Bitcoin and the Changing Legal Landscape 2/10/2016 @JDSupra

Year in Review: Top #E-discovery Cases of 2015 @JDSupra

#Cybersecurity's Weapon of Choice: #IP Rights !

Clark W. Lackert, Corporate Counsel

April 29, 2015    | 0 Comments

Bruce MacPherson

Almost every day we hear media stories on cybersecurity: from North Korea, to credit card database breaches, to counterfeit goods sold in online autions, to fraudulent copycat websites. We also hear about the weapons used to attack such threats, including improved software and infrastructure, increased monitoring, better training and tighter oversight. What has not been explored are the existing remedies that intellectual property rights—particularly trademarks and copyrights—can provide to improve overall corporate cybersecurity.

Why Intellectual Property?

Many forms of cyberthreats are perpetrated through various guises, including misleading domain names and email addresses (including "phishing"—an email fraud scam in which the criminal sends out a fake email in or­d­er to obtain personal information from the recipient). There are also online auction sales of counterfeit or infringing merchandise, copycat websites and distribution of malware and viruses through misleading email. All of these threats involve IP infringement. Intellectual property rights, most importantly trademarks and copyrights, exist in the online world as they do in the brick and mortar world. In fact, most U.S. Customs seizures come from IP infringements as opposed to narcotics or weapons or other illegal products commonly smuggled across borders.

Conversely, there are many ways to use IP to fight cybercrime and cyberthreats. The three most efficient and cost-effective are: (1) online domain name arbitration under the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP); (2) website take-down procedures under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the U.S., or similar procedures in other countries; and (3) IP infringement policies that permit swift removal of infringing online auctions (e.g., the Verified Rights Objection (VeRO) in the eBay platform, and many others internationally). If these infringements involve criminal violations, government authorities may become involved to investigate these IP cybercrimes.

Read more: http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202723244909/Cybersecuritys-Weapon-of-Choice-IP-Rights#ixzz3YoaDTlGp

#ESI Case Law Update 2015 @JDSupra

ESI Case Law Update 2015

Best Practices in #Social #Media for Employers

Can your #social #media contacts be a trade secret of your employer?

#SocialMedia in the Context of Post-Employment Litigation

Are You A Nasty Mother Fu*ker?

Top 10 Attorney #SEO Questions

Reduce Ediscovery Storage Costs

#Facebooker–Good Citizen or Fired?

Circuit Revives Claim by Ex-Cop Who Emailed #Media

Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal

January 15, 2015    | 0 Comments

Wiki/DanTD

A Suffolk County police lieutenant who was disciplined for using a department computer to share with the media his opinions on a major case and a policy controversy had his First Amendment retaliation claim reinstated by a federal appeals court.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit also said that Suffolk County may have a defense against claims that Lt. Raymond Smith suffered retaliation by being transferred to a non-supervisory position, because his discipline may have been the result of other transgressions not involving protected speech.

Smith, who retired from the force in 2008, claimed he was punished for tipping off a CNN reporter about the case of Martin Tankleff, who was exonerated in 2007 of murdering his parents after serving 17 years in prison. In emails, Smith alleged improprieties by the county Homicide Squad and said a homicide detective may have helped plan the murders and cover them up.

Read more: http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202715191091/Circuit-Revives-Claim-by-ExCop-Who-Emailed-Media#ixzz3OvtVGEGT

#SocialMediaLaw #E-Discovery Year in Review, Part 2

TweetMe Please

#E-Discovery Resolutions for 2015

Embrace the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Patricia Antezana , Law Technology News

December 23, 2014    | 0 Comments

Here are five New Year’s e-discovery resolutions to consider as 2015 approaches. 

1. Cooperate when negotiating scope.

Promoting cooperation was a main goal as the Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure worked to finalize proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Let's resolve to create a spirit of cooperation when negotiating the scope of electronic data discovery.  

In 2014, courts were already focusing on whether parties cooperated regarding discovery of electronically stored information. In Boston Scientific Corp. v. Lee, Case No. 1:13-cv-13156-DJC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California decided that the plaintiff had lost its chance to compromise when it refused to cooperate with defendant’s employer in an EDD dispute. 

The plaintiff had requested discovery of two laptop computers controlled by defendant’s new employer, who had already produced forensic information about the contents of the first laptop and offered to have a third party vendor search for relevant information. The plaintiff refused and issued a subpoena for forensic discovery from both laptops. 

Read more: http://www.lawtechnologynews.com/id=1202712802370/5-EDiscovery-Resolutions-for-2015#ixzz3NgYwxqaf

E-Discovery is Hard

Federal Court Blasts Hospital’s Kitchen Sink Privilege Claim

Redaction: Protecting Your Private Digital Data

Social Media Defies Traditional Evidence Collection and Review Techniques

Is Bitcoin Money? Lawmakers, Regulators and Judges Don’t Agree

September 9, 2014

ANITA RAMASASTRY

Bitcoin confounds lawmakers as they try to figure out what it is and how it should be regulated. The Bitcoin Foundation notes that Bitcoin is an innovative payment network and a new kind of money. But is it money? Some call it a new form of virtual currency. Others have lauded it as a new type of payment system. So what is it? And why does it matter?
What we call it may not matter much in casual conversation, but how it is categorized does have significant implications when it comes to regulation. If it is “money” or “currency,” then existing laws and regulations may apply to businesses and consumers who issue, sell, or transact with Bitcoin. From banking laws to anti-money-laundering laws and tax regulations—whether these laws apply to the use of Bitcoin depends on how Bitcoin is classified

- See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2014/09/09/bitcoin-money#sthash.4LHuzQpk.dpuf

•