Advertisement

Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 321–333 | Cite as

Legal complicance by design: technical solutions for future distributed electronic markets

  • Michael Conrad
  • Christian Funk
  • Oliver Raabe
  • Oliver P. Waldhorst
Article

Abstract

A novel challenge for Internet-based electronic market platforms constitutes trading of short-lived or non-material goods (e.g., electrical power, bandwidth-on- demand). In such a scenario, distributed market platforms are superior to centralized market platforms in many respects, e.g., because of lower transaction costs, more flexible options for contract negotiations, scalability, and robustness. However, they lack legal certainty since they are not operated by a trusted third party. This paper discuses how the SESAM framework for distributed electronic markets provides legal certainty conforming to European regulations based on three building blocks: First, it models juristic expertise as a formal workflow. Second, it includes a legal advisor consulting the users that are often legal laities. Third, it provides provableness and verifiability. Besides other mechanisms, the last building block comprises a novel solution for adducing the reception of electronic documents in a distributed setting. The real life example of trading energy on an electronic market platform is used to illustrate the interworking of all building blocks.

Keywords

Legal compliance Law formalisation Automatic contract conclusion Peer-to-peer marketplace Authentic legal declarations Reliable evidence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bohrer, A. (2003). Entwicklung eines internetgestützten Expertensystems zur Prüfung des Anwendungsbereiches urheberrechtlicher Abkommen. Kassel University Press. ISBN 3-89958-024-9.Google Scholar
  2. Conrad, M. (2006). Non-repudiation mechanisms for peer-to-peer networks. In CoNext 2006, 2nd Conference on Future Networking Technologies, 4–7 December 2006, Lisboa, Portugal, pp. 249–250.Google Scholar
  3. Conrad, M., Dinger, J., Hartenstein, H., Rolli, D., Schöller, M., & Zitterbart, M. (2005). A peer-to-peer framework for electronic markets (Vol. 3485). Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Conrad, M., Funk, C., Raabe, O., & Waldhorst, O. (2007). A lawful framework for distributed electronic markets. In Proc. 8th IFIP Working Conf. on Virtual Enterprises, Guimaraes, Portugal, pp. 233–240.Google Scholar
  5. Dabek, F., Zhao, B., Druschel, P., Kubiatowicz, J., & Stoica, I. (2003). Towards a common API for structured peer-to-peer overlays. In 2nd Int. Workshop on P2P Systems.Google Scholar
  6. Dinger, J., Raabe, O., & Hartenstein, H. (2006). A techno-legal perspective on peer-to-peer-based bandwidth on demand management. In Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Workshop on Bandwidth on Demand (BoD 2006), San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 73–80.Google Scholar
  7. Eßer A., Raabe O., Rolli D., Schöller M. (2006) Eine sichere verteilte Marktplattform für zukunftsfähige Energiesysteme. Information Technology 04: 187–192Google Scholar
  8. Gerke, J., & Stiller, B. (2005). A service-oriented peer-to-peer middleware. In P. Müller, R. Gotzhein, & J. B. Schmitt (Eds.), KiVS, Informatik Aktuell (pp. 3–15). Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Hausheer, D. (2006). PeerMart: Secure decentralized pricing and accounting for peer-to-peer systems. Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag. ISBN 3-8322-4969-9.Google Scholar
  10. Larenz, K. (1991). Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft (6th ed.). Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Maedche A., Motik B., Stojanovic L. (2003) Managing multiple and distributed ontologies in the semantic web. The VLDB Journal, 12(4): 286–302. doi: 10.1007/s00778-003-0102-4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mitra, N., & Lafon, Y. (2003). SOAP version 1.2. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium.Google Scholar
  13. Raabe, O., & Dinger, J. (2007). Telemedienrechtliche Informationspflichten in P2P-Overlay-Netzen und bei Web-Services. Computer und Recht (C&R), 12, 791–797.Google Scholar
  14. Ripeanu, M. (2001). Peer-to-peer architecture case study: Gnutella network.Google Scholar
  15. Rolli, D., Conrad, M., Neumann, D., & Sorge, C. (2005). An asynchronous and secure ascending peer-to-peer auction. In P2PECON (pp. 105–110) . New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  16. Rolli, D., Neumann, D., & Weinhardt, D. (2004). A minimal market model in ephemeral markets. In Proc. The Form EMC 2004, Toledo, Spain.Google Scholar
  17. Schifanella, R. (2006). A legal and efficent peer-to-peer market place: Exploting fairness and social relationships. Computer Science Department, University of Torino.Google Scholar
  18. Senn, A., Schweighofer, E., Liebwald, D., Geist, A., & Drachsler, M. (2006). Erfahrungen und Herausforderungen bei der Weiterentwick-lung multilingualer Rechtsontologien. In e-Staat und e-Wirtschaft aus rechtlicher Sicht, Tagungsband des 9. Internationalen Rechtsinformatik Symposions IRIS 2006, Stuttgart, pp. 290–295.Google Scholar
  19. Stoica, I., Morris, R., Karger, D., Kaashoek, M.F., & Balakrishnan, H. (2001). Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for internet applications. In SIGCOMM’01, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Vishnumurthy, V., Chandrakumar, S., & Sirer, E. (2003). KARMA: A secure economic framework for peer-to-peer resource sharing. Workshop on the economics of peer-to-peer systems 2003, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Conrad
    • 1
  • Christian Funk
    • 2
  • Oliver Raabe
    • 2
  • Oliver P. Waldhorst
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of TelematicsUniversität Karlsruhe (TH)KarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Information LawUniversität Karlsruhe (TH)KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations