Codes and the Law, 38,000 Potential DUI Charges May Be Dropped

Deven Desai

Deven Desai is an associate professor of law and ethics at the Scheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology. He was also the first, and to date, only Academic Research Counsel at Google, Inc., and a Visiting Fellow at Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology Policy. He is a graduate of U.C. Berkeley and the Yale Law School. Professor Desai’s scholarship examines how business interests, new technology, and economic theories shape privacy and intellectual property law and where those arguments explain productivity or where they fail to capture society’s interest in the free flow of information and development. His work has appeared in leading law reviews and journals including the Georgetown Law Journal, Minnesota Law Review, Notre Dame Law Review, Wisconsin Law Review, and U.C. Davis Law Review.

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. If CMI competitors routinely make the code available, then why weren’t any of those other firms used in the first place? that’d be my argument.


  2. Deven says:

    Right. Minnesota may have made a poor choice or did not have good information. BUT the contract seems to take this issue into account. For all one knows, Minnesota brought the issue up, the contract (per the judge) gives Minnesota the code it needs, and now CMI might be ignoring the contract. To your point, maybe Minnesota never should have believed the deal. But giving the state some credit, they seem to have entered a contract that allowed them to have what they needed. If so and the price was better than others, great. But if Minnesota had other bidders (assuming others were bidding on the contract), and they offered essentially the same quality, price, and had a history of giving the code, Minnesota may have made a poor choice. Deals move fast and mistakes are made, but here it seems that at least the contract spoke to Minnesota’s concern.