This post was originally published to Seyfarth’s Gadgets, Gigabytes & Goodwill Blog.
In a recent post, we discussed whether patent applications could provide insight into the blueprints of extraterrestrial spacecraft. Yet, an enigmatic question looms large: would the powers that be genuinely consider patenting such advanced technology, fully aware that patent applications might see the light of day? Or might there be a more clandestine approach, a proverbial cloak of invisibility wielded by the men in black?
Under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, federal law prevents the disclosure of new technologies and inventions that may present a national security threat to the United States. Under this act, the Commissioner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has the authority to highlight patent applications for scrutiny by U.S. defense departments (e.g., various three-letter and four-letter government agencies), ensuring certain innovations remain confidential. This veil of secrecy could extend to concepts and items conceived by individual civilians. Patents falling under such a secrecy directive are accessible to defense bodies, have export limitations, and are considered classified. Accordingly, the publication of such patent applications, or even the granting of a patent, could be delayed or altogether suppressed. These orders are in place to protect sensitive technologies from falling into the wrong hands. As of 2022, USPTO records show that there were 6,057 secrecy orders in effect. Continue Reading Cloaked in Secrecy: Can Secrecy Orders Shield Alien Innovations?
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses around the world had been bracing for the financial and operational impact of the new California Consumers Privacy Act (“CCPA”), which took effect January 1, 2020. Despite existing and ongoing uncertainty around how to comply and interpret the law, the courts had already began seeing private class actions brought under the CCPA (or using the CCPA as a placeholder with Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and tort claims) filed in February—each presenting interesting and far-reaching legal questions about the new law.
Seyfarth attorneys Robert Milligan, John Tomaszewski, and Darren Dummit are presenting “The California Consumer Privacy Act – What It Is and What Clients Need to Know, Particularly in Light of COVID-19,” a webinar for ITechLaw on April 7, 2020, at 9 a.m. Central.
Several high profile ransomware attacks have recently rocked the franchise world fomenting uncertainty and anxiety about franchisors’ legal obligations and liability. Ransomware attacks essentially kidnap a company by shutting down its systems and holdings its data hostage until a ransom fee is paid. In addition to the quantifiable hard costs of paying ransom and hiring experts to mitigate damage and re/build cyber defenses, ransomware victims can be damaged by: (a) third-party liability to the customers and other original owners of compromised data; (b) interruption of business operations during the course of and recovery from an attack; and (c) injury to reputation value in the loss of consumer confidence, appearance of incompetence, and customer attrition. In today’s digital golden era, data is among the world’s most valuable assets, earning the tagline: “data is the new oil.” It therefore comes as no surprise that cybersecurity, which has been a hot topic for years, is garnering increased attention and resources from businesses of all sizes and stages. Yet with each new development in defensive cybersecurity, cybercriminals come up with just as many ways to get around those defenses.
In our May blog post, we took issue with the broadcast statement that ‘consumer privacy law was sweeping the country and that other states were jumping on the California Consumer Privacy Law (CCPA) bandwagon to enact their own state law.’ The problem as we saw it, was that the truth behind these sensationalistic statements was a bit more nuanced than people were led to believe. Most states, we found, that introduced consumer privacy legislation simply did not follow through, either by outright killing the legislation (MS) or by taking a step back with a wait and see approach (see TX). Nevada, by contrast, did neither. Instead, its legislature enacted its own consumer privacy solution, through SB 220, or as we call it, ‘the limited privacy amendment.’ We’ve opted to discuss Nevada’s approach here primarily because of its more restrictive application online and because its October 1, 2019, operational date is a full three months before the CCPA becomes operational.
In just a few short months, on January 1, 2020, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is set to go into effect, establishing new consumer privacy rights for California residents and imposing significant new duties and obligations on commercial businesses conducting business in the state of California. Consumer rights include the right to know what personal information a business is
