Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Corporate counsel often relay their client's concerns about the importance of zealously protecting their company's Intellectual Property (IP), but do these clients appreciate what that entails or appreciate some of the pitfalls? Consider a few questions: If your company creates something, does it own it? If it owns it, is it protectable and, if protectable, what is the cost to fully protect it? Where should it be protected? Does it have commercial value?
The purpose here is to raise the issues that address these questions and which will provide counsel some of the information needed to take a more measured approach when considering their company's IP. This summary is broad, and the focus is on copyrights, because of their prevalence.
Corporate executives often assume that their company's “property” is truly IP and has inherent value, simply because it was created and owned by the company or is marked as “proprietary and confidential”. Many times this “property” is not truly IP, and even if it is, has minimal ' if any ' commercial value. Also, the efforts to protect it can limit the commercial opportunities of your company and divert the scarce resources and budget available to in-house counsel for more pressing issues.
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
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.
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.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.