The Legal Empowerment Blog What you need to know On December 23, 2024, President Joe Biden signed the bipartisan Source Code Harmonization And Reuse in Information Technology (SHARE IT) Act (H.R. 9566) into law, marking a pivotal step in modernizing the U.S. government’s approach to software development and procurement. Sponsored by Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Gary Peters (D-Mich.) in the Senate, and Representatives Nicholas Langworthy (R-N.Y.) and William Timmons (R-S.C.) in the House, the legislation aims to tackle inefficiencies and excessive spending in the federal software acquisition process. Key Provisions of the SHARE IT Act The SHARE IT Act mandates federal agencies to share custom-developed software code with one another, addressing the inefficiency of duplicative software development. The bill requires: Code Sharing Across Agencies: Custom source code developed for one agency must be accessible to others to avoid redundant development efforts. Public Listing of Metadata: Agencies must create and maintain metadata for custom code, including contract details and repository links. Exemptions: Classified code, national security systems, or software that poses privacy risks is excluded from this mandate. Policy Development by CIOs: Each agency’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) is tasked with creating implementation policies within 180 days of enactment. These policies should: Align custom code with best practices. Ensure metadata is publicly accessible. Establish standardized reporting processes. Addressing Inefficiency and Redundancy The federal government spends approximately $12 billion annually on software purchases, much of which goes toward contracts for code development. However, agencies often unknowingly commission contractors to develop software that another agency has already created. By requiring agencies to share and reuse custom code, the SHARE IT Act aims to reduce such inefficiencies, saving taxpayer dollars while fostering innovation and collaboration. Industry and Legislative Support The legislation garnered strong bipartisan support in Congress and backing from the software industry. Companies like Atlassian and GitLab praised the bill’s emphasis on collaboration and efficiency. Atlassian’s general counsel, Stan Shepard, highlighted that code-sharing practices would promote openness and innovation across federal agencies, reflecting a broader trend of adopting collaborative tools and practices in government operations. Challenges and Limitations While the SHARE IT Act promises to enhance efficiency, its implementation may face hurdles: Coordination Between Agencies: Agencies must overcome siloed operations and establish mechanisms for seamless code sharing. Privacy and Security Concerns: Although the law exempts classified and sensitive code, the risk of inadvertent exposure or misuse of shared code remains a concern. Standardization: Developing uniform standards for metadata and repository management across diverse agencies could prove complex. Broader Implications The SHARE IT Act reflects a growing recognition of the value of transparency and collaboration in federal IT systems. By streamlining software development and procurement, the law aligns with broader goals of digital transformation in government. The potential savings could be redirected toward critical priorities such as cybersecurity, infrastructure upgrades, and citizen-facing services. Moreover, the Act positions the federal government to serve as a model of efficiency and innovation, demonstrating how leveraging open-source principles can drive meaningful change in large organizations. Conclusion The SHARE IT Act represents a significant step forward in addressing inefficiencies and reducing waste in federal software development. By mandating code sharing and reuse among agencies, the law fosters transparency, collaboration, and fiscal responsibility. However, its success will depend on robust implementation, inter-agency coordination, and adherence to security and privacy standards. If executed effectively, the Act could serve as a blueprint for other governments seeking to modernize their IT infrastructure and reduce costs. 

The Legal Empowerment Blog What you need to know South Korea is navigating a critical juncture in its democratic evolution following President Yoon Suk Yeol’s declaration of martial law on December 3 and the subsequent impeachment motion against him. This situation not only reflects the tension between executive authority and constitutional limits but also reveals the resilience and vulnerabilities of South Korea’s political and legal institutions.  The Legal Controversy At the core of the crisis lies the question of whether President Yoon’s declaration of martial law was legally justified. The South Korean constitution grants the president authority to declare martial law during emergencies threatening national security, but this power is bound by strict conditions. The impeachment motion argues that Yoon failed to meet the constitutional threshold for such a drastic measure, citing a lack of clear and present danger. The principle of proportionality is central to this legal debate. Martial law is intended as a last resort, and its application must be both necessary and commensurate with the threat faced. Critics argue that Yoon’s actions were excessive, further eroding public trust in his administration. Parliamentary oversight, enshrined in the constitution, adds another layer of complexity. The legislature’s swift reversal of the martial law order underscores its role as a critical check on executive overreach but also signals a profound governance crisis that requires deeper examination. Political Context and Motivations President Yoon’s tenure since 2022 has been marked by growing opposition, both within parliament and among the broader public. Allegations of corruption, policy missteps, and declining approval ratings have plagued his administration. The declaration of martial law appears to have intensified these divisions rather than stabilizing the situation. While some view the move as an attempt to consolidate power amid political turmoil, others argue it was a genuine but misguided response to perceived threats. Regardless of Yoon’s intentions, the impeachment proceedings are not purely legal; they are deeply political. Both sides are leveraging the crisis to shape public opinion and influence South Korea’s political trajectory. The outcome will undoubtedly set precedents for future administrations, raising important questions about the balance of power and the accountability of the executive branch. Historical and Social Implications South Korea’s history casts a long shadow over the current crisis. Memories of authoritarian rule, including the use of martial law under leaders like Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan, remain vivid. These periods were characterized by human rights abuses and suppression of democratic movements, particularly the tragic Gwangju