Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Homeland Security and Technology Workers ' The New Age of Export Controls
In a time of heightened government concern over foreign terrorists, tightened immigration reviews are creating long lines at U.S. embassies and consulates all over the world, stalling the vital entry visas needed for foreign scientists, engineers and other technical workers to enter this country. Many foreign students already studying at American universities who are seeking permission to remain in the U.S. upon graduation to work for U.S. companies are likewise stuck in these apparently interminable reviews of their suitability to work in the U.S. Today, these immigration petitions need to involve technology lawyers familiar with the U.S. export control rules as much as HR and immigration counsel.
Technology licensing lawyers have long been familiar with the rigors and demands of U.S. export control laws in international deals, including distribution agreements and licenses. Those export control regimes include the International in Arms Regulations (ITAR) of the State Department, 22 C.F.R. Part 120 et seq.; the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) of the Commerce Department, 15 C.F.R. Part 730 et seq.; and the various embargo regulations of the Treasury Department, 31 C.F.R. Part 500 et seq. Today, such technology transactional lawyers need to work more closely than ever before with their counterparts in the HR and immigration fields to assure that companies will be able hire and retain valued foreign technical workers.
If a company's technology is controlled under the ITAR, the EAR or the Treasury Department embargo rules, a two-pronged and coordinated legal strategy is needed to ensure that the foreign technical worker will be able to commence work lawfully. First, a company hiring a non-U.S. person has to obtain a proper non-immigrant visa from the State Department. However, such a company must also consider that, if the foreign worker is originally from a country where exposing that worker to the company's technology would constitute a “deemed export” to that country, then the company must obtain a second government permission from the relevant export control agency, which will necessarily involve the company's export control manager and, very likely, its technology licensing attorney.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.