We have looked at various models and actually started off with the email verification process. But in the end it broke the flow of the web application and decided to use a simpler model.

Almost all attempts to create electronic signatures have failed due to complexity. So simplicity is key.

What is hidden behind the scenes though is that we record every single part of the negotiation and acceptance process. This is available for all parties to view.

The process is fully compliant with both US and European e-signature law.

Saying all that, what we really are trying to do is to create a focus on the agreement itself and not just the signature.

While an e-signature is an important part of our service, we do not see ourselves as just another e-signature company. We see ourselves as an agreement company. That might sound all flowery and all, but it is an important distinction within law.

Contract law is a fairly well established set of rules governing the relationship that is known as an agreement (or contract). Many lawyers have told me that the signature itself has almost never been a cause for problems. It is generally the agreement and the process behind it that is the problem. This is where we are focused.

I think I need cover this difference in greater depth in a blog post, so thank you very much for bringing it up.

It feels like typing in initials is too easy -- anyone could walk up to a browser and do that. Have you thought about more complicated ways of signing (having a password in addition to initials, sending an email asking to verify the signature before it is deemed signed-off, etc.)? Or perhaps it’s already in there but wasn’t mentioned in the video? I guess I have to wonder if anyone could get out of a contract in a court of law by stating that someone else must have visited the website on their computer and entered their initials without their knowledge.

Hope to see you again in SF or Chile.