Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you always should." Never has that saying had more meaning than when it comes to Internet advertising. True, this new avenue for advertising has helped some companies exponentially increase their business, but the methods for "re-directing" prospective customers have come under great scrutiny by the courts in the last 6 months. Recent decisions warn that keyword advertising through paid placements such as "Sponsored" or "Featured" ads could lead you directly to the defendant's table in federal court.
Recent developments of note in the Internet industry. This month:<br>FCC Requires VoIP to Clean up Its 911 Act <br>House Votes to Eliminate Spyware<br>Intermix Settles Adware Suit with Spitzer
Despite their negative public images, Internet pop-up ads and unsolicited commercial e-mail (spam) have transfigured marketing. Like spam, Internet pop-ups can be lawful if they are not deceptive.
The Internet has provided an unprecedented opportunity for individuals to disseminate information widely at a very low cost. This means that virtually anybody who wants to distribute a message can do so. <br>It is this sense of empowerment that may drive individuals to spend the time and energy to create sites devoted to complaints about a particular product, service, company, organization, or individual. Frequently these sites employ trademarks owned by their targets, sometimes in the site's domain name itself, and always in the text of the site. Internet search engines pick these references up, so that the gripe sites often turn up side-by-side with official corporate sites in response to Internet searches.
Preliminary estimates of first-quarter e-commerce activity from the U.S. Census Bureau show a continued rise in the value of services and goods procured and exchanged online or by other electronic conduits.
A majority of courts consider the <i>contra proferentem</i> doctrine to be a pillar of insurance law. The doctrine requires ambiguous terms in an insurance policy to be construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage for the insured. A prominent rationale behind the doctrine is that insurance policies are usually standard-form contracts drafted entirely by insurers.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Like poorly-behaved school children, new technologies and intellectual property (IP) are increasingly disrupting the M&A establishment. Cybersecurity has become the latest disruptive newcomer to the M&A party.
In an effort to minimize the release of toxic gasses from cables in the event of fire, the 2002 version of the National Electric Code ("NEC"), promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association, sets forth new guidelines requiring that abandoned cables must be removed from buildings unless they are located in metal raceways or tagged "For Future Use." While the NEC is not, in itself, binding law, most jurisdictions in the United States adopt the NEC by reference in their state or local building and fire codes. Thus, noncompliance with the recent NEC guidelines will likely mean that a building is in violation of a building or fire code. If so, the building owner may also be in breach of agreements with tenants and lenders and may be jeopardizing its fire insurance coverage. Even in jurisdictions where the 2002 NEC has not been adopted, it may be argued that the guidelines represent the standard of reasonable care and could result in tort liability for the landlord if toxic gasses from abandoned cables are emitted in a fire. With these potential liabilities in mind, this article discusses: 1) how to address the abandoned wires and cables currently located within the risers, ceilings and other areas of properties, and 2) additional considerations in the placement and removal of telecommunications cables going forward.
In a recent case from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Paragon Offshore PLC, the bankruptcy court provided guidance on whether a post-plan effective date litigation trust's distributions constituted disbursements subject to the U.S. Trustee fee "tax."
