William L. Reynolds Copyright (c) 2011 All rights reserved. http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds Recent documents in William L. Reynolds en-us Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:26:26 PDT 3600 The Supreme Court Rules for the Reporting of Opinions: A Critique http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/46 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/46 Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:17:59 PST William M. Richman et al. Judicial Process Elitism, Expediency, and the New Certiorari: Requiem for the Learned Hand Tradition http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/45 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/45 Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:43:02 PST William M. Richman et al. Judicial Process Robert Leflar, Judicial Process, and Choice of Law http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/44 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/44 Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:43:01 PST William L. Reynolds et al. Conflict of Laws Studying Deck Chairs on the Titanic http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/43 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/43 Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:42:59 PST William L. Reynolds et al. Judicial Process Why Teach International Family Law in Conflicts? http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/42 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/42 Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:12:37 PST [The author] sets forth a challenge to conflicts professors: to teach international family law in their conflict of laws classes. At present, many conflicts professors avoid teaching international family law, in part because the study of this subject is complicated by several statutes addressing particularly difficult issues. Ignorning international family law is unwise, because many United States citizens and lawyers are likely to confront such problems.

]]> William L. Reynolds Conflict of Laws Foreign Law Limited Publication in the Fourth and Sixth Circuits http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/41 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/41 Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:00:41 PST William L. Reynolds et al. Constitutional Law Judicial Process Juridical Cripples: Plurality Opinions in the Supreme Court http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/40 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/40 Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:00:40 PST John F. Davis et al. Constitutional Law Judicial Process The Non-Precedential Precedent - Limited Publication and No-Citation Rules in the United States Courts of Appeals http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/39 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/39 Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:49:12 PST William L. Reynolds et al. Judicial Process The Proper Forum for a Suit: Transnational Forum Non Conveniens and Counter-Suit Injunctions in the Federal Courts http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/38 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/38 Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:41:28 PST William L. Reynolds Judicial Process What Happens When Parties Fail to Prove Foreign Law? http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/37 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/37 Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:41:27 PST William L. Reynolds Foreign Law An Evaluation of Limited Publication in the United States Courts of Appeals: The Price of Reform http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/36 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/36 Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:41:26 PST William L. Reynolds et al. Judicial Process Appellate Justice Bureaucracy and Scholarship http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/35 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/35 Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:46:37 PST William M. Richman et al. Constitutional Law Electronic Contracting Cases 2009-2010 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/34 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/34 Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:28:10 PST This article, our sixth annual survey of electronic contracting cases, discusses the significant electronic contracting cases decided between June 15, 2009 and June 15, 2010. Over the past six years, the law of electronic contracts has matured, and the cases we discuss in this article show this maturation. The survey covers contract formation by the use of shrinkwrap, clickwrap and browsewrap terms, and contract formation by the exchange of e-mail messages.

]]> Juliet M. Moringiello et al. Contracts Cyberspace Law What’s Software Got to Do with it? The ALI Principles of the Law of Software Contracts http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/33 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/33 Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:28:08 PST In May, 2009, the American Law Institute (“ALI”) approved its Principles of the Law of Software Contracts (“Principles”). The attempt to codify, or at least unify, the law of software contracts has a long and contentious history, the roots of which can be found in the attempt to add an Article 2B to the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) in the mid-1990s. Article 2B became the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (“UCITA”) when the ALI withdrew from the project in 1999, and UCITA became the law in only two states, Virginia and Maryland. UCITA became a dirty word, with several states enacting “bomb shelter” provisions to ensure that UCITA would never enter those states by way of a choice of law clause. Although the Principles were conceived, in part, as a counterweight to UCITA, the latter was dead in the water by the time the Principles project became active. Nevertheless, the Principles project proceeded apace. This Article examines the results of that decision.

The proponents of efforts to formulate a body of law for software contracts tend to insist that such a body of law is necessary because software transfers, as transfers of copies of information, are different from transfers of goods, and these differences make the common law of contracts and Article 2 of the UCC inappropriate bodies of law to govern software contracts. The ALI Principles constitute the latest attempt at such unification, and in this article, we argue that there is little in the Principles that addresses any unique characteristics of software. Neither one of us was involved in the Article 2B/UCITA project, so we approach this problem by looking at the law as it existed at the time the Principles project started instead of looking at the law at the time Article 2B was conceived.

]]> Juliet M. Moringiello et al. Contracts Tributes to Professor Alan Hornstein http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/32 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/32 Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:28:07 PST Tributes to Professor Alan Hornstein upon his retirement from the University of Maryland School of Law.

]]> David S. Bogen et al. Tribute The Straight-Line Method of Determining Personal Jurisdiction http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/31 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/31 Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:28:06 PST John M. Brumbaugh et al. Judicial Process Legal Process and the Past of Antitrust http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/30 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/30 Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:28:04 PST William L. Reynolds et al. Antitrust Law Prologomenon to an Empirical Restatement of Conflicts http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/29 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/29 Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:28:02 PST William M. Richman et al. Conflict of Laws Back to the Future in Law Schools http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/28 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/28 Wed, 02 Feb 2011 13:12:01 PST William L. Reynolds Legal Education What's Software Got To Do With It? The ALI Principles of the Law of Software Contracting http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/26 http://works.bepress.com/william_reynolds/26 Mon, 15 Mar 2010 06:47:16 PDT In May, 2009, the American Law Institute (“ALI”) approved its Principles of the Law of Software Contracts (“Principles”). The attempt to codify, or at least unify, the law of software contracts has a long and contentious history, the roots of which can be found in the attempt to add an Article 2B to the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) in the mid-1990s. Article 2B became the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (“UCITA”) when the ALI withdrew from the project in 1999, and UCITA became the law in only two states, Virginia and Maryland. UCITA became a dirty word, with several states enacting “bomb shelter” provisions to ensure that UCITA would never enter those states by way of a choice of law clause. Although the Principles were conceived, in part, as a counterweight to UCITA, the latter was dead in the water by the time the Principles project became active. Nevertheless, the Principles project proceeded apace. This Article examines the results of that decision.

The proponents of efforts to formulate a body of law for software contracts tend to insist that such a body of law is necessary because software transfers, as transfers of copies of information, are different from transfers of goods, and these differences make the common law of contracts and Article 2 of the UCC inappropriate bodies of law to govern software contracts. The ALI Principles constitute the latest attempt at such unification, and in this article, we argue that there is little in the Principles that addresses any unique characteristics of software. Neither one of us was involved in the Article 2B/UCITA project, so we approach this problem by looking at the law as it existed at the time the Principles project started instead of looking at the law at the time Article 2B was conceived

]]> Juliet M. Moringiello et al. Cyberspace Law