Uprising of 1980. Against this backdrop, Yoon’s actions have reignited fears of regression toward autocracy. Public protests, which have drawn thousands of demonstrators, reflect not only outrage at the martial law declaration but also a broader mistrust of governmental authority. The demonstrations serve as a powerful reminder of the role civil society plays in safeguarding democracy. They also underscore the enduring impact of South Korea’s struggle for democratic governance, reminding both leaders and institutions of the consequences of overstepping constitutional bounds. Legal Proceedings and Precedents The impeachment process places South Korea’s judiciary at the forefront of this crisis. If the impeachment motion passes in parliament, the Constitutional Court will determine Yoon’s fate. This judicial review will test the strength of South Korea’s legal system and its ability to navigate high-stakes political conflicts. The arrests of officials linked to the martial law decree further complicate the legal landscape. While these actions demonstrate a commitment to accountability, they also risk being perceived as politically motivated. The challenge lies in ensuring that justice is pursued in a manner that upholds the rule of law without exacerbating political polarization. Implications for Democracy and Governance Despite the turmoil, South Korea’s democratic institutions have demonstrated resilience. The parliament’s ability to reverse the martial law order and initiate impeachment proceedings highlights the robustness of its checks and balances. However, the crisis also exposes vulnerabilities, particularly the potential for executive overreach and the fragility of public trust in government. On the international stage, South Korea’s stability is crucial in a region fraught with geopolitical tensions. The internal crisis risks undermining its reputation as a model of democratic development, potentially affecting alliances, trade, and regional security dynamics. Rebuilding trust at home and abroad will require transparency, accountability, and a renewed commitment to democratic principles. Conclusion President Yoon Suk Yeol’s declaration of martial law and the subsequent impeachment proceedings represent a defining moment for South Korean democracy. This crisis challenges the nation to reaffirm its commitment to constitutional governance, the rule of law, and the protection of civil liberties. The outcome of this saga will have profound implications not only for Yoon’s political future but also for the broader trajectory of South Korea’s democracy. As the country navigates this turbulent period, the lessons learned will shape its institutions and inform its approach to governance for generations to come. South Korea’s ability to emerge stronger from this crisis will serve as a testament to the enduring power of democratic resilience

The Legal Empowerment Blog What you need to know Renowned attorney and Stanford University professor Mark Lemley has stepped down from representing Meta Platforms Inc. in a significant copyright lawsuit, citing profound ethical concerns regarding CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s recent actions. In a LinkedIn post, Lemley accused Zuckerberg of embracing “toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness,” a stance he found irreconcilable with his professional values. Background of Lemley’s Departure Lemley, a celebrated intellectual property (IP) scholar and director of Stanford Law’s program in law, science, and technology, stated that while he still believes Meta is “on the right side” of the ongoing generative AI copyright dispute, he could “no longer in good conscience” serve as their attorney. This decision follows controversial moves by Zuckerberg, including terminating diversity initiatives and fact-checking on Facebook, and promoting the supposed benefits of “masculine energy.” In light of Lemley’s withdrawal, Meta’s defense will now be handled by attorneys from Cooley LLP and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton. The Generative AI Copyright Dispute The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, centers on whether AI companies infringe copyright law by training their models on copyrighted materials without compensation. The plaintiffs, including comedian Sarah Silverman, author Ta-Nehisi Coates, novelist Richard Kadrey, and politician Mike Huckabee, argue that AI companies exploit their works, often sourced from pirated databases, to train AI systems for profit. The plaintiffs claim this practice violates their rights and demands accountability. On the other hand, Meta and other AI companies assert that their actions fall under the fair use doctrine. They argue that no single copyrighted work plays a significant role in shaping AI outputs, and imposing strict liability on data usage would hinder the development of transformative technologies. Lemley’s Legal Legacy As a founding partner at Lex Lumina LLP, Lemley has built a distinguished career in IP law, First Amendment rights, and antitrust matters. He has authored 11 books, argued in dozens of appellate cases, and contributed to more than three dozen US Supreme Court cases, including the landmark Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith decision. His departure from Meta’s legal team is a significant development in this high-stakes case. Zuckerberg’s Leadership Under Scrutiny Zuckerberg’s leadership decisions have sparked widespread criticism. In an August 26 letter to Congress, Zuckerberg defended his recent actions as necessary to uphold free speech and resist government pressure, particularly in the context of COVID-19-related content moderation. However, critics argue that these changes amplify the risks of hate speech and misinformation on Meta’s platforms. In a recent interview with Joe Rogan, Zuckerberg attempted to balance his rhetoric, expressing support for creating opportunities for women while also endorsing a “culture that celebrates aggression” as having “positive merits.” Lemley’s Protest Against Meta In addition to stepping down from the case, Lemley has deactivated his account on Threads, Meta’s microblogging platform, and vowed to avoid clicking Facebook ads to deny the company ad revenue. While he considered leaving Facebook entirely, Lemley explained that doing so would sever valuable connections, stating, “It doesn’t seem fair I should lose those connections because Zuckerberg is having a mid-life crisis.” Implications for the Case The lawsuit—Kadrey v. Meta Platforms Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03417—has profound implications for the future of AI development and copyright law. With Lemley’s withdrawal, the case gains an added layer of complexity, spotlighting the ethical and cultural tensions within the tech industry. As the legal battle unfolds, the question of how to balance innovation with creator rights and corporate ethics remains at the forefront, raising important considerations for the broader tech and legal landscapes.