As a legal tech community, 2018 saw an increase in numbers, interest, events as well as legal instruments.

Below is a glimpse of our top three.

Data Protection

Data Protection and Privacy was at the helm of our conversations as our Legal Hackers community engaged in stakeholder consultations for both Kenya Data Protection Bills. From the Senate as well as from the National Assembly.

Our Co – organizer also presented a lightning talk on the cost of social media and customer service delivery at the annual Forum on Internet Freedoms in Africa.

Blockchain and Emerging Technologies

As a chapter, we partnered with other Legal Hackers chapters to host the Computational Law and Blockchain Festival 2018 which was a success. We had amazing partners on the ground including Bithub Africa, Hiil, Uwakili the DIY Law platform, the Strathmore Centre of Intellectual Property and ICT Law, Kenya ICT Action Network and the leading tech blog Techweez.

We also had an opportunity to discuss several emerging technologies as well as a session on blockchain in partnership with the Moringa School through a series dubbed ‘Tech Lex 101’ over several months.

We got Lawyers to learn how to code!

Writing code has been on my personal to do list for a while. Turns out I wasn’t alone!

In 2018, we partnered with the amazing Start Up Africa’s Talking and had a class of 20 lawyers learning how to code in python! This is my personal highlight

We’ve put together the key legal instrument highlights for the year. You can access the full article here.

As a chapter, we look forward to delivering three things this year.

Growth, Impact and Relevance for our partners, members and co – chapters.

Have a prosperous 2019!

Our Legal Hackers Global team was featured on Forbes in an article penned by Valentin Pivovarov, a Contributor on Forbes who writes about legal tech and how it is changing access to justice. He is also an Organizer of on of our European Chapters, Kyiv Legal Hackers.

In the insightful artice, Valentin speaks of the beginnings of the Hacker culture. He demystifies the long held concept on the ‘evil’ perceived nature of hackers. He states, ‘… Despite the fact that the media perceived ‘hackers’ as associated with harm, there have always been those who seek to do no harm. These hackers practice ‘white hat’ ethical hacking.’

He elaborately discusses the concept of Legal Hacking stating that. ‘There are also some different types of hacking, and one of the most popular and fast-growing is legal hacking. It means that lawyers are using technologies to solve legal problems and optimize their work process on the one side, and people are using technologies to solve their own legal problems on the other.’

Today, Legal Hackers chapters have spread to all continents and exist in 110 cities in the world. Every year, the community gathers more and more people from all over the world.

Ours is an open and collaborative community of individuals passionate about exploring and building creative solutions to some of the most pressing issues at the intersection of law and technology. Our Nairobi Chapter was the first to be established in Africa in 2016, through which we have actively been engaged in the growth and development of the Silicon Savannah.

Read More Here

It has been announced in the local dailies that the body responsible for granting all rights in Industrial Property including Trademarks, The Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI) has issued a Certificate of Trademark Registration to the former President for the name ‘KABARAK’.

From the news reports it is not evident if the mark was just the name or logos or servicemarks of all the institutions and service providing – entities managed and operated under the group.

According to the Trademarks Act, CAP 506 of Kenya, a “mark” includes a distinguishing guise, slogan, device, brand,
heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter or numeral or any combination thereof whether rendered in two-dimensional or three – dimensional form.

Kabarak, which in Kalenjin means high or elevated, is in Rongai constituency in Nakuru. Kabarak is 22 kilometers from Nakuru town. The former President owns Kabarak High School, university and farms in the region.

According to the monhtly publication – Industrial Property Journal, Mr Moi applied for registration of the trademark for 45 classes in 2016 and was granted the registration certificates having no oppositions raised.

According to an interview reported by the Daily Nation,  KIPI Managing Director Sylvance Sange said it is possible to register the name of a location. They quote –

“… One can register a geographical name so long as it has acquired distinctiveness with respect to the goods or services it is used in relation to and the goods/services are actually produced or offered in that geographic location,”

But the MD said KIPI can reject registration of a geographical name if it is an original geographical name. In such a case, the applicant must sign a disclaimer.

“This means that upon registration of the mark, the applicant shall not prevent others from using the mark apart from the distinctive features, for example, the use of the word Nakuru,” added Mr Sange.

Trademarks in Kenya do not subsist automatically as a form of Intellectual Property and must be registered by the Kenya Industrial Property Institute.

Read More Here and Here

The Supreme Court in the United States of America declined to hear challenges to net neutrality regulations adopted in 2015 by the Federal Communications Commission during the Obama administration.

The superior court upheld the decision made by a federal appeals court from 2016.

The 2015 regulations, which were repealed by the FCC at the end of 2017, had barred broadband providers from blocking websites or charging for higher-quality service or content.

Three members of the Supreme Court — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — said they would have instead vacated the appeals court decision as moot, presumably because the commission reversed itself last year, after a change in its membership.

Neither Chief Justice John Roberts nor new Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh participated in the decision.

The rules adopted under Obama  barred internet service providers from blocking or throttling traffic, or offering paid fast lanes, also known as paid prioritization.

