Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Week after week, month after month, warnings flood e-commerce, and brick-and-mortar enterprises, about the technology we all have come to depend on at home and at work. New threats from viruses, hackers or just bug-filled software make the cliche, “Can't live with it, can't live without it” an increasingly accurate descriptor of our high-tech world.
But could we really live for long without our computers? Instead, long before anyone worried about the virus of the day, businesses planned against disaster to avoid any type of disruption to the many devices we rely on.
September 11 starkly reminded everyone of the human toll of sudden loss, but it doesn't take a terrorist attack to cripple a business dependent on its technology. For example, a building fire, severe storm or power outage could block access to critical systems or office data for days. The simple loss of a laptop loaded with confidential data, or a disgruntled employee's sabotage, can wreak havoc.
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.