to the underutilization of the prominent doctrine governing standard form contracts: unconscionability. Yet, in the aftermath of ProCD, preemption has failed to solve problems created by contracts in IP settings, while unconscionability has evolved from a legal marginality to a coherent concept. Inspired by the Israeli purposive approach to unconscionability, this analysis aims to resurrect unconscionability as a pragmatic solution to problems created by IP boilerplate. According to this solution, the question of unconscionability is examined by asking, substantially, whether the provision benefits the relevant IP policies or negates them. Drawing on moral foundations, this solution seeks to avoid utilitarian biases and invites discourse between competing approaches. As a legal standard applicable to various relationships, even those that are non-consumer-based, it accommodates the dynamic adjustments often required when IP policies seek to address contemporary problems. While IP scholarship has discarded unconscionability as ill-equipped, this Article suggests that it is an accessible solution that can accommodate extra-contractual notions. Precisely because the doctrine is rooted in contract law, its flexibility and broad applicability are why it could serve as a universal solution to myriad problems created by appropriating contracts. Adopting Unconscionability 2.0 would allow U.S. case law to align the roots of the doctrine with the needs of the information age.

机译：在信息时代，由于产生了更少的商品和更多的创新，知识产权法已成为最重要的管理系统。然而，而不是发展旨在适合其目的，它看似潜在的标准形式合同，管理无数创作，形成了替代事实上的知识产权制度。管理信息社会的法律通常不是由立法者或法院规定，而是由私人实体，使用技术和合同来规范大部分创造性话语。在其他新出现的信息法领域持续存在同样的现象，例如数据保护和网络安全法。本文在知识产权（IP）中提供了一种新的分析视角，专注于IP样板的兴起，规范创新和创作的标准形式合同。它区分了知识产权初始业主起草的合同（如终端用户 - 许可协议（eulas））和非行动者起草的合同（如平台的使用条款），并突出了后者的升级用户生成的内容时代。在这个时代，合同的拖拉机没有任何东西拥有，却寻求规范外行奉献者的创作，有时甚至还重新定义公共领域的轮廓。私人订购正在扩展其IP中的管理角色，创造新问题并破坏立法者赋予创建者和用户的权利。虽然学者们经常讨论IP样板引起的问题，但解决方案留在留下。教学间解决方案被忽视不顾。知识产权学者拒绝将一般合同教义作为装备生病。合同学者丢弃IP考虑因素，延续消费者的观点。这种二分法被抢占主义深入加深，导致了有限公司管理标准形式合约的突出学说：不合情理。然而，在Procd的后果中，抢占未能解决IP设置中合同创建的问题，而不合理性从一个相干概念的法律边界演变。受以色列的无意识方法对不合理性的启发，该分析旨在将不合适的不合情算性作为务实的解决方案务实的解决方案，以务实的解决方案。根据该解决方案，通过询问，实质上，否则是否会使相关的知识产权政策或否定它们来检查不合情理的问题。在道德基础上绘制，这种解决方案旨在避免有利于偏见，并邀请竞争方法之间的话语。作为适用于各种关系的法律标准，即使是那些是非消费者的，它也适用于当知识产权政策寻求解决当代问题时经常需要的动态调整。虽然知识产权奖学金丢弃了不合理的不合理性，但本文暗示它是一种可访问的解决方案，可以适应额外的合同概念。正是因为教义扎根于合同法中，它的灵活性和广泛的适用性是为什么它可以作为通过拨款合同产生的无数问题的普遍解决方案。采用不合情理的2.0将允许美国案例法将学说的根源与信息时代的需要对齐。

Unconscionability 2.0 and the IP Boilerplate: A Revised Doctrine of Unconscionability for the Information Age

摘要

著录项

相似文献

相关主题

期刊订阅