Unsurprisingly, there are screaming matches and tears -- just like in real life! I'd love to hear what you think about the show. Does it mirror your start-up experience?
If you haven't seen it yet, Bravo TV has a new reality show about the trials and tribulations of Silicon Valley start-up life, called, predictably, "Start-Ups: Silicon Valley."
Unsurprisingly, there are screaming matches and tears -- just like in real life! I'd love to hear what you think about the show. Does it mirror your start-up experience?
0 Comments
Last weekend, something scandalous happened in Washington. No, not another mistress or another smoking gun email, but rather a memo released by an arm of the Republican Congressional functionaries known as the Republican Study Committee. "Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it" made waves when it came out, boldly proclaiming shorter copyright periods and urging a return to the Constitutional mandate of "promoting science and the useful arts" rather than rewarding authors and creators.
This article in Slate details the timeline. My favorite part was the woebegone explanation of why Spider-Man and Iron Man can never appear in the same movie. On Broadway, maybe...? Intellectual Property rights of all kinds live in a sort of half-light, half-dark limbo between anti-competitive monopoly and incentive to all to increase innovation and monetize new ideas. Copyright laws, of late, seem to be trending in the exact opposite direction as public mores on the topic. If copyrights were shorter (how much shorter? we don't know), then there might be less money in copyright "trolling." Or there might be more -- shorter time to profit could lead to more aggressive behavior. The fact is, we don't know what will happen if we change the laws. What we do know is that the laws in the US don't match the behavior of our citizens. In 2009, a woman who allegedly downloaded 24 songs through Kazaa was hit with a $1.5M verdict for copyright infringement. (It was later reduced to $220,000 -- what a relief?). Is this justice? Would the RIAA have made $1.5M or even $220,000 off of the music she "stole"? I think we can all agree that the topic is worth further review. The RSC made a great first step. Unfortunately the lobby flexed its muscles and set us back. However, I think it's fair to say that the RSC drew blood. Now it's up to us to let the lobbyists know what we expect from our lawmakers. You may not realize, but even in this global economy, international laws can be very different. That's why any attorney you engage in the US should retain international counsel for international matters (unless of course the US attorney is licensed abroad). Tamar Nathan of the UK law firm Fox Williams LLP explains some of Ms. Kirkbride's legal options here. Writer Will Lyon has further details in the UK Daily Mail.
For HLR's previous updates on the plight of Nicola Kirkbride, please see start here or check the tag for Kirkbride. Much of the scholarship about cloud computing, data security, and privacy that we think about here in the US is centered on technology in common use in the western world. It's always a good idea to encrypt data and take precautions to secure any internet connection when you are using public wifi, for example. Common sense precautions such as backing up data, password-protecting files and hardware, and end-to-end email encryption for confidential files are de rigeur.
If you are planning to do business abroad, please consider consulting an attorney with a specialization in import/export laws. There are a suprising amount of national security issues and regulations related to bringing American technology to other countries (yes, that means if you are emailing specifications to potential manufacturers overseas, this could apply to you!). If you ultimately travel abroad, there are important security considerations for the technology you bring with you. Because of the very different appreciation of intellectual property in China particularly, there are significant differences in the security concerns when you travel there. Riva Redmond at entrepreneur.com outlines 5 Steps for Keeping Digital Date Safe While Traveling to China. You might be surprised at the close supervision paid to your laptop while you aren't occupying your hotel room. Nina Kaufman blogs for Entrepreneur.com. Here, she discusses reason to "break up" a partnership. The most important factor in an "amicable" separation is a clear delineation of rights and responsibilities BEFORE things go bad. Discussing and putting in writing your understanding of how to divide assets and liabilities can save you a lot of heartache and money down the road.
One of the very first steps of a new business venture is the name. The name is your brand, your product, your tag, your handle, your first impression on the customer. From a legal perspective, your business name is also the legal name on all your filing documents. Ultimately, you will have state filings, bank accounts, IRS and state tax numbers, insurance policies, leases, vendor contracts, and perhaps even trademarks and patents attached to this business name. Choosing the name is totally separate from determining the form and structure of your new venture.
