Two significant legal developments during the past week illustrate the growing impact of advancing technologies in the lives of workers and consumers. Unfortunately, these events also reveal that fundamental decisions regarding the future/fate of new technologies and the evolved business models they enable have been placed in the hands of the least competent group to make them.
The titanic battles that have been waged between major corporations in the world of technology in the past have typically revolved around intellectual property issues. These battles were fought over the intricate and difficult-to-understand rules of patent law (different in each country) and only those with a significant personal or financial interest were motivated to invest the time necessary to untangle the arguments and counter-arguments of this specialized area of the law. Hence, outside of a fairly small circle of interest, these major battles were relatively invisible to the common citizen.
Even though technology has been reshaping our lives at an ever increasing pace, the level of legal and political involvement has been relatively balanced with other factors driving new markets and industries. Most legal skirmishes between the world of technology and other industries and interests have involved environmental and trade issues. However, the latest headlines show that core issues related to the impact of technology and new business models on fundamental areas such as privacy, security and job security are opening the door for powerful forces from the political and legal world to dictate at least the near-term opportunities for new technologies.
The first headline comes from California, home of Silicon Valley, with the passage by the state legislature of SB 142. This bill would prohibit flight by drones within airspace up to 350 feet above private property unless the property owners in question gave “express permission” for the vehicle to hover over the area. All reasonable people would agree that regulations and safeguards need to be implemented to deal with the craziness of drones flying into the airspace of all types of air traffic and over public venues where public safety is placed at risk. These regulations are already being formulated in the US by the appropriate agency, the Federal Aviation Administrations (FAA). The California bill was clearly driven by specific special interests without any appropriate level of review and input from the broader population and other interested parties. California is home to many of the leading companies in the development of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or drones. This bill threatened the ability of these companies to continue business in California. Only the veto of Governor Jerry Brown prevented this bill from becoming law and essentially ending any development of products or businesses in California based on drone technology. This is a high-profile example of politicians inserting themselves in making vital decisions that will dictate future markets and businesses related to drones. Other states and countries are grappling with similar issues.
Another development in California regarding legal action against Uber is the second notable headline of the past week. Judge Edward Chen granted class action status to a lawsuit against Uber demanding that its drivers be classified as employees (with all of the mandated benefits and regulations) rather than independent contractors. In a related development, California’s unemployment agency found an Uber driver was eligible for unemployment benefits. Uber is one of the world’s most promising young companies and billions of dollars are potentially at stake in this lawsuit. On the other hand, the new business model also represents a threat to the status quo of many workers in the taxi industry and could be trend setting for how technology could displace workers in other industries. This is a challenge as old has technology itself but the forces to opposes the changes that could be wrought by technology are at a very high, if not peak, level.
Vital and fundamental questions that will determine the future of products and businesses driven by exciting new technologies are being placed in the hands of the most incompetent group possible – politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers. The types of decisions to be made will draw in powerful special interest groups who have great skill at manipulating political and legal decision makers. This raises an important question – Is the “technology industry” prepared to advance its interests and defend its businesses in this high-stakes battle?
Various industry organizations have accomplished important success in areas such as trade negotiations but their impact in other key legal areas could be questioned. Individual companies and small consortia have come together in some areas to support their causes in the political/legal arena but it seems that they are outmatched by other groups that bring much more experience, money and influence to the game. From my point of view I question whether the focused and organized investment needed by the “technology industry” as a group is in place or is being developed to contend with the powerful forces arrayed against it. As the quip goes, it may be guilty of “bringing a knife to a gunfight.”
Dale Ford is the Vice President of Thought Leadership for IHS Technology
Posted on 11 September 2015