Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Great kings of old thought it wise to spend their precious treasure constructing a network of castles and other fortifications. This construction was an investment considered crucial to the security of the kingdom: Castles provided protection during invasion by an enemy, or could be used as bases for offensive operations against enemy territory. The designs of these buildings included moats, drawbridges, crenellations and arrow slits, and the presence of these features intimidated enemies and discouraged attacks on the fortifications and kingdom at large. Castles were also built as a display of the sovereign's prestige and strength. Even though the chancellor might have begrudged the expense of such construction, the money was spent.
For today's corporations, IP assets function in much the same way as a king's castles. But the expenses necessary to procure IP assets and enforce IP rights may not get the same respect or receive the same priority from many corporate budgets, particularly those seeking ways to cut costs during tough times. In-house counsel today are faced with a quandary: IP procurement and enforcement costs are increasing at a time when corporate law departments are under pressure to reduce costs, especially spending on outside counsel. The root of this dilemma is that IP assets are increasingly (and justifiably) seen as key to corporate success and a potential profit center, yet the expenses of monetizing those assets (including protecting hard-won market space) are still typically treated as Selling, General and Administrative Expenses (“SG&A”) rather than as part of “costs of good sold.” In other words, in-house lawyers can do great good for their companies by deploying IP assets to realize direct monetary return for their companies, but they are under more pressure to reduce expenses because of the inaccurate perception that IP-related expenses do not add to the bottom line, a perception that stems from accounting conventions.
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
  On Aug. 9, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul introduced New York's inaugural comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. In sum, the plan aims to update government networks, bolster county-level digital defenses, and regulate critical infrastructure.
  The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
  When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
  This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.