the Internet environment poses unusual pressures on the common law system and never experienced before. By reducing significantly the cost of receiving and a special challenge to the courts. Its new technology has offered a global outre disseminating information the internet has shifted benefits. costs and disadvantages Through the Internet we can conclude transactions more efficiently, and that is good, but our personal information is more easily accessible, forged and stolen. Knowledge and enriching materials are at anyone's fingertips, but so are hate speech and fraudulent securities offerings. The reach of web sites is global and this is good but that can subject everyone who disseminates information on the web to the blanket jurisdiction of courts every where, undermining the current limits on personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Further, cyber touching almost all areas of life. It is increasingly difficult to escape it. As it becomes more inhabited, those outside the space will lead the existence of exiles To those who suggest that the common law has lost its vitality, Internet jurisprudence offers a powerful rebuttal. United States courts have demonstrated the viability and strength of the common law. Internet issues have also highlighted the common law's limitations, shown in part by the legislative initiatives in this area. But the story does not end with legislation. The need for interpretation paves the way back to the courts, and on occasion ricochets back to the legislature. Internet cases demonstrate vividly not only how the common law works but also how the courts and the legislatures interact My talk will focus on the following questions First, are we witnessing the emergence of the Law of the Internet "or "Cyberlaw? "I believe that we are not. But there are few exceptions Second how do the courts address issues that involve the internet? l suggest that usually there is nothing new in their approach. They resort to precedents as they traditionally have, and use somewhat different choices of analogies, as they traditionally have Courts may err in how they view the Internet. While the technical aspects of the system-the code and protocols-are identical in all respects, the impact of the Internet on various aspects of our lives may differ greatly. A code-based rule may bri must later be corrected. I will tell a number of stories as examples of these propositions Third, are there cases demonstrating the common law's limitation? I believe there are. These limitations will be demonstrated by cases concerning domain names and trademarks between private and public spheres of intellectual property. It exposes copyright holders to far more losses than before. However, self-protecting contracts by copyright owners pits contract freedom and copyright entitlements against the public sphere of intellectual property and United States constitutional rig 22 the Internet environment poses unusual pressures on the common law system and a special challenge to the courts. Its new technology has offered a global outreach never experienced before. By reducing significantly the cost of receiving and disseminating information the Internet has shifted benefits, costs, and disadvantages. Through the Internet we can conclude transactions more efficiently, and that is good, but our personal information is more easily accessible, forged and stolen. Knowledge and enriching materials are at anyone’s fingertips, but so are hate speech and fraudulent securities offerings. The reach of web sites is global, and this is good, but that can subject everyone who disseminates information on the web to the blanket jurisdiction of courts everywhere, undermining the current limits on personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Further, cyberspace is touching almost all areas of life. It is increasingly difficult to escape it. As it becomes more inhabited, those outside the space will lead the existence of exiles. To those who suggest that the common law has lost its vitality, Internet jurisprudence offers a powerful rebuttal. United States courts have demonstrated the viability and strength of the common law. Internet issues have also highlighted the common law’s limitations, shown in part by the legislative initiatives in this area. But the story does not end with legislation. The need for interpretation paves the way back to the courts, and on occasion ricochets back to the legislature. Internet cases demonstrate vividly not only how the common law works, but also how the courts and the legislatures interact. My talk will focus on the following questions: First, are we witnessing the emergence of the “Law of the Internet” or “Cyberlaw?” I believe that we are not. But there are few exceptions. Second, how do the courts address issues that involve the Internet? I suggest that usually there is nothing new in their approach. They resort to precedents as they traditionally have, and use somewhat different choices of analogies, as they traditionally have. Courts may err in how they view the Internet. While the technical aspects of the system – the code and protocols – are identical in all respects, the impact of the Internet on various aspects of our lives may differ greatly. A code-based rule may bring unacceptable consequences that must later be corrected. I will tell a number of stories as examples of these propositions. Third, are there cases demonstrating the common law’s limitation? I believe there are. These limitations will be demonstrated by cases concerning domain names and trademarks. between private and public spheres of intellectual property. It exposes copyright holders to far more losses than before. However, self-protecting contracts by copyright owners pits contract freedom and copyright entitlements against the public sphere of intellectual property and United States constitutional rights