The new rules, which gave internet service providers greater power to regulate the content that customers access, are now the subject of a separate legal fight after being challenged by many of the groups that backed net neutrality.

The net neutrality repeal was a win for providers like Comcast Corp, AT&T Inc and Verizon Communications Inc. It was opposed by internet companies like Facebook Inc, Amazon.com Inc and Alphabet Inc, which said the repeal could lead to higher costs for the consumers.

The high court decision not to throw out the 2016 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling leaves a legal precedent in place that could help net neutrality supporters in any future legal battle if that policy is ever re-introduced.

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers treat all data on the Internet equally, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. (Gilroy)

Kenyan law does not expressly provide for the legal position on Net Neutrality or the adoption of the aformentioned principle. However, the National ICT Policy (proposed) of proved for respect for net neutrality.

The Instrument encouraged for the development of a net neutrality policy by providing:

‘Net neutrality is the principle that all Internet content and applications regardless of the source are treated the same. A net neutrality policy may be developed to ensure fair competition between different content and service providers. However, a blanket open Internet policy could inadvertently undermine key policy objectives such as the promotion of innovation local content production and universal service’

Read More Here, Here and Here

A hearing on the extent of the right to be de-indexed opened on September 10, 2018, in the European Court of Justice (ECJ), following the referral by the French Council of State in July 2017 of questions regarding a case opposing Google and the French CNIL, including whether it should apply beyond the borders of the European Union.

The right to be de-indexed originated from a 2014 ruling by the European Court of Justice. In 2014 the court ruled search engines must respect Europeans’ privacy rights, and — on request — remove erroneous, irrelevant and/or outdated information about a private citizen.

From the decision, Google complied with the law through applying delistings on local domains in the EU states but not across Google.com. The particular case opposing the French CNIL and Google dates from June 2015, and has been appealed by Google in May 2016.

The case concerns whether search engines should have to remove reference to any sensitive personal information about individuals which would represent a significant expansion if granted.

The key argument on this case is that the current right to delist is not absolute; the rtbf only applies to private individuals, not to public figures (e.g. politicians and journalists); and also only applies where the information in question is outdated or irrelevant. So it is bounded and balanced, and absolutely does not apply to every individual and every piece of sensitive personal data.

The current implementation of the rtbf also means Google must review requests, to balance the public right to know against individual privacy rights.

The CNIL argues that global removal is necessary for the right to be de-indexed to be effective, while Google, civil society organizations and the EU Commission have contested this extraterritorial interpretation of the right to be de-indexed, highlighting the impact it would have on the right to access lawful information.

Read More here 

Source: Internet and Jurisdiction – September in Retrospect

On September 13, 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice referred a case over whether YouTube can be held as liable for hosting copyright-infringing videos to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

In 2015, a lower German court ruled that YouTube had a duty to ensure that rights violations were stopped upon notice, but did not order the platform to pay any financial compensation. In its referral, the German Federal Court of Justice asked whether a platform making user-uploaded copyright-infringing content available constitutes a “communication to the public” as defined under EU regulations.

In June 2018, the Commercial Court in Vienna, Austria, had issued a preliminary ruling, holding that YouTube can be liable for hosting copyright-infringing videos, even if the platform maintains a process for copyright holders to issue takedown notices.

Source: Internet and Jurisdiction – September in Retrospect

On September 12, 2018, the European Parliament approved amendments to the Copyright Directive, and voted to begin negotiations between with the European Commission and EU Council.

The vote came after the Parliament rejected a first version of the Directive on July 5, 2018.

The Copyright Directive has been widely commented on, particularly for its Article 13, which would introduce the requirement for internet platforms to establish upload filters to ensure that copyright-infringing content is not made available online, and Article 11, which would require internet platforms to agree with publishers of press publications on a fee to display snippets of news articles.

Source: Internet and Jurisdiction – September in Retrospect

A patent suit between IBM and Groupon that has been underway for over two years has finally been settled.

IBM sued Groupon alleging violation of four of its duly protected patents.

The two companies announced that Groupon will pay IBM $57 million both to settle infringement claims as well as to license e-commerce patents from IBM in the future. On IBM’s side, the company said it will “consider” offering Groupon products to employees as part of the company’s corporate benefits package.

The $57 million is a fair bit lower than the initial $83 million that IBM was awarded when it won the case against Groupon in July, and significantly lower than the $167 million that it originally asked for in damages.

Groupon had always argued that it wasn’t guilty because it believed the patents that were in question were too old, and so in July it said it would consider appealing or applying for a lower sum (which it appears to have achieved).

IBM made nearly $1.2 billion in intellectual property licensing and royalties in 2017 according to its annual report. Notably, this was down about 14 percent from 2016’s $1.4 billion.

IBM’s general manager of intellectual property, said in a statement, that the deal demonstrates the value of the intellectual property the company derives from its annual investment of more than $5 billion in research and development.

