Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The centrality of computer technology to all outsourcing transactions means that legal and compliance i's and t's must be dotted and crossed when it comes to software.
A recent case illustrates the difficulties that can arise in an outsourcing environment when the lines of responsibility for compliance with third-party software-licensing requirements are not clearly drawn between the customer and the outsourcing firm. In Maury v. Computer Sciences Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4206, (D. Conn. Mar. 16, 2005), an employee of an outsourcing provider claimed that he was discharged in retaliation for his efforts to stop the installation and use of unlicensed software at the customer's work site.
In denying the employer's motion to dismiss the employee's wrongful-discharge claim, the trial court noted that incidents of unlicensed software use occurred in part because the outsourcing provider and the customer couldn't agree on who was responsible for purchasing the software licenses that the customer's and provider's employees needed to do their jobs.
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.