11 ms·

I don’t think this premise is correct; I don’t know of any evidence that courts accord any special status to Docusign’d documents, over other ways of electronic

I don’t think this premise is correct; I don’t know of any evidence that courts accord any special status to Docusign’d documents, over other ways of electronically signing contracts. The concept doesn’t even make sense to me… Docusign is not attesting to the contracts they manage. They’re not an automated notary. They’re just facilitating something that anyone can do themselves: electronically sign a contract. There probably is a “nobody got fired for buying Docusign” effect, but it would be supported by their mindshare, not some special status in courts. The vast, vast majority of Docusigned docs will never end up in a court anyway (most contracts are never litigated).

judge2020 5y ago
Having an audit log of access (both email and IP address) is extremely useful if someone asks "did this person actually perform the e-signature". You can then perform motions regarding whether their email has compromised and, if needed, go to their ISP for IP assignment records to see if their account (mobile or home internet) was assigned to that IP. Docusign being the source of authority for the validity of the original IP<->signature log completes the chain of trust and allows this sort of validity defense to work.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  DocuSign does not have that source of authority exclusively. Competitors also have it.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    I agree, competitors like HelloSign and Adobe Sign are pretty feature-complete and would have just as much brand recognition, and do have these same audit log features that specifically help with verifying the authenticity of documents in court. If I had to guess on why people might still choose docusign, it'd be because Docusign was the first on the scene and has the brand recognition - people are going to recognize it more often than if you mention a lower-marketshare competitor like "PandaDoc"[0]. Another reason is probably how the cost difference between competitors is such a low amount of admin overhead that it doesn't matter if you save a few thousand a year in costs or not. 0: https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/22/pandadoc-the-e-document-startup-now-valued-at-1b-as-it-closes-a-big-series-c/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/22/pandadoc-the-e-document-st...
- Teever 5y ago
  I've always felt that this is the kind of service that a government should offer. It seems a little silly to have to pay a private entity for this kind of service and also a bit unreasonable that a private entity like Docusign is so enmeshed with the legal system.
  - sushsjsuauahab 5y ago
    The government can barely keep a port open or bomb a proper target, and we want to give them control over what is true and what isn't?
    - Teever 5y ago
      Would you advocate for the privatization of the entire justice system?
      - rmbyrro 5y ago
        At least where I live, private arbitration is well appreciated: much faster, cheaper and reliable than the judicial system. So, yes, here I'd advocate most of the judicial system to be privatized.
        rectang 5y ago
        Where I live (USA), private arbitration is definitely preferred by many corporations who require it, and despised by the people who are forced into it. See for example, "The Problem of Sexual Harassment and Forced Arbitration": https://www.correiaputh.com/news/problem-sexual-harassment-forced-arbitration/ https://www.correiaputh.com/news/problem-sexual-harassment-f...
        drdaeman 5y ago
        It's not an issue with private arbitration per se, it's an issue of being practically forced into it under unreasonable terms with no alternative options.
88913527 5y ago
I'm almost afraid to ask since it's such a given, but do employees actually get fired for choosing the wrong vendor? I've heard it repeated in quite a few contexts, and I'm unsure if I should interpret it literally. At worst, I would expect the executive has a slightly tarnished reputation for picking what ended up being a bad partner.
- somesortofthing 5y ago
  It could maybe happen if the consequences of a vendor choice are both disastrously bad and easily foreseeable. Otherwise, no, not really. The person who chooses the vendor(or their successor, in which case this whole question is moot) is probably going to be the highest-up person in the company to learn that the vendor was a bad choice, so no one with hiring power over them is going to learn of the mistake unless it spirals wildly out of control. The quote is better interpreted as "certain vendors are mainstream enough that nobody above you is going to even question your reasoning for choosing that vendor"
- jareklupinski 5y ago
  i have seen this the partner company sent us an implementation doc that was full of red flags, "just send your private API key to the client packed deep in a nested JSON and ROT13 it to authenticate requests, users aren't technical enough to unpack it" sort of place after I kicked it back to the director saying there was no way I was going to sign my name to that jank code, they tried implementing it themselves anyway, and were found out during a routine "check if API keys are leaking" job
- wombatpm 5y ago
  I have only seen it happen when it turns out the vendor is shadow owned by a senior executive. Usually ends bad for the executive
  - hiptobecubic 5y ago
    > Usually ends bad for the executive "Survivor" bias here. I imagine on average it ends excellently for the executive.
RC_ITR 5y ago
Long story short, google FEDramp. Docusign is the only current major e-sign platform that works with the federal government (Adobe is applying). If you have to pick one vendor and there’s even an outside chance you’ll interface with the fed govt, you just choose Docusign.
cormacrelf 5y ago
I haven't read all the legislation in the world on this, but DocuSign has. They have been summarising legislation into their knowledge base, and proudly showing off claims that they satisfy the requirements on their country-specific homepages. For example their page on Australian laws is here https://www.docusign.com/how-it-works/legality/global/australia https://www.docusign.com/how-it-works/legality/global/austra..., and it summarises (almost verbatim) the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)'s requirements like so: > A method [...] is used to identify the signer and to indicate the signer’s intention to sign the document; > The method used is as reliable as appropriate for the purposes of the communication or is proven to identify the person and indicate their intention; and > The signer consents to the method used, with such consent allowed to be express or inferred from the circumstances. Guess what? Australian courts apparently accept a name written at the bottom of an email as passing this test as being "as reliable as appropriate" for many situations. The barrier to entry in Australia is essentially zero. Europe has much stricter laws, introduced in the same year, in a two-tier arrangement where the strict version requires something like DocuSign, and moreover that the ability to produce a signature rests in the control of the person it identify, and that person only. (This paper http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLawJl/2017/9.pdf http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLawJl/2017/9.pdf argues for adopting the European approach in Australia.) A sibling comment identifies the US federal government's requirements as being essentially "we must approve individual e-sig services for use with the federal government", which is insane to me but there you go. > Docusign is not attesting to the contracts they manage ... but they are attesting that they have read the laws about e-signatures, those claims are affirmed by their continued existence, and that's worth a lot of time otherwise spent second-guessing your chosen platform. I knew roughly the position in Australia, but wasn't aware of the European requirements -- DocuSign has done a medium amount of work researching and documenting their compliance to give you peace of mind, and quite a lot of work complying with the stricter laws that are out there. There's nothing in that that is particularly difficult to replicate, i.e. there's no secret sauce, it's just a lot of work. The overall product (works for doing business with anyone you need it to) is more than the sum of its parts.
- dash2 5y ago
  This is a lot of legal knowledge. But not $50bn worth. I'm guessing the real story is DocuSign is trying to worm its way into being a de facto monopoly, maybe by paying enough lobbyists, and the $50bn is the bet that they'll be successful. Multiplied up a bit by the fact that we've been living in a free-money world, where castles in the air get pick-a-number valuations.

