Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Internet has revolutionized how companies conduct business. Utilizing Internet technologies, people now instantly share ideas with individuals around the globe, and companies can now reach previously inaccessible markets through their Web sites. Along with these advantages, however, the Internet and related technologies have added unique risks to today's businesses. As discussed in Part One of this article, these dangers include threats to a company's electronic information through viruses and worms as well as new legal liabilities stemming from a business' Internet usage. See, Barzilay, Ilan and Danford, Andrew, 'How the Internet Exposes You to Risk,' Internet Law & Strategy, Vol. 4, No. 10 (October 2006), www.lawjournalnewsletters.com/pub/ljn-internetlaw/4_10/news/147463-1.html. In addition, the Internet provides numerous threats to a business's intellectual property and makes unwary companies susceptible to suit for treading on the intellectual property rights of others. This part of the article reviews some of these hazards and summarizes steps that companies can take to minimize their exposure to these risks.
Trade Secrets
Trade secrets are a form of intellectual property right that, without proper care, can quickly disappear through online activities. To qualify for trade secret protection, a company must possess secret information that has independent economic value from being unknown to the public. See, eg, Uniform Trade Secrets Act '1. Trade secret protection may encompass a variety of information types, including, for example, a formula, device, method or technique. Companies wishing to maintain trade secret protection must take reasonable steps to ensure their information remains secret. See, Rockwell Graphic Sys., Inc. v. DEV Indus., Inc., 925 F.2d 174 (7th Cir. 1991) (discussing the evidentiary and remedial significance of the requirement of reasonable efforts at maintaining secrecy at some length). Trade secret protection offers certain advantages over other similar forms of intellectual property rights, such as patent protection. Most notably, unlike patent law's protection for limited times (currently 20 years from filing of an application) trade secrets last indefinitely ” so long as the information remains secret. As a corollary, however, trade secret protection is somewhat less secure than patent protection as it disappears as soon as the information's secrecy is compromised.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.