Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Move fast and break things. Innovate or die. Internet-age corporate speak tends to reserve its highest praise not just for technological innovation, but for "disruption" — the idea that there are fortunes to be made in applying new technologies to existing business models.
The other side of that coin is secrecy. In the so-called "innovation economy," an idea's value is closely linked to being the first to bring it to market. Uber has 20 times the market cap of Lyft, despite offering similar core services, in part from being first to market.
Unsurprisingly, then, many technology companies go to great lengths to protect the confidential information related to their businesses, often implementing elaborate technical protections, backed up by legal measures such as strict nondisclosure agreements (NDAs). Intellectual property laws, including copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret laws (in addition to traditional contract law) can provide avenues for companies to protect their IP. But it's not always clear what assets are protectable and what are not.
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
A novel legal self-help technique to secure artificial intelligence data and programs is known as Poisoning AI. This technique involves modifying the AI algorithm to intentionally produce specific erroneous results.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether purchasing market competitors’ search engine keyword terms, known as “conquesting,” constitutes trademark infringement.
The DOJ has proposed a rule that would regulate certain transactions involving bulk sensitive personal data. The rule would implement a complex regulatory framework, with civil and criminal enforcement, that is similar to sanctions and export licensing regimes. It also implicates federal cybersecurity requirements, government contracting and CFIUS actions.
The legal industry is at an inflection point, grappling with challenges that range from rising client demands to technological disruption. There are five critical areas where firms can take a proactive, strategic approach, including actionable insights and recommendations for navigating 2025 and beyond.
The Second Circuit’s decision is notable in that it signals a reversal of the recent trend of dismissals of VPPA claims in courts across the country and could trigger a significant increase in VPPA lawsuits. Although organizations have grappled with VPPA claims for several years, this decision is another red flag to organizations to take immediate steps and ensure compliance with privacy laws to mitigate the risks of VPPA claims.