Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Online: Protecting Anti-Terror Research Companies from Lawsuits
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Michael Chertoff told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the DHS is seeking to shield more anti-terror research companies from product liability suits. Since January 2005, the DHS has overcome its reluctance to limit product liability for many research and development companies that manufacture anti-terror technology. There is still, however, debate over liability protections afforded by legislation to shield manufacturers of bioterrorism vaccines.
To find out how to apply for protection under the Homeland Security Act, visit www.safetyact.gov. The site explains the purpose of the Act and how to take advantage of the protection it provides to those who qualify.
As part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, Congress enacted the SAFETY Act to provide “risk management” and “litigation management” protections for Sellers of qualified anti-terrorism technologies and others in the supply and distribution chain. The aim of the Act is to encourage the development and deployment of anti-terrorism technologies that will substantially enhance the protection of the nation. Specifically, the SAFETY Act creates certain liability limitations for “claims arising out of, relating to, or resulting from an act of terrorism” where qualified anti-terrorism technologies have been deployed. It also confers other benefits. Although there are many technologies that are important to protecting our country, the SAFETY Act “Designation” and “Certification” are designed to support effective technologies aimed at preventing, detecting, identifying, or deterring acts of terrorism, or limiting the harm that such acts might otherwise cause, and which also meet other prescribed criteria.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.