The case was closely watched in the technology industry because it offered a glimpse into IBM’s efforts to license its large patent portfolio to other companies.

Of interest highpointing the importance of IP in the tech industry is that, ‘An IBM licensing executive testified that Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet, Google, LinkedIn and Twitter have each paid IBM $20 million to $50 million as part of cross-licensing deals that gave them access to the patent portfolio.

Read More Here and Here

Our NBO Legal Hackers team was at the Hiil Innovating Justice Conference hosted by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Hague Institute for Innovation of Law (HiiL) in Nairobi.

The Nairobi Innovating Justice Conference is one of six global gatherings that bring together entrepreneurs, academia, corporates and others to discuss and showcase innovations improving access to justice. This year’s gathering featured strategic partnerships with the Thomson Reuters Foundation, Liquid Telecom, GIZ (the German development agency), KICTANet, GJLOS, Nairobi Legal Hackers, the Advocacy Accelerator and many more.

 

Seven justice start-ups from the region showcased a series of pitches of several tech – based solutions which can empower citizens to access justice faster and more efficiently in East Africa. These were the Pitching Startups:

  • Btrack Global: Btrack Global enables motorcyclists to track their motorcycles through the use of phones, to make them easily recoverable after they have been stolen.
  • Uliza Wakili LLP: Uliza Wakili LLP provides cheap means of alternative dispute resolution to SMEs and startups.
  • Wakili Mkononi: Wakili Mkononi is a social enterprise, that offers legal aid services and legal networking services on a digital platform.
  • WASILIANAHUB: WASILIANAHUB is the first collaborative online & mobile tech-justice marketplace, building Africa’s largest Certified Professional Mediators portal for the advancement of Africa’s mediation practice. Professional help is ensured, helping to save time, money & heartache.
  • iCourtroom: iCourtroom acts as a repository of wildlife crime data, tailored to do analysis of the cases and serves as a measure of law enforcement efficacy.
  • Viamo: In Rwanda Viamo is developing information on access to justice that will be made available on demand in pre-recorded audio and text, on a toll-free mobile service under the shortcode 845, supported by MTN; and
  • Nusu Hub: Jumuiya Attorney is a marketplace that enables people from low income and rural areas of Tanzania to hire legal professionals, all of whom are pre-screened and vetted.

 

Our Co – Organizer Rosemary Koech – Kimwatu was a judge on the panel determining the winner of the Competition. She served alongside Ali Hussein Kassim – Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet), Agnes Wairegi of Thompson Reuters and Andrew Buluma of GIZ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was a Panel on Justice Across Borders: How to Scale Solutions with representatives from GJLOS, the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission and Justice Kairu of the Judiciary’s Court of Appeal.

Of interest on this panel was the solutions which Justice Kairu indicated the judiciary was using and proposed to enhance access to justice.

These include the  e – filing system currently rolled out in the Commercial and Tax Division at Milimani Law courts. The intention to introduce an e-service system for service to respondents. Proposal to adopt the speech to text proceedings in order to relieve judicial officers from long hand writing of court proceedings. Implementation of a client – facing support  system to be sent to court users informing them of the status of the matters and an Application to have interaction between clients and the court registry especially where advocates fail to apprise clients accordingly.

The HiiL Justice Accelerator is part of the Hague Institute for Innovation of Law. HiiL’s goal is helping 150 million people prevent or resolve their most pressing justice needs by 2030. The Innovating Justice Challenge has been the world’s foremost search for justice innovations since 2012. Each year hundreds of justice innovations apply, and between 15-20 will be selected for grant funding, justice expertise and networking, and mentorship.

The winners of the pitch competition were: 1st Place – Btrack Global,  2nd Place – Viamo, 3rd Place Wakili Mkononi who also scooped the Audience Award.

Our team at NBO Legal Hackers will be attending the fifth edition of the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica).

The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) in partnership with the Media Foundation West Africa (MFWA) will host the meeting which will take place on September 26–28, 2018 at  La Palm Royal Beach Resort Accra, Ghana.

The Forum is a landmark event that convenes various stakeholders from the internet governance and online rights arenas in Africa and beyond to deliberate on gaps, concerns and opportunities for advancing privacy, access to information, free expression, non-discrimination and the free flow of information online on the continent.

Our Co – Organizer June Okal will be speaking at the forum. She will present a Lightning Talk themed, ‘Customer Service at What Cost?

This session intends to break down and assess the data protection concerns arising from the new form of digital consumer and customer care service provision. The impact of use of social media and other digital tools as a platform for brands to engage with consumers vis a vis the mishandling of private data subject information. The intended outcome is first to raise awareness on the phenomena, highlight the risks using previous case studies and to develop an ideal standard of engagement on such platforms embracing the data protection principles

Read more here

You can also access the Agenda for the Meeting here

We shall share all ongoings and vision for Internet Freedom in Africa on our TwitterHandle  using #InternetFreedomAfrica, our global Community Hashtag #Legalhack and the official event hashtag #FIFAfrica18

PC: African Freedom of Expression Exchange