Long ago and far away, about the time that Al Gore invented the Internet, I decided that I would cover developing legal issues pertaining to the Internet. Soon thereafter, I was commissioned to write a treatise on Internet law.

I subsequently awoke from months of toil, having written nine out of twelve contemplated chapters. When I looked over the completed chapters, I realized that they already were obsolete. Indeed, the effort to capture the status of the intersection of law and information technology was much like trying to board a moving bus, or like trying to nail ever-changing jello to the wall.

The Internet was developing at warp speed, and the law was struggling to keep up. It became clear that my attempt to lock down many diverse Cyberlaw issues in treatise form could become a never-ending dog-chasing-tail futile exercise.

I thus abandoned the treatise concept and from its ashes was born this weekly Cyberlaw column. A column afforded the opportunity to cover an isolated and fast-breaking issue on a weekly basis, while it was fresh and emerging.

I did not realize when I started writing this column more than six years ago, that it would live on with continued vitality. In the back of my mind, I suspected that notwithstanding further Internet legal developments, at some point subtopics worthy of coverage would be exhausted. Yet, while, I have written more than 300 columns covering a wide spectrum of legal issues that crop up on the information superhighway, this column remains strong, and there continues to be much to write about.

When this column first began, we were back in the days of Y2K. Remember, Y2K? The world supposedly was going to come to an end. I was not persuaded and was not terribly interested in that subject. Instead, I started writing about Internet privacy issues. Some of my colleagues at the time told me that privacy was a nice academic, ivory tower issue, but that it had no application in the real world. Not! As time has proven, good privacy means good business practices and better profitability. Bad privacy ultimately equals less business deals and potential litigation.

At the start, the courts were attempting to develop rules for personal jurisdiction — what type of conduct on the Internet could cause someone to be hauled into court in a distant jurisdiction. Those rules continue to be mapped out.

We still are facing complicated issues, like we were at the beginning, involving Internet speech and anonymity, online trademark and copyright issues, spam, file-sharing, computer crime, and the list goes on and on. As the factual patterns change, as with evolving information technology, so the law must try to keep pace.

So, even with more than 300 columns under my belt, there are many more to come. And given that I practice law in this fertile area, at this rate, I hopefully should be able to send my kids to college. Of course, by that time, perhaps they will want to attend a virtual college.

Biography

Eric Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris. His focus includes information technology and intellectual property disputes. To receive his weekly columns, send an e-mail to with the word "Subscribe" in the subject line.

Disclaimer: This column is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author's law firm or its individual partners.

Reprinted with permission of Findlaw.com