SHAPING CODE Jay P. Kesan* & Rajiv C. Shah** I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 4 II. THE CASE STUDIES: THE DEVELOPMENT OF CODE WITHIN INSTITUTIONS.............................. 13 A. World Wide Web......................................................................................................... 14 1. Libwww............................................................................................................ 14 2. NCSA Mosaic .................................................................................................. 16 B. Cookies ........................................................................................................................ 21 1. Netscape’s Cookies .......................................................................................... 21 2. The IETF’s Standard for Cookies .................................................................... 24 C. Platform for Internet Content Selection....................................................................... 28 D. Apache......................................................................................................................... 34 III. LEGISLATIVE BODIES: SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS THAT DEVELOP CODE ................................. 37 A. Universities.................................................................................................................. 38 B. Firms............................................................................................................................ 40 C. Consortia...................................................................................................................... 42 D. Open Source Movement.............................................................................................. 46 IV. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND SPECIAL INTERESTS: INFLUENCES THAT SHAPE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CODE ................................................................................................................ 49 A. Universities.................................................................................................................. 50 B. Firms............................................................................................................................ 53 C. Consortia...................................................................................................................... 55 D. Open Source Movement.............................................................................................. 58 V. LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: MANAGEMENT DECISIONS DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF CODE.... 62 A. Speed of the Development Process ............................................................................. 62 B. Decision-Making Process............................................................................................ 65 1 1. Universities....................................................................................................... 66 2. Firms................................................................................................................. 67 3. Consortia ..........................................................................................................67 4. Open Source Movement................................................................................... 69 C. Dissemination of Code ................................................................................................ 71 VI. THE FINAL BILL: ATTRIBUTES OF THE FINAL IMPLEMENTATION ........................................... 73 A. Open Standards............................................................................................................ 73 B. Intellectual Property Protection................................................................................... 78 1. Universities....................................................................................................... 78 2. Firms................................................................................................................. 80 3. Consortia ..........................................................................................................80 4. Open Source Movement................................................................................... 81 C. Open Source Code....................................................................................................... 82 D. Quality of Code ........................................................................................................... 84 E. Marketing and Customer Support................................................................................ 88 1. Marketing ......................................................................................................... 88 2. User-Friendly Code.......................................................................................... 90 3. Documentation ................................................................................................. 91 4. Technical Support ............................................................................................ 92 F. Social Values in Code.................................................................................................. 93 1. Universities....................................................................................................... 94 2. Firms................................................................................................................. 94 3. Consortia ..........................................................................................................98 4. Open Source Movement................................................................................. 100 5. Privacy as an Illustration of Institutional Differences.................................... 101 VII. ENSURING PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY: HOW SOCIETY CAN SHAPE CODE........................... 103 A. Shaping Code Through Regulatory Methods............................................................ 105 1. Prohibiting Code ............................................................................................106 2. Setting Standards: The Command and Control Approach............................ 111 a. Technology-Forcing ........................................................................... 113 i. Regulatory Considerations...................................................... 113 ii. Code-Based, Technology-Forcing Regulation....................... 118 b. Methods of Standards Regulation ...................................................... 120 3. Using Market-Based Regulation .................................................................... 122 a. Taxes................................................................................................... 123 b. Marketable Property Rights ............................................................... 127 4. Modifying Liability........................................................................................132 2 a. Product Liability Law......................................................................... 132 b. Contract Law...................................................................................... 137 c. Insurance and Third Party Regulators ................................................ 139 5. Requiring Disclosure...................................................................................... 142 6. Modifying Intellectual Property Rights..........................................................144 a. Revising Intellectual Property Rights.................................................144 b. Patent Pools and Compulsory Licensing............................................147 7. Need for a Comprehensive Regulatory Strategy............................................ 149 B. Shaping Code Through Government Spending......................................................... 151 1. Government Support of Research and Development..................................... 151 a. Funding Basic Research ..................................................................... 152 b. Supporting Mission-Oriented Funding............................................... 154 2. Procuring Code............................................................................................... 158 3. Using Tax Expenditures................................................................................. 168 4. Transferring Intellectual Property to the Private Sector................................. 173 5. Funding Education and Training.................................................................... 179 C. How Public Interest Organizations Can Shape Code ................................................ 182 1. Wielding Political Pressure ............................................................................ 182 2. Informing the Public....................................................................................... 183 3. Participating in the Development of Code ..................................................... 183 4. Supporting the Development of Code............................................................ 184 VIII. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 185 * Associate Professor, College of Law and Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. ** Doctoral Candidate, Institute of Communications Research,