This latest news roundup is just another reminder that, as anchored in technology as esports may be, it ultimately involves many of the same issues faced by more established industries. Whether in regard to funding, corporate and franchising structures, employment contracts, real estate investment, cybersecurity concerns, or the challenge of embedding brand awareness deeper into the public consciousness, the business of esports is just that—business.
It’s difficult finding an industry that doesn’t stand to be transformed in some way by artificial intelligence. Yet no matter how gleaming the potential, some industries are naturally more cautious than others. In her latest post, “Artificial Intelligence: A Boon for Insurance Underwriting?”, Ashley E. Cowgill touches on the insurance industry’s reluctance while pointing to some areas where AI stands to be more quickly embraced.
RELATED POSTS
Artificial Intelligence: A Grayish Area for Insurance Coverage
Artificial Intelligence and Money Laundering: Would AI Catch Marty Byrde?
Artificial Intelligence: All Our Patent Are Belong to You 3.0
What Will Be the Endgame for Copyright in AI-Generated Works?
Be you a founder, would-be investor or acquirer, correctly valuing the intellectual property of a company is rarely a simple task, but it can be even more challenging when that IP involves artificial intelligence or machine learning. See what our colleague Josh Tucker has to say about the challenges and importance of protecting underlying IP on 7 Mile Advisors’ Deal Talk podcast, “How Patents, AI and Machine Learning Affect Value.”
We’ve previously written about doxing and how it can be used by both vigilante social activists and malicious cyber bullies. Recently, in a first-of-its-kind ruling, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that white supremacists using social media to target and harass American University’s first female African-American student body president were liable to her for over $725,000 in damages.
Pretty much from the introduction of Satoshi’s cleverly constructed currency, industry players and observers alike have waited to see how exactly the increasing population of digital assets would be categorized and regulated. Slotting “disruptive” technologies into existing regulatory regimes is hardly a swift process, but there has been some recent movement on behalf of U.S. regulators and Congress. In “All Eyes Are on Regulation of Digital Assets as Federal Agencies and Lawmakers Seek to Bring Clarity,” colleagues Daniel N. Budofsky and Aaron R. Hutman break down some of that activity. In the first of three alerts on the matter, they look in particular at the SEC’s recent no-action letter involving tokens released by the gaming company, A Pocketful of Quarters.
Ewa Nowak’s jewelry: “Incognito” by design
A sponsored post popped up on my Instagram last week that captured my obsession with statement jewelry and my periodic check on developments in facial recognition technology: “Artist Designs Metal Jewelry to Block Facial Recognition Software from Tracking You”. Statement jewelry? Check. An indication of how stressed out people are by facial recognition technology? I think so. While an experimental project, it’s not a far stretch to imagine the design actually being sold and purchased.
What becomes of old (popular) Twitch channels, is Walmart getting into the virtual currency game, could 5G mean safer self-driving vehicles, and more …
Since January, Bureau of Industry (BIS) officials have been formulating an analytical framework for establishing controls on emerging technologies (which include biotechnology, artificial intelligence and machine learning technology, quantum information and sensing technology, additive manufacturing, and robotics). Recently on the Global Trade & Sanctions Law blog, colleagues Nancy A. Fischer, Stephan E. Becker, Matthew R. Rabinowitz and Sahar J. Hafeez provided an update on the process, while explaining why the timing of the rule will matter for companies for which export controls (and CFIUS) are a concern.
Two years ago, we wrote about a possible First Amendment challenge involving Donald Trump’s practice of blocking certain Twitter users from his @realDonaldTrump account. While it was unclear at the time of our post whether the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University—an organization that uses strategic litigation to preserve the freedoms of speech and the press—would pursue further action, the Knight Institute filed a complaint a few days later in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Trump, then-White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and Daniel Scavino, the White House Director of Social Media and Assistant to the President. On July 9, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision regarding this First Amendment issue.
Prime phishing day is upon us; Google hangs on to social media aspirations by a Shoelace; the prospects of Apple’s AR glasses get cloudy; and more …
Internet & Social Media Law Blog