Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
e-Commerce Developments of Note
Antispyware Legislation Advances in Congress
The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved antispyware legislation on June 24 that would authorize significant penalties for violations of its provisions. H.R. 2929 (108th Cong., 2d Sess.), the Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act (SPY ACT). The amended version of the bill approved by the committee would, among other things, require clear and conspicuous notice prior to the installation of an “information collection program” on another's computer. The amended version would also pre-empt certain similar state antispyware laws. Also on June 24, another antispyware bill was introduced that would add a provision to the federal criminal code penalizing the unauthorized copying of a computer program or code onto a computer for the purpose of obtaining personal information with the intent to defraud or injure a person, or cause damage to a computer, or for the purpose of impairing the security protection of the computer. H.R. 4661 (108th Cong., 2d Sess.), the Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2004. (For more on this topic, see “Legislative Update.”)
Julian S. Millstein Edward A. Pisacreta Jeffrey D. Neuburger
Antispyware Legislation Advances in Congress
The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved antispyware legislation on June 24 that would authorize significant penalties for violations of its provisions. H.R. 2929 (108th Cong., 2d Sess.), the Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act (SPY ACT). The amended version of the bill approved by the committee would, among other things, require clear and conspicuous notice prior to the installation of an “information collection program” on another's computer. The amended version would also pre-empt certain similar state antispyware laws. Also on June 24, another antispyware bill was introduced that would add a provision to the federal criminal code penalizing the unauthorized copying of a computer program or code onto a computer for the purpose of obtaining personal information with the intent to defraud or injure a person, or cause damage to a computer, or for the purpose of impairing the security protection of the computer. H.R. 4661 (108th Cong., 2d Sess.), the Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2004. (For more on this topic, see “Legislative Update.”)
Julian S. Millstein Edward A. Pisacreta Jeffrey D. Neuburger
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
Role and Responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?