>I'm not aware of any law establishing the legality of fax documents --
>I believe it is only case law, no? If so, a legal challenge would
>be needed to establish a similar precedent.
Its interesting that California courts have defined what constitutes a
"fax". I believe this is the case in several states noably Wyoming and the
rural states where lawyers were quickly permitted to file motions and
pledings by fax under rules adopted by their Supreme Court. This should be
important to note since the legal profession is one of the largest users of
fax and are traditionally early adopters of advanced fax technology. Lets
not forget the market for this.
For what its worth I checked Amazon.com with the search "law and fax".
If I recall there have been some other books on this probably out of print.
Law of Electronic Commerce Edi, Fax, and E-Mail : Technology, Proof, and
Liability 1994 Supplement by Benjamin Wright
Our Price: $145.00 Paperback (January 1994) Aspen Publishers, Inc.; ISBN:
0316956414
for those of you who want really really want to read up on this. Its a 1994
issue so I doubt there has been too much litigation on the issue since
then. If I recall correctly most of the precedents on fax were derived
from the old telex days and the courts basically just applied the
judgements to a new technology which is what I suspect would happen with
IPP over IP.
In any event time/date stamping of IPP transactions is a necessity when
uses in the context of a facsimile service.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
Fax 314.918.9015
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey at ix.netcom.com
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<