Two logos side by side with Critical Legal Content in a red square on the left and HB Litigation in blue on the right

Putting an AI App to Work to Protect IP with Jan-Diederik Lindemans and Judith Bussé

November 1st, 2021|Categories: ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Intellectual Property, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

Putting an AI App to Work to Protect IP with Jan-Diederik Lindemans and Judith Bussé They are Crowell & Moring partner Jan-Diederik Lindemans and Judith Bussé, both part of the firm’s Technology & Intellectual Property Department in Brussels. And, working with Neotalogic, they developed an interactive app that takes you through a set of attorney-crafted questions that, depending on your answers, take you to other questions. The app applies a layer of artificial intelligence to enhance the information gathering process. Listen to what these innovators had to say about the Crowell & Moring IP Check-Up application, and take it for a test drive yourself.  Or, here is a quick video of someone using the app. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation*, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the legal news folks at Law Street Media, and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Docket Alarm and Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful our guests are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast * Highly regarded insurance and reinsurance industry attorney Laura Foggan of Crowell & Moring's Washington, DC, office is on the Editorial Advisory Board. Thanks to Laura for connecting me with J.D. and Judith.  An organization’s intellectual property is [...]

Read More

Artificial Intelligence: DeepMind on Debugging Learned Predictive Models

May 9th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

DeepMind, an artificial intelligence research company, in a recent blog post discusses three ways to eliminate bugs in learned predictive models. The company was founded in London in 2010. Google acquired it in 2014. In addition to London they have research centers in Edmonton and Montreal, Canada, and a DeepMind Applied team in Mountain View, California. "Bugs and software have gone hand in hand since the beginning of computer programming," the post reads. "Over time, software developers have established a set of best practices for testing and debugging before deployment, but these practices are not suited for modern deep learning systems. Today, the prevailing practice in machine learning is to train a system on a training data set, and then test it on another set. While this reveals the average-case performance of models, it is also crucial to ensure robustness, or acceptably high performance even in the worst case. In this article, we describe three approaches for rigorously identifying and eliminating bugs in learned predictive models: adversarial testing, robust learning, and formal verification." Read the complete post here! 

Read More

Product Liability in the Internet of Things — Schiff Hardin Product Liability & Mass Torts Blog

April 14th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

[one-half-first] Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash [/one-half-first] [one-half]"Combining a physical object and an intangible technology also creates a novel issue when it comes to strict product liability principles, which typically hold that a product manufacturer may be strictly liable for a product’s defect. The first task in a strict product liability case is to identify the product. In the context of a device that has no internet connectivity, the answer is straightforward. If a ladder is defective and causes an injury, the ladder’s manufacturer may be held strictly liable because a ladder is the product. But when it comes to IoT devices, the line may be blurred. Almost always, the software part of the IoT device is 'manufactured' by a separate entity from the entity that manufactures the physical object. If the IoT device proves to be defective, the question becomes which entity may be held strictly liable." Read the complete post by Schiff Hardin's  Gregory Dickinson & Jeffrey D. Skinner  here. [/one-half]

Read More

South Korea, EU Having ‘Adequacy’ Discussions

January 30th, 2019|Categories: Corporate Compliance, HB Risk Notes, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

Because of its robust network connectedness, its advanced use of mobile devices and its rich collection of intellectual property, South Korea is a leading target for hackers. Discussions are under way between the EU and South Korea to determine, as a non-EU country, whether its data protections are adequate. Also, South Korea has joined the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules system. Significant caselaw is developing regarding this country’s 2011 data protection statute as well as its sector-specific laws. Daniel Solove and Paul Schwartz have selected Professor Haksoo Ko from the Law School at Seoul National University to speak at the International #PrivacySecurity Forum April 3-5, 2019. Ko will co-present to provide an up-to-date account of developments in South Korea and analyze the most important compliance hurdles. Learn more: http://bit.ly/IPSF-2019

Read More

Kenneth Jones of Tanenbaum Keale on Law Firm Tech Development Capabilities

October 16th, 2018|Categories: Corporate Compliance, HB Risk Notes, HB Tort Notes, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

Should Law Firms Should be Able to Develop Custom Technologies? Here is #10 of Jones' Top-10 List. #10. Security. The cloud is great, and generally speaking, companies in this space operate systems in a highly professional manner. However, occasionally one encounters special business needs which call for extensive “above and beyond” levels of security. This could be times a firm is storing financial information, medical records, or other data they wish to absolutely, positively protect. In these situations — under the theory that “no one does things better than I do” —it’s nice to have the option to build super-secure systems with features such as encrypted data within database tables, and to manage the systems with a very small number of highly trusted professionals specifically known by the law firm. Read more of the article posted by Thomson Reuters. Kenneth Jones oversees various aspects of technology at Tanenbaum Keale LLP in the role of Chief Technologist. He leads efforts to support TK’s computing environment and infrastructure, one that features a strategy of professionally protecting and processing client data in the cloud with highly skilled and respected leading-edge business partners in the technology space. Ken also helps lead and support various TK programs in the areas of security, compliance, business continuity and firm administration. Learn more. 

Read More

Blockchain: Power to the People

August 28th, 2018|Categories: Corporate Compliance, HB Risk Notes, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

Dan Solove, co-founder of the Privacy+Security Forum and professor at GW Law School, just posted an interview with Steve Shillingford, Founder and CEO of Anonyome Labs, a consumer privacy software company. Below is part of just one exchange in the interview.  SOLOVE: The Internet has made so many things possible that we couldn’t do in an analog world. Yet, in some ways, the online world seems to lack the capabilities of the offline world. In the offline world, it is much easier to have anonymous transactions. This becomes much more challenging online. How can the online world be made more like the offline world in this regard? SHILLINGFORD: Blockchain technology shifts the balance of power back to people—to individuals—and away from tech giants, governments and data miners. It allows you to transact on your terms, just as you do offline. And it’s not just limited to financial transactions. Put anything on the blockchain you want. The blockchain gives a person the ability to publish only the information THEY decide to divulge. Nothing more, nothing less. And no more hidden agendas, no selling personal data without your consent, no worries about privacy. Just like the analogue world, you decide the context, the content, and duration of the information you provide…not the big guys. It can really be that easy. Read the complete interview.  See the latest faculty and agenda updates for the Privacy+Security [...]

Read More
Go to Top