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
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.
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.
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.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
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.