{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016045845272206302, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001146131805157593, 'mean_word_length': 5.37043795620438, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Legal Battles That Shaped the Computer Industry

In an era after the United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation case, no computer industry observer doubts the significance of various legal precedents, copyright laws, and legislation on the computer industry. The influence of law on an industry is an important aspect of any field of endeavor. There is not a single part of any major technology that has not been shaped by legal precedents, and the computer is no exception. An emerging element of the computing field is the way in which the legal system has acted as a catalyst in the transformation of computers and computing technology. Although it is not possible to know all of the underlying motivations and intentions of computer executives, engineers, and government actors, the legal process raises a number of interesting questions about the role of legal and state actors in shaping the computer industry. However, the role of jurisprudence in the outcome of computing remains an underanalyzed aspect of technology development. Government intervention shapes the potential path of technological development through legislation, direct intervention, and support of consumer concerns. However, as most observers would agree, discussing the influence of government alone is not sufficient to understand computer development. Lawrence Graham, in his book Legal Battles That Shaped the Computer Industry, is correct to focus on several legal precedents that have shaped the contemporary computer industry. When considering the companies that comprise this sector, how is policy change produced? Although computing appears to be flexible and constantly changing, the nature of change is often limited to proven business strategies. An organizational approach known as institutional isomorphism seeks to explain change or resistance to organizational change as a property of the inherent conservatism of formal organizations (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983). As opposed to other approaches to organizational behavior, this view maintains that unless outside activists, social movements, or governmental actors influence the internal dynamics of a company, it will not easily change course beyond the logic of the industry. Therefore, one of the overlooked aspects of computing design is that organizational change in the computer industry occurs as a result of the activities and policies of government, as well as of the ebb and flow of the business. Alterations in computing are not simply a reflection of changing technology or fluctuating consumer demand. Organizational change is also a direct response to the legislative and regulatory policies of the state. This is true regardless of the type of industry. It is reasonable to argue that one can understand the nature, organization, and discourse of computing by examining the specific structure and traditions of American and European law. In the case of the United States, American legal traditions and the structure of jurisprudence contribute to shaping the computer industry and its members’ identities, material interests, and capacities for collective action in the field. Unfortunately, few scholars and commentators have examined the influence of the legal field on the computer and Internet industry. Institutions create material constraints and inducements under which social actors and industrial fields operate. Dominant actors in a field make choices in the context created by their institution and are