judge2020 5y ago

Having an audit log of access (both email and IP address) is extremely useful if someone asks "did this person actually perform the e-signature". You can then perform motions regarding whether their email has compromised and, if needed, go to their ISP for IP assignment records to see if their account (mobile or home internet) was assigned to that IP. Docusign being the source of authority for the validity of the original IP<->signature log completes the chain of trust and allows this sort of validity defense to work.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
DocuSign does not have that source of authority exclusively. Competitors also have it.
- judge2020 5y ago
  I agree, competitors like HelloSign and Adobe Sign are pretty feature-complete and would have just as much brand recognition, and do have these same audit log features that specifically help with verifying the authenticity of documents in court. If I had to guess on why people might still choose docusign, it'd be because Docusign was the first on the scene and has the brand recognition - people are going to recognize it more often than if you mention a lower-marketshare competitor like "PandaDoc"[0]. Another reason is probably how the cost difference between competitors is such a low amount of admin overhead that it doesn't matter if you save a few thousand a year in costs or not. 0: https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/22/pandadoc-the-e-document-startup-now-valued-at-1b-as-it-closes-a-big-series-c/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/22/pandadoc-the-e-document-st...
Teever 5y ago
I've always felt that this is the kind of service that a government should offer. It seems a little silly to have to pay a private entity for this kind of service and also a bit unreasonable that a private entity like Docusign is so enmeshed with the legal system.
- sushsjsuauahab 5y ago
  The government can barely keep a port open or bomb a proper target, and we want to give them control over what is true and what isn't?
  - Teever 5y ago
    Would you advocate for the privatization of the entire justice system?
    - rmbyrro 5y ago
      At least where I live, private arbitration is well appreciated: much faster, cheaper and reliable than the judicial system. So, yes, here I'd advocate most of the judicial system to be privatized.
      - rectang 5y ago
        Where I live (USA), private arbitration is definitely preferred by many corporations who require it, and despised by the people who are forced into it. See for example, "The Problem of Sexual Harassment and Forced Arbitration": https://www.correiaputh.com/news/problem-sexual-harassment-forced-arbitration/ https://www.correiaputh.com/news/problem-sexual-harassment-f...
        drdaeman 5y ago
        It's not an issue with private arbitration per se, it's an issue of being practically forced into it under unreasonable terms with no alternative options.

