Emerging Litigation Podcast
Machines Inventing Machines: Artificial Intelligence and Patent Law
In this episode, we talk to Robert A. McFarlane of Hanson Bridgett LLP about artificial intelligence in the world of invention and questions raised in a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that expounded on the principle that only human beings - not machines - can be named as inventors under U.S. patent law. Listen and learn more!
The Awesome Potential of Advanced Dispute Resolution
In this episode we talk to Rich Lee, founder of New Era ADR, about hot topics and issues involving what is referred to here as "Advanced Dispute Resolution", or ADR. What are the benefits of ADR? How can ADR enhance Access to Justice? How does employing ADR impact Accessibility, Diversity, and the Environment? What is the influence of Gamesmanship in legal proceedings? As Rich explains, "ADR is about rethinking litigation to make it more efficient for both sides. Get parties to be pragmatic, get to the point, present their arguments, and get it resolved". Listen now to learn more!
Applying Business Strategy to Your Law Firm
In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, we hear from James Grant about looking strategically at your law firm as you would any business and explore one litigation firm’s journey through that transformative process. As he argues, "lawyers must learn AI now or else watch their competition fly past them in operational efficiency, customer service, and client retention". Listen to learn more!
A Shameless Plug for Our Content Services
Your content marketing is everything you’ve ever dreamed of. Right?
Sara is marketing director at a boutique law firm. When we asked her how their blog was going, she made a sad face. But then, we made Sara smile.*
Critical Legal Content was founded by Tom Hagy, former Editor & Publisher of Mealey’s Litigation Reports and VP at LexisNexis, founder of HB, current litigation podcaster and editor-in-chief. CLC’s mission is to help smaller firms and service providers not only create content — blogs, articles, papers, webinars, podcasts (like the stuff on this site) — but also to get it out there. How? Via social media, this website, your website, and potential via our podcast and journal which we publish in collaboration with vLex Fastcase and Law Street Media. The goal is to attract readers and dizzy them with your brilliance.
*Inspired by actual events.
Create content like a real legal publisher.
Emerging Litigation Journal
Copyright Issues in Generative AI for Software: Doe v. Github, Inc. et al.
The ongoing case of Doe v. Github Inc. et al. addresses copyright-related issues inherent in the Copilot generative AI that allows users to enter prompts to generate software code. This case addresses many of the issues involved in the training and use of generative AI for generating software code. The author, Jeffrey Gluck examines these issues, which he anticipates will have far-reaching implications for AI-generated works in the future. As Jeffrey notes, "Github is a case that may have far-reaching implications for AI-generated works in the future".
The Promise and Peril of Quantum Computing and Its Implications for Cyber Insurance
Quantum computing, like artificial intelligence, is one of several emerging technologies that could either save the planet or end the world, depending on which expert is holding forth on the issue. This article explores the promise and peril of quantum computing and the potential coverage implications under cyber insurance policies. As Cameron notes, "while cyber insurance may provide some coverage for hazards that result from quantum computing, those policies may not respond to many of the risks".
Video Game or Casino? An International Examination of Loot Boxes and Gambling Regulations
The author, Darius Gambino of Saul Ewing LLP examines the legal and regulatory challenges surrounding loot boxes in video games, highlighting the risks of litigation, government scrutiny, and the need for industry self-regulation.
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
The Antitrust Case Against Google
The Antitrust Case Against Google Perspectives from highly regarded competition law attorneys, litigators, and economists. This overview and Q&A has been developed for advertisers, mobile device makers, app developers, corporate counsel, business writers, and search market participants. The U.S. Department of Justice and 11 states have filed a sweeping antitrust suit against Google alleging the tech giant abuses its position as "monopoly gatekeeper for the internet" to block competitors. The complaint says Google has used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising. The federal and state governments charge Google uses "exclusionary agreements, including tying arrangements" to "lock up distribution channels and block rivals." Google's considerable wealth helps make this happen. Google pays billions of dollars a year to distributors to secure their position as the default search engine, and prohibits these companies from dealing with Google competitors. Google's exclusionary strategy is being applied more harshly in newer technologies, such as voice assistants, and in its goal of dominating other platforms in the IoT category, such as smart speakers, home appliances, and autonomous cars. Without a court order, the government plaintiffs say, "Google will continue executing its anticompetitive strategy, crippling the competitive process, reducing consumer choice, and stifling competition." What does all of this mean to actual or potential rivals, ad buyers, consumer, developers, and device makers in three markets Search Service, Search Advertising, and Search Text Advertising? What type of defense might Google mount? What might the ultimate resolution look like? Join our panel, led by competition law thought leaders, as they address the potential impact of the litigation and answer your questions via live chat. • Setting the stage: What constitutes an illegal monopoly? • Lessons from United States v. Microsoft? • How does the government define the three markets? • What is in the [...]