This article by Yanik Silver, printed in Entrepreneur Magazine, offers 7 tips to think about before committing to a new business name. Jeff Fabian has a detailed website called "Franchise Help" designed to guide entrepreneurs through the self-assessment process. His excellent "10 Tips for Trademark Selection" is a great place to start.
We have previously detailed the alleged infringement of fashion student Nicola Kirkbride by retail giant Tesco on several occasions to follow up.
A UK-based law firm's blog has a new update: Ms. Kirkbride is pursuing legal action against Tesco. This is significant because it means Tesco didn't immediately settle upon discovery of this "mistake." Tesco is denying wrongdoing, saying they have "no idea how the mistake happened" and they are "looking into it." It's not clear from this blog post whether Kiteley's Solicitors is representing Ms. Kirkbride, but as HLR finds out more information, it will be posted on this blog. This is a seminal moment for internet copyright, and if Ms. Kirkbride loses, it could mean a sea change in UK copyright protection. In the internet age, copyright protection is only as good at the weakest countries' protections. We will closely monitor developments in this case. Inthe 2007 lawsuit Viacom et. al. v. YouTube, content-owners accused video-clearinghouse YouTube (later purchased by Google) of copyright infringement. YouTube permitted users to post copyrighted material such as movies and television show clips without any attribution or permission from the copyright owners like Viacom. In 2010, the District Court in the 2nd Circuit ruled that YouTube (and therfore parent company Google) were protected by a "safe harbor" that shields mere web hosts from being held liable for the wrongs of thier clients. YouTube escaped almost all liability. The rule coming out of the case was that rights-owners needed to police infringement aggressively and specifically. It was not enough to request that a web host remove "all episodes of my TV show," owners had to literally present a list of each instance of infringement, putting a large burden on rights-owners.
Last week, the Appellate court reversed in part, saying that it was not a matter of course that YouTube falls under the safe harbor because it offers several services that bring it out of the "mere web host" category. The case has been remanded for further fact-finding at the District level. What this means for your website: don't get too comfortable. When Viacom v. YouTube was decided, it touched off a firestorm debate about whether a host server has either the technology or the obligation to screen its user-contributed data. While it may seem like all websites that only allow users to contribute content might be home-free under the safe harbor, last week's reversal should give web hosts pause. There are now some clear areas, namely whether the host company "should know better," that might increase rights-owners' ability to coopt the web host in policing of thier marks. This would shift some of the burden onto web hosts, increasing thier costs to remove infringing content and potentially give the hosts liability for infringement Financing your business growth is a common topic on this blog. We've touched on crowdsourced funding here before. What follows is an excellent, detailed explanation by attorney James Saksa at Fox Rothschild of the new terms of the JOBS Act and how it's going to impact funding under $50 million.
Some advantages of the JOBS Act include permitting up to 2,000 non-employee shareholders without requring "going public" and all its expensive accounting and reporting, the opportunity to add up to $1M in "crowdsourced" funding without triggering SEC regulation of the company, and some protections on how much an investor is allowed to lose if the gamble doesn't work out. The ability to solicit capital for ideas that are solid, workable ideas but don't have the sturm und drang to rocket to instant success and a 50x return on inventment (what VC would like to see) has the potential to strengthen smaller businesses. Attorney Saksa estimated that most crowdfunding offerings would be for $100,000 or less, despite the $1M cap. This is a huge opportunity for small business owners who need a boost to get a prototype or a marketing channel going. Attorney Saksa reccomends that investors looking for crowdfunding opportunities consider themselves angel investors, not stock purchasers. The risk of loss is high and liquidity is low, so regardless of what the new guidelines say you are "allowed" to lose, don't invest money you can't live without! To combat fraud, brokers and portals selling crowdsourcing opportunities will need to be registered with the SEC and submit to regulations because they are selling securities. |
Hawley Legal Resources, LLCContemporary and interesting issues affecting small business. Archives
February 2019
Categories
All
|