Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Patent and Antitrust: Appreciating Their Similarities and Differences
Antitrust laws are designed to protect consumers' rights. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and private parties may take legal action against businesses that gain an unfair business advantage through the use of a monopolistic market power or other agreements that unfairly restrain trade. In other words, antitrust laws deter unfair advantages gained by businesses due to monopolistic market power.
Patent laws, on the other hand, protect the owner of the patent rights. A patent owner has a cause of action against businesses that make, use, sell, offer to sell or import products or services covered by the patent. The purpose behind such protection, as set forth in the Constitution, is “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”
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 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.
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.
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.
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.