Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
This article examines the reasons why Web initiatives frequently do not meet their intended goals. While there are as many reasons for failure as there are different kinds of Web sites, this series is based on experiences I have had over the past 5 years as a Web site builder and refers to Web sites that are used for client acquisition, customer relationship management and e-commerce. One reason: an often pernicious issue ' cost.
Overview
The simplest answer to why many Web sites fail to provide a return on investment is that they cost too much. In September of 1999, the median cost of a medium Web site was $170,500 and by May of 2001 the price had dropped to $120,00 according to b2bonline.com (www.btobonline.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?id=5973). While the decreasing cost is due in large part to the overall devaluation and maturing of the Internet sector, many sites still cost more than they should. Here are some reasons why:
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 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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.