Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Nanotechnology: Law and Business at One-Billionth of a Meter
For those scanning the horizon in search of emerging legal trends ' particularly in regard to product liability law, a relatively solid bet is nanotechnology. Like 'genetically modified,' 'nanotechnology' is certain to become a voguish word not only for various public interest groups, but also for the plaintiff's bar as well.
Nanotechnology is officially defined by the federal government's National Nanotechnology Initiative as the science of engineering and manipulating matter at the level of approximately 1 to 100 nanometers, with a nanometer equaling one-billionth of a meter. National Science and Technology Council, Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials at iii (Sept. 2006). More generally, nanotechnology refers to the creation and use of structures, devices, and systems at the molecular and atomic level ' with novel properties and functions owing to their incredibly small size. Like prior enabling technologies ' the steam engine, the telephone, the computer chip, and plastics all come to mind ' nanotechnology is expected to transform human experience, cutting deeply across all sectors of the global economy, including, inter alia, pharmaceutical, medical device, transportation, communications, energy, and food products. See generally, Nanotechnology: The Plastics of the 21st Century? (Guy Carpenter & Co., Inc. 2006).
Nanotechnology represents a vast frontier for science, business, and law. Already governments and corporations are sinking an estimated $10 billion annually into nanotechnology R&D, and economic forecasters are predicting that nanotechnology will account for some 15% of all global manufacturing output by 2014 ' commerce valued at some $2.6 trillion. See, e.g., Evan Michelson, Nanotechnology and the World: Point of View, Project on Emerging Technologies: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (May 2007).
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.