and South Africa, in response to three popular and culturally significant technological crisis events: Sputnik (1957-63), Louise Brown (1978-85), and virtual worlds (2004. What is shown is that the three literatures share a common structure in which the crisis event was captured by positive law doing public policy work, notwithstanding the 50-year timespan and the diversity of technologies involved. The elements of this structure-problematic technology, inadequate existing law and the call for new law-located within a voluminous scholarship of description and analogy, comprises the law and technology enterprise. Section III provides an overview of some contributions to the study of the law and technology interface that break with the enterprise and point towards a more patient, general and theoretically sophisticated approach.
I. THE RISE AND RISE OF LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP ON TECHNOLOGYLawyers, it seems, have a long history of writing about law and technologies. Reflecting the attitudes that David Nye identified as informing the industrialisation of the US from 1850 to 1900, 1 the inaugural issue of the Yale Law Journal (1891-2) contained an article by Harry G Day that congratulated US courts on getting it right by not awarding damages to property owners whose street outlook has been changed by the construction of electric tramways. 2 Day's touchstone was 'progress':Rapid transit in particular is as indispensable to [American cities'] progress as light, sewerage and water, and a system which is clean, quiet, cheap, easily controlled and occupying as little space as possible is universally demanded. 3 The appearance of motor vehicles inspired Xenophon P Huddy in 1905, also in the Yale Law Journal, to examine automobiles and the existing road rules. He concluded that 'the automobile [is] one of the least dangerous of conveyances if properly driven', and did not