Mass Tort Emotional & Psychological Claims
Emotional & Psychological Claims in Multi-Plaintiff Toxic Tort Litigation: What attorneys need to know about the scientific and medical aspects of these injuries. On-Demand | Recorded October 27th, 2020 ON DEMAND WEBINAR REGISTRATION Emotional injury claims often arise in toxic torts due to exposure to asbestos, mold, carbon monoxide, and environmental contamination, to name a few. And now, as large swaths of the nation are often engulfed in flame, what physical and emotional effect might manifest from prolonged smoke inhalation? Determining the validity of these injuries and any causal connection is difficult. It requires careful study by truly qualified experts often from various disciplines. When psychological harm exists, it can be debilitating. There is much an attorney should know when wading into these types of claims. How often is there a legitimate injury? What different types of injuries are there? What should attorneys know when working with or challenging psychological experts? How is causation proven or disproven? How are damages determined? Join our panel comprising a forensic neuropsychologist, an industrial and occupational physician, a forensic psychiatrist, and an experienced mass tort practitioner as they share their insights and experiences. Key Points Understanding the different types of psychological injury claims. Understanding the differences between objective injuries that are easy to identify and distinguish, versus subjective injuries such as pain or restricted movement. Distinguishing between real psychological injuries and malingering. Understanding the frequency of valid emotional injuries. Identifying the causal relationship between exposure and health effects. Knowing and understanding key medical studies. Understanding the evidence needed to prove or disprove claims. Evaluating damages, such as treatment costs and the extent of functional impairment. On Demand Webinar Registration Includes Nearly 75 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for [...]
Organizational Values & Business Risks: Properly Balancing Stakeholder Concerns
Accommodations. Appropriate accommodation for high-risk employees or employees with family members who are at a heightened risk. Mitigation. Attention to means of mitigating transmission and infection. Tracing. Contact tracing and management of data collected, including health data, as well as responses to employees who refuse to report. Patient Sensitivity. Duty to avoid discrimination and stigmatization. Preparedness. Developing plans to address possibility of re-occurrence in the fall and managing possible outbreaks in company’s offices. On-demand on the Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter as part of the HB catalog. Organizational Values & Coronavirus Business Risks: Properly Balancing Stakeholder Concerns Produced for Emory University Center for Ethics by HB Litigation Conferences The current pandemic confronts businesses, nonprofit organizations, governments, and the legal profession with innumerable ethical challenges. Management issues and liability concerns, stakeholder demands and legal duties become even more complex in an environment of uncertainty and one where the consequences could result in serious illness or even death. This program seeks to engage the participants in thinking through these challenges and developing processes of ethical response to them. Managers must acknowledge and address the framework of fear associated with the pandemic, ranging from fear of contagion and death to fears of unemployment, childcare, and the duties of home-schooling. Additionally, as the economy reopens there must be serious attention to the processes of doing so. Join Professor Edward L. Queen from Emory University for invaluable insights. Emory's medical team was on the frontline of the 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic, which began in December 2013 when an 18-month-old Guinean boy contracted the disease. According to the CDC, the outbreak ended with more than 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths. Eleven people were treated for Ebola in the United States. Edward L. Queen Director of Ethics and Servant Leadership Emory University Professor Edward L. Queen Edward L. Queen is director of [...]
Content Partners