88913527 5y ago

I'm almost afraid to ask since it's such a given, but do employees actually get fired for choosing the wrong vendor? I've heard it repeated in quite a few contexts, and I'm unsure if I should interpret it literally. At worst, I would expect the executive has a slightly tarnished reputation for picking what ended up being a bad partner.

somesortofthing 5y ago
It could maybe happen if the consequences of a vendor choice are both disastrously bad and easily foreseeable. Otherwise, no, not really. The person who chooses the vendor(or their successor, in which case this whole question is moot) is probably going to be the highest-up person in the company to learn that the vendor was a bad choice, so no one with hiring power over them is going to learn of the mistake unless it spirals wildly out of control. The quote is better interpreted as "certain vendors are mainstream enough that nobody above you is going to even question your reasoning for choosing that vendor"
jareklupinski 5y ago
i have seen this the partner company sent us an implementation doc that was full of red flags, "just send your private API key to the client packed deep in a nested JSON and ROT13 it to authenticate requests, users aren't technical enough to unpack it" sort of place after I kicked it back to the director saying there was no way I was going to sign my name to that jank code, they tried implementing it themselves anyway, and were found out during a routine "check if API keys are leaking" job
wombatpm 5y ago
I have only seen it happen when it turns out the vendor is shadow owned by a senior executive. Usually ends bad for the executive
- hiptobecubic 5y ago
  > Usually ends bad for the executive "Survivor" bias here. I imagine on average it ends excellently for the executive.

RC_ITR 5y ago

Long story short, google FEDramp. Docusign is the only current major e-sign platform that works with the federal government (Adobe is applying). If you have to pick one vendor and there’s even an outside chance you’ll interface with the fed govt, you just choose Docusign.

cormacrelf 5y ago

I haven't read all the legislation in the world on this, but DocuSign has. They have been summarising legislation into their knowledge base, and proudly showing off claims that they satisfy the requirements on their country-specific homepages. For example their page on Australian laws is here https://www.docusign.com/how-it-works/legality/global/australia https://www.docusign.com/how-it-works/legality/global/austra..., and it summarises (almost verbatim) the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)'s requirements like so: > A method [...] is used to identify the signer and to indicate the signer’s intention to sign the document; > The method used is as reliable as appropriate for the purposes of the communication or is proven to identify the person and indicate their intention; and > The signer consents to the method used, with such consent allowed to be express or inferred from the circumstances. Guess what? Australian courts apparently accept a name written at the bottom of an email as passing this test as being "as reliable as appropriate" for many situations. The barrier to entry in Australia is essentially zero. Europe has much stricter laws, introduced in the same year, in a two-tier arrangement where the strict version requires something like DocuSign, and moreover that the ability to produce a signature rests in the control of the person it identify, and that person only. (This paper http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLawJl/2017/9.pdf http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLawJl/2017/9.pdf argues for adopting the European approach in Australia.) A sibling comment identifies the US federal government's requirements as being essentially "we must approve individual e-sig services for use with the federal government", which is insane to me but there you go. > Docusign is not attesting to the contracts they manage ... but they are attesting that they have read the laws about e-signatures, those claims are affirmed by their continued existence, and that's worth a lot of time otherwise spent second-guessing your chosen platform. I knew roughly the position in Australia, but wasn't aware of the European requirements -- DocuSign has done a medium amount of work researching and documenting their compliance to give you peace of mind, and quite a lot of work complying with the stricter laws that are out there. There's nothing in that that is particularly difficult to replicate, i.e. there's no secret sauce, it's just a lot of work. The overall product (works for doing business with anyone you need it to) is more than the sum of its parts.

dash2 5y ago
This is a lot of legal knowledge. But not $50bn worth. I'm guessing the real story is DocuSign is trying to worm its way into being a de facto monopoly, maybe by paying enough lobbyists, and the $50bn is the bet that they'll be successful. Multiplied up a bit by the fact that we've been living in a free-money world, where castles in the air get pick-a-number valuations.